Safeguarding Students and Young Adults in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions: An Evaluation of the Gender Justice Project

Safeguarding Students and Young Adults in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions: An Evaluation of the Gender Justice Project | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Safeguarding Students and Young Adults in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions: An Evaluation of the Gender Justice Project Olanike S. Adelakun, Erebi Ndoni, David Adetoro, Amara Nwankpa, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6128133/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 10 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Discover Public Health → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) in Nigerian Tertiary Educational Institutions has been a persistent issue, contributing to a rise in gender-based violence and creating an atmosphere of fear among students. The 2019 BBC documentary ‘Sex for Grades: Undercover in West African Universities’ revealed the alarming prevalence of SHA, prompting significant public and legislative attention. Unfortunately, the success was only short-lived, as the menace found its way back into the educational systems but reinforced her zest at concealing acts of SHAs, which made detection challenging. In response, the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation, with support from the Ford Foundation, launched the Gender Justice Project (GJP) to develop and implement standardized safeguarding policies to prevent SHAs and promote gender justice in tertiary institutions across Nigeria. This paper analyses the effectiveness of safeguard policies and mechanisms as deterrents to SHAs at universities, using the American University of Nigeria as a case study. It employs the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to analyze the development and impact of the GJP at the American University of Nigeria (AUN). The ACF highlights the role of coalitions of stakeholders with shared beliefs in driving policy change, while the IAD framework focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules that govern decision-making processes. Using an explorative and participatory method, this study evaluated the effectiveness of safeguarding measures implemented at the AUN under the GJP. Despite the University’s perception of having strong policies in place, data collected from students and young adults revealed significant gaps in policy effectiveness. This analysis provides insights into the collaborative efforts and institutional changes required to enhance safeguarding policies. We make recommendations based on the GJP findings, including the application of anticorruption laws to prosecute SHA cases as corrupt practices. gender justice sexual harassment sexual abuse safeguarding tertiary institutions Nigeria Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 1. Introduction Sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) is a phenomenon that affects virtually all sectors of life, including higher education institutions across the globe. Despite proactive legal and systemic steps taken by educational institutions worldwide to safeguard students, SHAs remain a persistent issue. In Nigeria, the prevalence of SHAs in higher educational institutions has been documented for decades (Owoade & Olusola-Taiwo, 2009). However, significant attention was given to the issue by the Nigerian government only after the 2019 release of an undercover investigative report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which highlighted the alarming rate of SHAs in West African tertiary institutions. This media report captured the attention of the legislature and the heads of higher education institutions (HEIs) across Nigeria. In response to this growing awareness, the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation launched the Gender Justice Project (GJP). The GJP aims to support tertiary institutions in Nigeria by developing a standardized safeguarding policy for SHAs that can be adapted across all tertiary institutions in Nigeria and Africa. This initiative seeks to address the gaps in existing policies and create a safer educational environment for students. 2. Legal Framework on Safeguarding/Sexual Harassment in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions The primary purpose of most governments globally is to provide security and essential services for the welfare of people. Both purposes are wide, but the latter encompasses a larger terrain that includes energy, transport, health, water, housing and other social amenities capable of making the lives of citizens easier. The list could be quite elastic, and education would readily fit into the forum. The importance of this primary function is underscored by the provisions of section 14(2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (CFRN, 1999), which states that ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government’. The importance of education as a whole, especially tertiary education, cannot be overemphasized; education provides a ready platform and materials for innovation, growth, and development for any economy (World Bank, 2024). According to a World Bank report,’ tertiary education is instrumental in fostering growth, reducing poverty, and boosting shared prosperity’ (World Bank, 2024). According to the report, tertiary education refers to all formal postsecondary education, including public and private universities, colleges, technical training institutes, and vocational schools (World Bank, 2024). The early legal frameworks surrounding protection against SHAs in Nigeria can be traced to prohibitive laws that attract sanctions. For instance, section 360 of the Criminal Code Act prohibits unlawful and indecent assault on women and girls, and this act has attracted an imprisonment term of 2 years (Criminal Code, 1916). Similar indirect prohibitive positions can be found across various legislations in Nigeria, such as the Penal Code 1960, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, Child’s Rights Act 2003 and the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017. Multiple laws of various states across Nigeria also make prohibitive laws that could be extended to SHAs in tertiary institutions. However, these provisions have limited scope, restrictive definitions, and inadequate remedies for addressing sexual offenses in contemporary times (Ibezim, 2023). Although the Child’s Rights Act (CRA) offers some level of protection to children in educational institutions through sections 1, 2, 11 and 15, the safeguarding offered is limited to persons under 18 years old. Thus, it can be posited that many students are admitted to tertiary institutions at an average age of 16 years and that they remain in these institutions through their late teenage years and early twenties. The current move by the federal government to increase the minimum age of admission to tertiary institutions to 18 years (Tolu-Kolawole, 2024) raises concern about the applicability of CRA to protect these young adults. Furthermore, the nonuniform application of the CRA in Nigeria raises concerns about the level of protection that the CRA offers, especially in states that have refused to domesticate the CRA or in states such as Kwara state, which has pegged the age of a child to 15 years old as opposed to 18 years old (Adelakun, 2021). It was not until 2011 that the Lagos State Criminal Law (2011) made explicit provisions to prohibit any form of harassment that specifically affects a person's employment or educational opportunity; interferes with a person's work or education performance; or creates a hostile or offensive working or learning environment (section 262). Unfortunately, this legislation only applies in one out of 36 states of the Federation. Constitutionally, every person in Nigeria has a guaranteed right to dignity (CFRN, section 42), and the Nigerian court pronounced that sexual harassment is an affront to a person’s dignity (Maduka v Microsoft Nigeria Limited, 2014); however, this did not influence legislative action from the Nigerian government. A turning point in legislative action for protection against SHAs in tertiary institutions in Nigeria occurred in 2016 following the sponsoring of a Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions Prohibition Bill, 2016, at the National Assembly. The Bill extends the incidence of SHA beyond academic staff to nonacademic staff in tertiary institutions. The Bill has restrictive provisions on the definition of sexual harassment by limiting the recipient of sexual harassment to students younger than the age of 18 or ‘imbecile’, while the act(s) is restricted to sexual intercourse or unwelcome sexual advances to the recipients (section 2). The definition failed to take into consideration the fact that young adults and persons with other forms of disability who are also students in tertiary institutions may be exposed to several forms of SHA. Furthermore, the bill failed to expand on what constitutes unwelcome sexual behavior, leaving the definition too vague for concise interpretation. Section 5 of the bill protects students by providing that consent is not a defense against sexual harassment unless the parties are married. The Bill further aimed to protect students from victimization as a result of lodging complaints from SHAs. Unfortunately, the bill was not passed into law and lapsed with the 8th National Assembly. As such, the viral media reports of SHA scandals at two universities in West Africa, specifically University of Lagos in Nigeria and University of Ghana (BBC, 2019; Mordi, 2019), brought Nigeria into the global limelight, revealing the country’s lack of protection of its tertiary institution students from SHA. Following this media scandal, the 2016 lapsed Bill was reintroduced into the 9th Assembly by 107 legislative members, as cosponsors, of the upper chambers of the National Assembly in 2019 as the Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions Bill. Having failed to scale through the 8th Assembly, one would believe that necessary amendments would have been made to improve the draft of the earlier Bill before it was reintroduced in the 9th Assembly. The definition section of the Bill, section 26, defines an educator as “every employee of a tertiary educational institution including all academic and nonacademic staff, or a faculty or nonfaculty member of a tertiary educational institution including a professor, lecturer, graduate assistant, postdoctoral fellow or associate serving as a full-time or part-time instructor or a teaching fellow in similar institutional roles who teaches, educates or trains students or who provides professional educational services; or a staff or member of any tertiary educational institution who may have authority over or a mentoring relationship with any student and includes coaches, supervisors of student employees, advisors and directors of student organisations, students’ residential fellows, and persons who advise, mentor, or evaluate students or any person who oversees any aspect of any student’s academic work”. The same definition section construes students to include students enrolled in tertiary institutions and prospective students seeking admission to tertiary institutions. The inclusion of those applying for admission is a commendable proactive provision that recognizes the need to shield prospective students from any form of harassment or sexual blackmail that could be exacerbated by their present status. It is envisaged that this would be a good deterrent to any potential predators or harassers who might want to take advantage of the vulnerability of the applicants. Section 4 of the bill states that a member of staff (educator) is guilty of an offense of sexual harassment if he/she: a. violates the fiduciary duty of care in section 3 of this Bill; or b. has sexual intercourse with a student or demands for sex from a student or prospective student; or c. intimidates or creates a hostile or offensive environment for the student by soliciting for sex from the student or by making sexual advances toward a student; or d. directs or induces another person to commit any act of sexual harassment under the provisions of this Bill or conspires with another person in the commission of sexual harassment by another person without which it would not have been committed; or e. grabs, hugs, kisses, rubs or strokes or touches or pinches the breasts or hair or lips or hips or buttocks or any other part of the body of a student; or f. displays, requests, gives or sends by hand or courier or electronic or any other means; explicit or suggestive pornographic messages; or text, pictures or videos or other sex-related objects to a student; or g. whistles or winks at a student or screams or exclaims or jokes or makes sexually complimentary or uncomplimentary remarks about a student's physique or stalks a student. It is interesting to note that this provision goes beyond direct physical action and involves body gestures, body language, and complimentary or uncomplimentary remarks with sexual undertones against any student in tertiary institutions at the instance of an educator. This robust provision promises to lead to a major shift in the effective management of the relationship status quo in the Nigerian educational sector when the bill becomes law. However, the 2019 Bill has been faulted by many as being too restrictive in scope and content (Kumolu and Adelaja, 2022; Aina-Palemo and Wellington, 2023), as it targets only academic staff as perpetrators of SHAs without cognizance of the reality that tertiary institutions are composed of nonacademic staff who may also misuse their positions for SHAs. It is, however, clear that nonacademic staff are included in the definition of educators. The Academic Staff Union of Universities vehemently opposed the Sexual Harassment Bill on several grounds, including the fact that it violates the autonomy of universities that have the power to regulate their own internal affairs. However, a public hearing held on the Bill by the National Assembly concluded, among other findings, that the bill does not violate the autonomy of universities. Furthermore, the Bill's failure to take into account other levels of education in Nigeria, such as primary and secondary school, remains a concern regarding the extent of inclusion that the Bill offers. Despite the fact that the National Assembly passed the Bill into law in 2023, as of May 2024, the Bill is still awaiting presidential assent, without which it cannot be law. Additionally, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act (ICPC Act) could be relevant in handling cases of SHAs. Some instances of SHA in tertiary institutions can be framed as corrupt practices (Leach, 2013). The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act is a key legal instrument in Nigeria designed to combat corruption and related offenses. This act has been instrumental in prosecuting cases of SHA framed as corrupt practices. A notable example is the case of Professor Richard Akindele of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), who was prosecuted under this Act. Akindele was found guilty of demanding sex from a student in exchange for grades and was subsequently sentenced to two years in prison. This case highlights the applicability of anticorruption laws in addressing SHAs, providing a legal avenue to combat such abuses of power in educational institutions. Despite not having specific legislation to address SHAs in educational institutions in Nigeria, the 2019 scandal revealed by the BBC appears to have pushed institutions into action as several tertiary institutions developed and adopted SHA policies. The adequacy, awareness and effectiveness of these policies necessitated the project, which is the focus of this paper. 3. Literature review 3.1 Definition and Meaning of SHA The term ‘sexual harassment’ was not widely recognized before the mid-1970s (Joseph, 2015 ). Initially, considered alien to educational institutions, these environments were viewed as citadels of learning, supposedly free from harassment that could undermine their primary educational mission. However, increasing complaints revealed that sexual harassment had infiltrated these institutions, necessitating urgent attention and intervention. SHA is quite challenging to define based on the degree of subjectivity attached to it, as it is context related. Thus, the definition can be found in policies, criminal codes, labor laws, and anti-discrimination laws in specific locations. Broadly, sexual harassment is classified as violence against women and, as such, prohibited (UNGA,1993). The acts that constitute SHAs are quite encompassing, and a list to define this will be rather exhaustive. Thus, inasmuch as there has been an attempt to define it within various jurisdictions, it is quite context specific when considering the acts classified as SHAs. It is, however, obvious that SHA is behavior that is unwanted and unwelcome by the recipient even though there might be involuntary participation. The behavior in question needs to be sexual in nature and includes flirting, innuendos, and deliberately meted out to the victim. Several definitions of sexual harassment emphasize the powerplay between the perpetrator and the victim. MacKinnon, for instance, states that sexual harassment ‘refers to the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power’ (Mackinnon, 1979 ). This unequal power relationship is evident in SHAs in tertiary institutions, as educators wield more power than students in circumstances of SHAs. Thus, in the context of this article, SHA encompasses every form of undesirable, unwanted or morally wrong advance or act from an educator holding a superior position over a student during the course of the student’s academic pursuit. The incorporation of ‘morally wrong’ actions or advances in this context is necessitated by the cultural and social perceptions that are necessary within African educational settings. It is immaterial that the student is a child, young adult or an adult but suffices that the affected person qualifies as a student within an educational system. 3.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Policy Change To analyze the development and impact of the GJP, this paper employs two theoretical frameworks: the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework. 3.2.1 Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) The ACF posits that policy change occurs through the interaction of advocacy coalitions—groups of actors from various public and private institutions who share a set of beliefs and coordinate their activities over time (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993 ). This framework is particularly relevant for understanding the GJP, as it involves multiple stakeholders, including the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation, educational institutions, advocacy groups, and donors such as the Ford Foundation. These stakeholders form coalitions based on their shared belief in the necessity of robust safeguarding policies to combat SHAs. 3.2.2 Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework The IAD framework, developed by Elinor Ostrom, focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules that shape policy outcomes (Ostrom, 1990 ). This study provides a lens through which to analyze the effectiveness of the safeguarding measures implemented by the GJP. The framework considers the action arena (the American University of Nigeria and other institutions), the participants (students, staff, administrators), and the rules-in-use (existing and newly implemented safeguarding policies). This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the safeguarding measures implemented at the American University of Nigeria (AUN) under the GJP. Despite the university’s perception of having strong policies in place, data collected from students and young adults revealed significant gaps in policy effectiveness. This analysis provides insights into the collaborative efforts and institutional changes required to enhance safeguarding policies and makes recommendations based on the findings of the GJP, including the application of anticorruption laws to prosecute SHA cases as corrupt practices. 3.3 Strengthening Traditional SHA policies typically focus on addressing incidents after they occur, emphasizing disciplinary actions and legal recourse (Leach, 2013 ). In contrast, safeguarding approaches are more holistic, aiming to prevent SHAs by addressing underlying power asymmetries and creating a safe and supportive environment for all students (Lee, 2023 ). Lee ( 2023 ) defines safeguarding in schools as measures put in place by schools to keep learners safe from harm and abuse and to create a safe learning environment. According to Chambers, Cantrell and Booth ( 2021 ), in safeguarding, the health, human rights and well-being of people, especially children, young adults and other vulnerable people, must be considered to ensure that they live free from fear of harm, abuse and neglect. Safeguarding can therefore be described as the process or system of preventing harm to people and the environment in which they are. In this instance, the people in question include students and vulnerable young adults in Nigerian tertiary institutions, representing the environment alluded to in the opening statement. Consequently, for the purpose of this article, safeguarding means taking reasonable and proactive steps to prevent any form of harm, harassment, abuse, or exploitation of students and young adults in the learning environment and how to respond or deal with these vices whenever they occur. The goal is to create a safe and secure learning environment for students without fear of harm or abuse and with confidence in how to deal appropriately with SHAs if they occur. Children and young adults, during their educational pursuits as students, are usually seen to be more vulnerable to abuse and harm in most societies; hence, they need to prioritize their safety and wellbeing. Generally, parents and guardians do not have control or much influence in schools or on how learning environments are run; thus, it is often expected that in educational communities, safeguarding is crucial. This is underscored by the fact that both children and young adults are vulnerable to different forms of abuse, harm, or exploitation at different stages of their lives (Zuure, 2018 ). In essence, safeguarding and protecting children and young adults within a learning environment include the formulation and implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures across educational institutions, as well as equipping the children, young adults, staff, and volunteers with the confidence to recognize and report any issues through training and appropriate resources. Additionally, measures such as hosting an effective and anonymous whistleblowing platform would also serve as safeguarding agents, with possible perpetrators being aware that feedback mechanisms within the educational system can spotlight incidences of SHA and address such incidences accordingly. This would also strengthen students’ ability to resolve institutional needs to protect their rights to safe education. 3.3 Sexual Harassment in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) Sexual harassment in educational institutions is defined as ‘the use of authority to emphasize the sexuality or sexual identity of a student in a manner which prevents or impairs that student’s full enjoyment of educational benefits, climate or opportunities’ (Till, 1980 ). The University of Zambia defines sexual harassment as ‘unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conducts of a sexual nature, when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects a person’s employment or education, unreasonably interferes with a person’s work or educational performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment (University of Zambia, 2006). It has been reported that SHAs are most prevalent in countries with weak educational systems devoid of accountability and a lack of gender equality (Leach, 2013 ). Although this paper does not set out to investigate this topic, some facts point to these characteristics in the Nigerian context, as most public universities do not have a functional system of accountability, and the goal of gender equality in society is still far-fetched based on the thread of patriarchy strongly woven into societal norms. SHA was initially underresearched and has been less commonly reported in Nigerian universities, leading to a paucity of documented literature on the extent of the problem (Ladebo, 2003 ). The data are therefore circumscribed due to the underreporting of the cases and the culture of silence, which ensures that victims avoid the stigma and discrimination associated with them rather than seek redress. Moreover, research into the prevalence of SHAs in Nigeria, when conducted, has not necessarily embarked on a holistic inquiry into the educational system, as stated above; rather, the impact on victims of abuse has been considered. Dziech and Weiner ( 1990 ) believe that SHA is a fact in HEI, and silencing victims is part of the rationale for the historical invisibility of the problem. The invisibility of the menace of SHAs notwithstanding, studies have shown that it poses a challenge to the attainment of academic qualifications in HEIs in Nigeria (Ladebo, 2001). SHA interferes with the environment intended for academic pursuit, which encapsulates learning and the inculcation of positive attitudes and rather infuses negativity through fear and intimidation (Owoaje and Olushola-Taiwo, 2010). Society’s attention gradually turned to this area aspersions were cast on the character of lecturers alleging indulgence in SHAs. Academics began to be ridiculed in light of this predatory attitude and the power-play between lecturers and students. Although academics, especially male lecturers, are mostly accused of being stereotypical perpetrators, students and other administrative staff within HEIs are also potential perpetrators (Aina-Palemo et al, 2021), while the victims are women or girls based on their vulnerability and the tenets of patriarchy mentioned earlier (Erinosho, 2018). This perception is, however, quite erroneous, as there are also male victims of SHAs within HEIs who, unfortunately, have not received as much attention as their female counterparts, probably due to prevalent gender stereotypes and the perception of society, which poses barriers to reporting. Heightened by complaints and the BBC report, resolving the need to ensure that tertiary institutions remain safe for students in accomplishing the primary goal of knowledge acquisition became paramount. It became imperative to adopt a holistic approach to curb the menace that culminated in the safeguarding approach adopted by the GJP commissioned by the Shehu Musa Yar Adua Foundation to ensure that HEIs are safe for learners, especially women and young adults, by developing and implementing safeguarding policies for all, especially women and young adults, who are the most vulnerable population in HEI. 4. Methodology 4.1 Design The case study method was adopted to study the prevalence of SHAs and the adequacy of safeguarding measures on SHAs at a private university in Nigeria. According to Yin ( 2009 ), a case study is an empirical investigation that explores a phenomenon within its real-life context, particularly when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. This approach is well suited for examining complex social phenomena such as SHAs and the effectiveness of institutional safeguarding policies. It should be noted that a case study is a research approach or design for examining a social unit rather than a technique for gathering data (Yin, 2009 ). The research design integrates the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) and the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework to analyze policy changes and their impacts comprehensively. The ACF guides the analysis of stakeholder collaboration and shared beliefs driving policy change, while the IAD framework focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules governing the implementation of safeguarding measures. 4.2 Study Setting The study was conducted at the American University of Nigeria (AUN), a private development university in Northeast Nigeria, West Africa. AUN had a total population of approximately 3,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students across various schools during the 2020/2021 academic session, with a postproject study conducted in the 2024/2025 academic session. The HEI offers qualifications for undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. The HEI has a diverse student population from all parts of Nigeria, Africa and beyond the African continent. The academic staff population spans 34 countries at the time of the study. The vision of the HEI is to train future African leaders and serve as agents of economic development in Africa. The university is known as the first development university in Africa, and AUN has fully incorporated ICT tools in its teaching and learning pedagogy. Student leaders are open to both male and female students even though at the time of the data collection, the student leaders were dominated by male students. AUN has an existing sexual harassment policy spread across the university staff handbook, student code of conduct and other documents regulating different affairs of the university. The existing policy and other documents related to sexual harassment at the time of the study aimed to protect university students from harassment and abuse and strengthen the university’s core value of a discriminatory-free environment. 4.3 Population and Sample The target population of the study was all members of the learning environment—students and academic and nonacademic staff. The data were collected when the students were not physically in school due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Classes during this period were online. The questionnaire was designed using Google survey forms, which were set to limit responses to members of the AUN community and with one response per participant to prevent duplication of the survey. The Google form was designed using the official email address of the first author. The survey was set to collect data anonymously without disclosing any personal information. The email addresses of the principal investigator and coinvestigators were included in the survey for communication on questions that participants may have concerning the survey. All questions, mostly on confirmation of anonymity, were adequately addressed by the investigators. The link to the survey was shared with all members of the HEI environment through an official email to all members emanating as correspondence from the Provost, Student Affairs and Human Resources. Additionally, the survey link was shared through the weekly bulletin of the HEI, which was disseminated through email correspondence from the communications department of the HEI. 4.4 Data Collection Procedure The survey questions were developed based on an extensive literature review and expert consultation to ensure the representativeness of the questions. The questionnaire was structured in simple English to avoid ambiguity. The survey was pretested with 10 students and 5 staff members, and issues that arose were addressed. The main study data were collected from 16–30 June 2020, and a total of 291 people responded. A total of 99.7% (n 290) of those who completed the survey consented to participate, while 0.3% (n 1) declined to participate. The survey was checked for completeness, and only one entry was excluded; 290 were analyzed using Google's simple statistical method. The postproject data were collected from 16 June to 11 December 2024 through survey and interviews. Due to the sensitive nature of the study, an option was given to participants who may require counseling and psychosocial support to reach out to the HEI medical director, who is trained in mental health and psychosocial support through structured training in gender-based violence in emergencies. 4.5 Ethics Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American University of Nigeria, Nigeria, with protocol number PRO-20-04-04 and approval number AUN-20-04-04. The research was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the IRB as listed in the ethics statement. The president and management team of the university consented to the needs assessment survey and the entire project to determine the effectiveness and gaps of the existing SHA policies of the university. Participants were informed about the goal of the study, and the survey was designed in a way that participants could only proceed to the second section of the survey after providing their consent. When participants declined consent, they automatically logged out of the survey. Participants also had the opportunity to log out of the survey midway, and no questions were included. This means that participants could skip questions that they were not comfortable with. There were no repercussions for not agreeing to participate in the survey. The post project interviews were anonymized, and consent was duly obtained from the participants. The same standards were applied as in the needs assessment. 4.6 Funding This study received no funding. 5. Results 5.1 Demographic Information of the Participants For the needs assessment, a total of 290 respondents, comprising 130 females and 155 males, were part of the survey. Five participants declined to disclose their sex. A total of 65.5% (n 190) of participants were between the ages of 15 and 24 years, while 34.5% (n 100) were older than 24 years. There were no participants younger than the age of 15. For the postproject survey, a total of 120 participants responded, 4 declined to proceed, and 116 participated in the study. The postproject participants included 75 females and 40 males, while 1 participant chose not to disclose their sex. According to the postproject survey, 72.4% (n 84) of the participants were aged 15 to 24 years, while 27.6% (n 32) were aged older than 24 years. No respondent was younger than 15 years. The demographic information is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Demographic distribution of the respondents (n= 290 for needs assessment and 116 for postproject) Response Needs Assessment Frequency (n 290) Needs Assessment Percentage (%) Poststudy Frequency (n 120) Poststudy Percentage (%) SEX Male 155 53.4 40 34.5 Female 130 44.8 75 64.7 Prefer not to disclose 5 1.7 1 0.9 TOTAL 290 99.9 106 100 AGE Below 15 0 0 0 0 15-24 190 65 84 72.4 >24 100 35 32 27.6 TOTAL 290 100 116 100 CATEGORY Student 207 71.4 83 71.6 Staff (nonacademic) 61 21 25 21.6 Faculty (academic) 9 3.1 5 4.3 Intern/NYSC 9 3.1 1 0.9 Volunteer 4 1.4 2 1.7 TOTAL 290 100 116 100 MARITAL STATUS Single 213 73.7 93 80.2 Married 64 22.1 17 14.7 Divorced 1 0.3 2 1.7 Undisclosed 11 3.8 4 3.4 TOTAL 290 100 116 100 The majority of the participants (71.4%, n 207) were students, while the other participants were spread over 21% (n 61) of the nonacademic staff, 3.1% (n 9) of the faculty members, 3.1% (n 9) of the interns and corp members and 1.4% (n 4) of the volunteers at the university. In comparison with the postproject survey, 71.6 (n 83) of the respondents were students, 21.6% (n 25) were nonacademic staff, 4.3% (n 5) were faculty, 0.9 (n 1) were interns and 1.7% (n 2) were volunteers. A total of 73.7% (n 213) of the participants in the needs assessment were single, 22.1% (n 64) were married, 0.3% (n 1) were divorced, and 3.8% (n 11) preferred not to disclose their marital status. According to the postproject survey, 80.2% (n 93) were single, 14.7% (n 17) were married, 1.7% (n 2) were divorced and 3.4% (n 4) chose not to disclose their marital status. 5.2 Experience of the SHA of Participants Table 2 shows the distribution of the experiences of participants with SHAs within the HEI studied. A total of 78.3% (n 227) of the participants confirmed having experienced sexual harassment, while 21.7% (n 63) of the participants had never experienced sexual harassment in any form. The postproject survey revealed that 75.9% (n 88) of the respondents had experienced one form of sexual harassment or the other, while 24.1% (n 28) had never experienced sexual harassment. Table 2 Experience of the SHA of Participants Response Needs Assessment Frequency (n 290) Needs Assessment Percentage (%) Poststudy Frequency (n 109) Poststudy Percentage (%) EXPERIENCE OF SHA Yes 227 78.3 88 75.9 No 63 21.7 28 24.1 TOTAL 290 100 116 100 FREQUENCY OF SHA Regularly 3 3.9 5 13.5 Occasionally 34 44.7 22 59.5 Once 39 51.3 10 27 NATURE OF SHA Unwanted physical contact 52 58.4 28 50.9 Jokes and suggestive comments 30 33.7 18 32.7 Demand for sex 18 20.2 4 7.3 Threats and verbal abuse 12 13.5 7 12.7 Display of sexually offensive materials 8 9% 5 10.2 Demand or request for a relationship 15 16.9 4 8.2 Phone or email communication of a sexual nature 9 10.1 7 14.3 Physical exposure 11 12.4 6 12.2 Drunk female harassing a male 1 1.1 5 10.2 Cat calling 1 1.1 0 0 None 14 15.5 9 20.2 Raped 0 0 1 1.8 Eighty-nine of the needs assessment respondents participated in the section on the nature of SHA experience. The most common feature of SHAs is unwanted physical touch (58.4%), while suggestive remarks (33.7%), demand for sex (20.2%), request for a relationship (16.9%) and threats and verbal abuse (13.5%) topped the list of forms of SHAs experienced by participants. The least common form of SHA was associated with cat calling (1.1%) and drunk-induced exposure (1.1%). On average, individuals who reported sexually offensive materials (9%) and who were phone and email about their sexual nature (10.1%) were also experienced. Of the 43 respondents who participated in the postproject survey, 50.9% (n 28) experienced unwanted physical contact, 32.7% (n 18) experienced harassment in the form of jokes and suggestive comments, 7.3% (n 4) experienced demand for sex, 12.7% (n 7) experienced threats and verbal abuse, and 1.8% (n 1) were raped. The responses show that multiple incidences of SHA behaviors were experienced by some respondents. While very few of the needs assessment participants (3.9%) (13.5% (n 5) of the postproject) experienced SHA regularly, a larger percentage of the needs assessment participants experienced SHA once (51.3%) or occasionally (44.7%). Very few of the participants in the needs assessment participated in the postproject survey, which indicates that there were new participants in the postproject survey. 5.3 Perpetrators of SHA Among the perpetrators of SHAs at the HEI studied, only 79 need assessment participants responded, and the responses showed that students (50%) were mostly perpetrators, while nonacademic staff (13.7%), faculty members (12.6%), management staff (5.3%) and strangers (7.4%) were also known to be perpetrators. No religious leader was recorded as a perpetrator of SHA, while a mentor (1.1%) was recorded as a perpetrator by one of the participants. The distribution of the perpetrators of SHAs is represented in Figure 1 below. 5.4 Effect of SHA on Respondents The experiences of the respondents with SHAs differ. Eighty-one participants responded to this section, and the feelings evoked by SHAs differed across the participants, as indicated in Figure 2. Common emotional feelings associated with the experience of SHA include anger (42%), embarrassment (34.6%), fear (25.9%), shock (32.1%), indifference (12.3%), depression (13.6%), disgust (50.6%) and betrayal (1.2%). While the feeling of disgust was mostly experienced, the least experienced was the feeling of betrayal from the participant who experienced SHA from the mentor. While 24.8% (n 27) of the 109 participants who responded to the question on the need for support believed that they required support or help, 39.4% (n 43) believed that they did not need any form of support. However, 35.8% (n 39) were not sure whether they required support. Only 2.5% (n = 6) of the 266 respondents approached the health center of the HEI for help with SHAs. The effect of SHAs on the respondents of the postproject survey was similar to that on the participants of the needs assessment, as reflected in Figure 2.1 above. 5.5 Effectiveness of Existing Policies A total of 283 participants responded to the awareness of existing policies that address issues of SHAs in the HEI studied in this research. A total of 61.8% (n 175) were aware of the existence of policies, while 38.2% (n 108) were not aware that there are policies in place on SHAs. Of the 194 respondents to this question, 12.9% (n=25) were aware of policies on SHAs in the faculty manual, 24.7% (n=48) were aware of such policies in the staff manual, and 79.4% (n=154) were aware of the policies in the students’ code of conduct. While 44% of 243 respondents read the sexual harassment policies in these various documents, 56% have not read them. While the majority of the respondents (63%) believe that the policies are adequate to protect them, 37% believe that the policies cannot adequately protect them. Table 3 shows the level of awareness of the three major forms of policies existing at the HEI prior to the project and the policies in existence after concluding the project. Table 3 Level of Awareness of Existing Policies Response Needs Assessment Frequency (n 290) Needs Assessment Percentage (%) Poststudy Frequency (n 109) Poststudy Percentage (%) AWARENESS ON EXISTING POLICIES Policy in Faculty Manual 25 12.9 12 13.2 Policy in Staff Manual 48 24.7 24 26.4 Policy in Students’ Code of Conduct 154 79.4 49 53.8 Safeguarding Policy on Women and Young Adults - - 43 47.3 KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THE SHA PROVISIONS IN THE POLICIES Yes 107 44 60 57.7 No 136 56 55 56.7 PERCEPTION ON EXTENT OF PROTECTION FROM SHA Yes 133 63 56 58.3 No 37 78 40 41.7 ACCESSIBILITY Yes 110 47.2 46 46.9 No 123 52.8 52 53.1 NEED TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF THE POLICIES Yes 242 91% 96 87.3 No 6 2.3 4 3.6 Somehow 18 6.8 10 9.1 CONFIDENTIALITY GUARANTEE Yes 153 65.1 63 64.3 No 34.9 82 35 35.7 Regarding accessibility to the policies, 52.8% (n 123) of the needs assessment respondents answered negatively, while 47.2% (n 110) answered positively. 91% of the respondents believe that there is a need to intensify efforts to create more awareness of the policies, while 2.3% believe that there is no need for more awareness. A total of 6.8% held the view that there was somehow a need to create more awareness. A total of 65.1% (n 153) of the 235 respondents who answered the question on confidentiality were positive that confidentiality was guaranteed when they handled sexual harassment complaints, while 34.9% (n 82) of the respondents believed that confidentiality was not guaranteed. After 3 years of project implementation, the postproject survey revealed an increase in the level of awareness of the policy in the faculty manual, SHA policy in the staff manual and SHA policy in the Student’s Code of Conduct. A total of 48.2% (n 43) of the 91 respondents confirmed being aware of the new Safeguarding Policy on Women and Young Adults adopted after the Gender Justice Project. The postproject survey further revealed that the level of awareness of the content of the SHA policies was approximately the same, with only a slight increase compared with the number of respondents. A total of 58.3% (n 56) of the respondents of the postproject survey believe that the SHA Policies adequately protect them, while 41.7% (n 40) believe that the Policies are inadequate. This shows an improvement compared with the needs assessment. Like in the needs assessment, respondents in the postproject survey believe that there is a need for an increase in awareness creation. However, there was a significant increase in the confidentiality level of handling cases considering the number of respondents. 5.6 Complaint Processes A total of 39.8% of the needs assessment respondents knew who to complain about whether SHA occurred, while 31% did not know the appropriate channel to complain about. A total of 29.2% were not sure of the compliance mechanisms for SHAs. The postproject survey showed that almost half of the respondents (49.5%) understood the complaint process, 22.9% did not know about the complaint process, and 27.6% were unsure of the reporting mechanism. As indicated by Figure 3, judicial affairs (39.2%) and anyone whom the complainant feels comfortable (37.7%) top the list of appropriate people/departments for reporting a complaint to the SHA, while the police (0.7%) is the least common person to whom such a complaint should be made. Like in terms of the results of the needs assessment, many respondents in the postproject survey believed that complaints about SHAs should go to judicial affairs (43.1%) or anyone whom they are comfortable with (30.3%), as shown in Figure 3.1. The majority of the needs assessment respondents (62.9%) believed that such a complaint should be in person, while other respondents believed that the complaint could be by email (31.6%), phone call (2.9%), memo (1.5%) or text message (1.1%). Comparatively, 53.2% of the postproject survey respondents believed that complaints should be in person, while 39.4% believed that they should be by email. Most of the 157 respondents (49%, n 77) who were satisfied with the complaint and investigation processes were neutral about how pleased they were with the processes in the past, as indicated in Figure 4. Only 7.6% (n = 12) of the needs assessment respondents were extremely satisfied, while 18.5% (n = 29) were satisfied. A total of 15.3% (n 24) were dissatisfied, while 9.6% (n 15) were extremely dissatisfied with the processes. Like in the needs assessment, 63.2% of the postproject survey participants maintained their neutrality in terms of their level of satisfaction with the complaint process. In addition to the postproject survey, two students and two faculty members were interviewed by the principal investigator. The interviews were conducted at high magnification and recorded. Participants in the interviews were recruited through mass email to the university community with the instruction to reach out by email if they were willing to complete an interview. Three of the interviewees were females, while one student was male. The two students were between the ages of 19 and 21, while the two faculty members were between the ages of 38 and 43. Prior to recording the interviews, the participants were informed of their rights and the confidential nature of the interviews. The participants all consented to the structured interviews, which lasted for approximately one hour per participant. Most questions are open ended to allow the participants to express themselves freely. Regarding the level of awareness of the recently adopted Safeguarding Policy, Participant A (a male student) was of the opinion that the existence of the Safeguarding Policy has led to increased awareness of the rights of students and the mechanisms of reporting a complaint. Participant C, a female faculty member, agreed with participant A. On the level of safety offered by the Safeguarding Policy, participant B, a female student, held the view that the Safeguarding Policy was able to control illicit activities both among the students and from faculty and staff who would otherwise exploit students. However, she holds the view that students tend to abuse the Policy because they arbitrarily report cases. When prompted, if such students who arbitrarily report cases are penalized in any form, participant B responded that the nature of the penalty for such students is not enough to deter students from setting up lecturers or their fellow students. Participant D believes that the Safeguarding Policy strikes a balance on the rights of the parties and is all encompassing. She stated that ‘the major problem is not the policy but the attitude of those that it seeks to protect.’ She said that the majority of the HEI community has not taken time to read and understand the Safeguarding Policy but rather relies on the information given during training sessions and from what members of the community discuss among themselves. She said that this attitude is largely responsible for the misconceptions among faculty members that the Safeguarding Policy is targeted at male faculty members. However, all the interviewees agreed on the need to intensify training and create more awareness of the policy. According to participant D, ‘there is a need to take community ownership of the policy so that it will become effective.’ 6. Discussion The respondents of both the needs assessment and postproject studies were mostly young adults aged 15-24 years, which is the bulk of the population in HEIs. This study showed that while females may be more vulnerable to SHA, both males and females experience SHA. However, males are more willing to talk about their experiences than females are. Analysis of the data collected showed that respondents who reported frequent and recurring incidences of SHA were females. This finding supports earlier studies in Ghana (Norman et al, 2014) and Uganda (Agardh et al, 2011) in which female students were twice as likely to be sexually harassed than their male counterparts were. In contrast to the common perception that SHAs are usually perpetrated by academic staff at most tertiary learning institutions (BBC, 2019), this study reveals that any member of HEIs could perpetrate SHAs against students and young adults, thereby validating the claims of Erinosho (2018) and Aina-Pelemo et al. (2021). This revelation also supports the wide definition of an ‘educator’ in the definition section of the Bill. In line with the findings of previous studies (Chiodo et al, 2009), this study revealed the patterns of SHAs in HEIs, with unwanted physical touch, sexual jokes and comments, and corresponding sexual nature being the most common trends. The findings therefore show that there is no exhaustive list of acts or omissions that could constitute SHAs. While policies are essential for safeguarding young adults and women in HEIs, it is clear from the findings of this study that it is not sufficient to have policies in place; effort must be made to create adequate awareness of the content of the policies. It is also essential to conduct studies regularly to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of the policies. As a result of this study, the Gender Justice Project (GJP) was built to fill the gaps identified in this study as they relate to particular HEIs. 7. The Gender-Justice Project The Gender Justice Project (GJP), an initiative of the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation (SMYF), was established to improve safeguarding against women and vulnerable adults in work and education spaces in Nigeria (Yar’Adua Foundation, 2024). Supported by the Ford Foundation, the GJP promotes the establishment of safe spaces for women and young girls by providing platforms to report sexual harassment and implementing frameworks and policies for safeguarding Nigerian institutions. The focus extends beyond sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) to safeguard itself in its entirety. 7.1. Project Implementation at AUN The project began with a needs assessment to harmonize existing policies, develop a safeguarding policy, and create a safeguarding toolkit for policy implementation. A whistle-blowing platform was also developed, allowing anonymous reporting without fear of victimization. Policy enforcement was strengthened by forming committees with representatives from various university community stakeholders. Gaps identified in the needs assessment were used to develop a standardized safeguard policy adopted and implemented at the AUN. Following its adoption by the Senate, the Safeguarding Toolkit was used to develop training curricula and materials. The university has structured compulsory training for all departments, with student training conducted in collaboration with the Student Governing Association (SGA). Safeguarding training was incorporated into the compulsory AUN 101 course for new students. A safeguarding committee was established to address complaints from individuals who experienced SHAs. Members drawn from all university departments and including student representatives underwent rigorous training before beginning investigations of complaints received through the whistle-blowing platform. Lessons and outputs from the AUN project informed and influenced the implementation of projects on other university campuses, including the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Bayero University Kano (BUK), and the University of Lagos (UNILAG). 7.2. Advocacy coalition framework (ACF) analysis The ACF provides a comprehensive approach to understanding policy change by focusing on the interactions between various coalitions within a policy subsystem. Several key components of the ACF are particularly relevant to the GJP at the American University of Nigeria (AUN). 7.2.1. Coalitions and Shared Beliefs: The primary coalitions involved in addressing SHAs in Nigerian tertiary institutions include the following: ● Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation ● Gender rights activists in HEIs such as AUN, UNN, UNILAG and BUK ● Advocacy groups include women’s rights advancement and protection alternative (WRAPA), gender mobile, and education as a vaccine (EVA) groups. ● Student organisations, including the Student Government Association at AUN and the National Federation of Female Students Associations in Nigeria (NFSAN) ● Donors such as the Ford Foundation These coalitions share a belief in the necessity of robust safeguarding policies and gender justice, aiming to make university communities safer for women and girls. 7.2.2. Focusing Events and Policy Windows: A significant external event that influenced the policy subsystem was the 2019 BBC documentary ‘Sex for Grades: Undercover in West African Universities.' This documentary acted as a critical focusing event, drawing significant public and legislative attention to the issue of SHAs. This documentary provided a policy window that the GJP leveraged to advocate for significant reforms, including the implementation of comprehensive safeguarding policies at the AUN. 7.2.3. Strategies and Resource Mobilization: The coalitions employed various strategies to achieve their goals, such as conducting awareness campaigns, developing and distributing a Safeguarding Toolkit, establishing a whistle-blowing platform for confidential reporting, and organizing training programs for students, staff, and administrators. The GJP effectively mobilized resources from donors, expertise from advocacy groups, and institutional support from the AUN to sustain its advocacy efforts and implement safeguarding measures. 7.2.4. Policy Learning and Adaptation: Policy learning was crucial in the GJP approach. The project engaged in continuous policy learning by gathering feedback from the university community, assessing the effectiveness of safeguarding measures, and adapting strategies based on new insights. Surveys collected data on the prevalence and experiences of SHAs, and feedback was used to identify gaps and improve policy implementation. Knowledge was disseminated across the coalition through regular meetings, policy roundtables, and public forums. 7.3. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework Analysis The IAD framework focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules that shape policy outcomes. Applying the IAD framework to the GJP at the AUN provides further insights into the institutional changes and effectiveness of safeguarding measures. 7.3.1. Action Arena: The primary action arena includes the AUN and other partner universities (the UNN, BUK, and UNILAG). This case study focuses on the AUN, where the project was implemented. The action arena comprises various participants, including students, staff, administrators, and external stakeholders. 7.3.2. Participants: The GJP participants included the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation, university administrators, faculty members, students, advocacy groups, and donors. Each plays a critical role in developing, implementing, and monitoring safeguarding policies. 7.3.3. Rules-in-use: Before the GJP, rules-in-use were fragmented and inconsistent, often lacking comprehensive procedures for reporting and addressing SHA incidents. These rules were primarily reactive, focusing on punitive measures after incidents occurred, with little emphasis on prevention or systemic change. The GJP introduced new rules-in-use, including the following: ● Standardized Safeguarding Policy: Provided clear guidelines on reporting and addressing SHA incidents, emphasizing prevention and creating a supportive environment. ● Safeguarding Toolkit: Offers practical policy implementation guidelines, including training materials and resources for students and staff. ● Whistle-Blowing Platform: Enabled confidential and anonymous reporting of SHA incidents, ensuring that reports could be made without fear of victimization. These changes ensured a coordinated and proactive response to SHAs, aligning with the coalitions' objectives of creating a safer educational environment and promoting gender justice. 7.3.4. Interactions: Interactions among participants involved regular training sessions, awareness campaigns, policy roundtables, and feedback mechanisms. These interactions facilitated continuous learning and adaptation, allowing the policies to evolve based on new insights and feedback from the university community. 7.3.5. Outcomes: The outcomes of the GJP at AUN included increased awareness of SHA, higher reporting rates through the whistle-blowing platform, and improved institutional capacity to respond to SHA cases. The establishment of safeguarding committees and the integration of safeguarding training into the AUN 101 course are significant achievements. 7.3.6. Evaluation of Institutional Arrangements: The institutional arrangements at the AUN were strengthened through the GJP, primarily because the rules-in-use were improved. The creation of safeguarding committees, regular training programs, and the implementation of a whistle-blowing platform enhanced the university’s ability to prevent and respond to SHAs. The standardized safeguarding policy provided clear guidelines and practical tools, ensuring a proactive and coordinated response. However, challenges such as resistance to change, lack of awareness, and cultural norms persist, requiring ongoing efforts to address these barriers. 7.4. Challenges and barriers The GJP faced challenges and barriers, including opposition from individuals and groups within the university who were resistant to change and institutional barriers such as lack of awareness, inadequate training, and cultural norms that perpetuate SHAs. Overcoming these obstacles requires persistent advocacy and engagement with stakeholders. 8. Postproject Study To test the effectiveness of the GJP, a survey was conducted after three years of project implementation using the same survey used for the needs assessment but with the addition of the Safeguarding Policy. The findings show a gradual relapse in the efforts made by the GJP, which could be attributed to several factors, including institutional leadership interests/continuity, inadequate access to the Safeguarding Policy and reduced awareness and training on the Policy. The postproject survey revealed that while there was an improvement in the protection of women and young adults in AUN, there was still a gap reflected in the level of awareness and complaint mechanisms. A perusal of the available documents on AUN’s website shows that while AUN sexual harassment policy is publicly available, the same cannot be said of the Safeguarding Policy that was posted on the website shortly after the closure of the GJP. It is therefore imperative to adopt a sustainable approach to maintaining a protective culture against SHAs in HEIs. It is also important to involve students actively in the protection and awareness culture of SHAs in HEIs, as achieved at the University of Lagos (Akiyode-Afolabi, et al, 2022). 9. Conclusion and recommendations This study showed that even though the HEI had SHA in place, members of the HEI cannot be described as having the requisite awareness and education of the policies. It was also found that having policies in place must be complemented by strong and impartial implementing bodies in place. It is therefore important that HEIs be determined to ensure that the learning environment is safe for all individuals, especially females and young adults. The management of every HEI must put measures in place to ensure that students, staff and visitors are aware of their safeguarding policies on SHAs as well as the penalties associated with violating those policies. It is also crucial for those saddled with the implementation of these policies to have the requisite capacity and update their ability to respond to the needs of members of the HEI on a regular basis. Follow-up research is needed to test the effectiveness of the GJP by conducting a similar study in a pilot institution and other HEIs that have adopted the safeguarding policy. This will measure the effectiveness of the GJP and the follow-up initiatives. Declarations Clinical trial number: Not applicable Ethical consideration Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American University of Nigeria, Nigeria, with protocol number PRO-20-04-04 and approval number AUN-20-04-04. The research was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the IRB as listed in the ethics statement. Funding This research received no funding. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data availability statement The data for this research are not publicly available to protect the privacy of the research participants in accordance with ethical approval and the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. The interviews were video recorded with the approval of the participants who were not given approval to share the recordings. The survey contains sensitive information, and the university has not given permission to share the data publicly. The data can be requested directly from the corresponding author. Consent to publish the declaration: Not applicable. References Adelakun, O., 2021. Internally displaced children in Nigeria: A rights-based situational appraisal. In: R. Adeola, ed. National Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa: Beyond the Rhetoric . s.l.:Springer International Publishing, pp. 65-71. Agardh, A., Odbeng-Petterson, K. & Ostergren, O., 2011. Experience of sexual coercion and risky sexual behavior among Ugandan university students. BMC Public Health, Volume 11, p. 527. Aina-Palemo, A. D. & Wellington, O. A., 2023. Institutional frameworks for sexual harassment in Nigeria: Perspective of higher education students. UI Law Journal, Volume 12, pp. 234-266. Akiyode-Afolabi, A. et al., 2022. Harnessing student involvement: Perspectives from building infrastructure for sexual harassment prevention and response at the University of Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Global Health, Volume 12. Ayado, S., 2024. Senate passes a sexual harassment bill and pegs 14-year jail term for predators at a tertiary institution. Business Day. British Broadcasting Corporation, 2019. Sex for Grade, s.l.: BBC. Chambers, D., Cantrell, A. & Booth, A., 2021. Recognition of risk and prevention in safeguarding of children and young people: A mapping review and component analysis of service development interventions aimed at health and social care professionals. BMC Health Services Research, Volume 21. Chiodo, D. et al., 2009. Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20 March, 45(3), pp. 246-252. Dziech, B. W. & Weiner, L., 1990. The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus. 2nd Edition ed. s.l.:University of Illinois Press. Erinosho, S., Oduwole, E. & Femi-Oyewo, M., 2018. Sexual harassment on campus: A study in a Nigeria University. AGOGO Journal of Humanities, Volume 4. Ibezim, E., 2023. Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions in Nigeria: The Developing Law and Practice. Journal of Legal Studies and Research, 9(6), pp. 257-286. Joseph, J., 2015. Sexual harassment in tertiary institutions: A comparative perspective. Temida, 18(2), pp. 124-144. Ladebo, O. J., 2003. Sexual harassment in academic in Nigeria: How real?. African Sociological Review, 7(1), pp. 117-161. Leach, F., 2013. Corruption as abuse of power: sexual violence in educational institutions. In: Transparency International, ed. Global Corruption Report: Education. s.l.:Routledge. Lee, E., 2023. What is safeguarding in schools?, s.l.: CPD Online College. Mackinnon, C., 1979. Sexual Harassment of Working Women. s.l.:Yale University Press. Mordi, K., 2019. S*x for Grades: BBC documentary exposes UNILAG lecturer more. 7 October. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. s.l.:Cambridge University Press. Owoaje, E. T. & Olusola-Taiwo, O., 2009. Sexual Harassment Experiences of Female Graduates of Nigerian Tertiary Institutions. International Quarterly Community EducationHealth Education, 30(4), pp. 337-348. Sabatier, P. A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. eds., 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy). Ist Edition ed. s.l.:Westview Press. SMYF, 2024. Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation. [Online] Available at: yaraduafoundation.org [Accessed 2nd June 2024]. The University of Zambia, 2006. The University of Zambia HIV and AIDS policy, Lusaka: UNZA Press. Till, F. J., 1980. Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students, Washington DC: National Council on Women's Education Programs. Tolu-Kolawole, D., 2024. Asuu backs FG at 18 years of university admission age. Punch Nigeria, 23 April. World Bank Group, 2024. Tertiary Education, s.l.: World Bank. Yin, R. K., 2009. CaseStudy Research: Designs and methods. 4th ed. s.l.:Sage. Zuure, D. N., 2018. 2018. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(2), pp. 50-55. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 10 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Discover Public Health → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 22 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 21 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 01 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 27 Mar, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Mar, 2025 First submitted to journal 20 Mar, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6128133","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":436810463,"identity":"e049379b-3be9-45e3-a83a-e4acef5b3453","order_by":0,"name":"Olanike S. Adelakun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lead City University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olanike","middleName":"S.","lastName":"Adelakun","suffix":""},{"id":436810464,"identity":"1fff95b3-9068-4096-8d13-ca1700fcea39","order_by":1,"name":"Erebi Ndoni","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bradford","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Erebi","middleName":"","lastName":"Ndoni","suffix":""},{"id":436810466,"identity":"6248de1b-6b3c-4385-a114-55ebfc6274fe","order_by":2,"name":"David Adetoro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"American University of Nigeria","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"Adetoro","suffix":""},{"id":436810467,"identity":"3c88eafc-28a9-40ab-a7ed-91b01a1718ef","order_by":3,"name":"Amara Nwankpa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shehu Musa Yar'Adua","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amara","middleName":"","lastName":"Nwankpa","suffix":""},{"id":436810471,"identity":"24550649-dd58-4cbe-bbc0-331e96ef1d57","order_by":4,"name":"Halimatu S. Ochekliye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shehu Musa Yar'Adua","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Halimatu","middleName":"S.","lastName":"Ochekliye","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-28 11:23:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6128133/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6128133/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-01064-w","type":"published","date":"2025-11-10T15:57:23+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79825470,"identity":"5320ad50-ffe2-4069-a230-ef2758d5a6a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:24:51","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46369,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/6d4b99203a51e3cda5b26a9f.png"},{"id":79825475,"identity":"36ba4e48-3cdd-4f16-9ad7-591368d3c2b3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:24:51","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":63533,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of SHA on Participants\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/a395c1b8a87df4ea086b1e45.png"},{"id":79825471,"identity":"ade867f2-f685-4473-9928-321ae41c3a33","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:24:51","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 2.1 Effect of SHA on Postsurvey Participants\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/27e746113f11e449eff6e683.png"},{"id":79826093,"identity":"49718190-bc50-4947-aedd-65c0614088df","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:32:51","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":44098,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 3 Appropriate Authority to Report an SHA Complaint\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/62c35e8e1fdcdcd06cc754b4.png"},{"id":79826095,"identity":"f4065e8b-43d8-4ea0-9ade-a680ae046266","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:32:52","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43123,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 3.1 Legend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/c7409963872f300fefa8ecc7.png"},{"id":79825477,"identity":"1691517c-6269-47ab-89bc-f7a146d09cda","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:24:52","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35662,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 4 Satisfaction with the Complaint Process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/6401172c15c1831efcad3e3b.png"},{"id":96105271,"identity":"9604d9bb-e037-4ea0-bf6b-525adb4a1de3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 16:10:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1462366,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6128133/v1/c8c303ee-310a-4088-8f33-da648e3ab0fc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Safeguarding Students and Young Adults in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions: An Evaluation of the Gender Justice Project","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSexual harassment and abuse (SHA) is a phenomenon that affects virtually all sectors of life, including higher education institutions across the globe. Despite proactive legal and systemic steps taken by educational institutions worldwide to safeguard students, SHAs remain a persistent issue. In Nigeria, the prevalence of SHAs in higher educational institutions has been documented for decades (Owoade \u0026amp; Olusola-Taiwo, 2009). However, significant attention was given to the issue by the Nigerian government only after the 2019 release of an undercover investigative report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which highlighted the alarming rate of SHAs in West African tertiary institutions. This media report captured the attention of the legislature and the heads of higher education institutions (HEIs) across Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to this growing awareness, the Shehu Musa Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation launched the Gender Justice Project (GJP). The GJP aims to support tertiary institutions in Nigeria by developing a standardized safeguarding policy for SHAs that can be adapted across all tertiary institutions in Nigeria and Africa. This initiative seeks to address the gaps in existing policies and create a safer educational environment for students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Legal Framework on Safeguarding/Sexual Harassment in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe primary purpose of most governments globally is to provide security and essential services for the welfare of people. Both purposes are wide, but the latter encompasses a larger terrain that includes energy, transport, health, water, housing and other social amenities capable of making the lives of citizens easier. The list could be quite elastic, and education would readily fit into the forum. The importance of this primary function is underscored by the provisions of section 14(2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (CFRN, 1999), which states that \u0026lsquo;the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government\u0026rsquo;. The importance of education as a whole, especially tertiary education, cannot be overemphasized; education provides a ready platform and materials for innovation, growth, and development for any economy (World Bank, 2024). According to a World Bank report,\u0026rsquo; tertiary education is instrumental in fostering growth, reducing poverty, and boosting shared prosperity\u0026rsquo; (World Bank, 2024). According to the report, tertiary education refers to all formal postsecondary education, including public and private universities, colleges, technical training institutes, and vocational schools (World Bank, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe early legal frameworks surrounding protection against SHAs in Nigeria can be traced to prohibitive laws that attract sanctions. For instance, section 360 of the Criminal Code Act prohibits unlawful and indecent assault on women and girls, and this act has attracted an imprisonment term of 2 years (Criminal Code, 1916). Similar indirect prohibitive positions can be found across various legislations in Nigeria, such as the Penal Code 1960, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act 2015, Child\u0026rsquo;s Rights Act 2003 and the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017. Multiple laws of various states across Nigeria also make prohibitive laws that could be extended to SHAs in tertiary institutions.\u0026nbsp;However, these provisions have limited scope, restrictive definitions, and inadequate remedies for addressing sexual offenses in contemporary times (Ibezim, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the Child\u0026rsquo;s Rights Act (CRA) offers some level of protection to children in educational institutions through sections 1, 2, 11 and 15, the safeguarding offered is limited to persons under 18 years old. Thus, it can be posited that many students are admitted to tertiary institutions at an average age of 16 years and that they remain in these institutions through their late teenage years and early twenties. The current move by the federal government to increase the minimum age of admission to tertiary institutions to 18 years (Tolu-Kolawole, 2024) raises concern about the applicability of CRA to protect these young adults. Furthermore, the nonuniform application of the CRA in Nigeria raises concerns about the level of protection that the CRA offers, especially in states that have refused to domesticate the CRA or in states such as Kwara state, which has pegged the age of a child to 15 years old as opposed to 18 years old (Adelakun, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was not until 2011 that the Lagos State Criminal Law (2011) made explicit provisions to prohibit any form of harassment that specifically affects a person\u0026apos;s employment or educational opportunity; interferes with a person\u0026apos;s work or education performance; or creates a hostile or offensive working or learning environment (section 262). Unfortunately, this legislation only applies in one out of 36 states of the Federation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstitutionally, every person in Nigeria has a guaranteed right to dignity (CFRN, section 42), and the Nigerian court pronounced that sexual harassment is an affront to a person\u0026rsquo;s dignity (Maduka v Microsoft Nigeria Limited, 2014); however, this did not influence legislative action from the Nigerian government. A turning point in legislative action for protection against SHAs in tertiary institutions in Nigeria occurred in 2016 following the sponsoring of a Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions Prohibition Bill, 2016, at the National Assembly. The Bill extends the incidence of SHA beyond academic staff to nonacademic staff in tertiary institutions. The Bill has restrictive provisions on the definition of sexual harassment by limiting the recipient of sexual harassment to students younger than the age of 18 or \u0026lsquo;imbecile\u0026rsquo;, while the act(s) is restricted to sexual intercourse or unwelcome sexual advances to the recipients (section 2). The definition failed to take into consideration the fact that young adults and persons with other forms of disability who are also students in tertiary institutions may be exposed to several forms of SHA. Furthermore, the bill failed to expand on what constitutes unwelcome sexual behavior, leaving the definition too vague for concise interpretation. Section 5 of the bill protects students by providing that consent is not a defense against sexual harassment unless the parties are married. The Bill further aimed to protect students from victimization as a result of lodging complaints from SHAs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnfortunately, the bill was not passed into law and lapsed with the 8th National Assembly. As such, the viral media reports of SHA scandals at two universities in West Africa, specifically University of Lagos in Nigeria and University of Ghana (BBC, 2019; Mordi, 2019), brought Nigeria into the global limelight, revealing the country\u0026rsquo;s lack of protection of its tertiary institution students from SHA. Following this media scandal, the 2016 lapsed Bill was reintroduced into the 9th Assembly by 107 legislative members, as cosponsors, of the upper chambers of the National Assembly in 2019 as the Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions Bill.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaving failed to scale through the 8th Assembly, one would believe that necessary amendments would have been made to improve the draft of the earlier Bill before it was reintroduced in the 9th Assembly. The definition section of the Bill, section 26, defines an educator as \u0026ldquo;every employee of a tertiary educational institution including all academic and nonacademic staff, or a faculty or nonfaculty member of a tertiary educational institution including a professor, lecturer, graduate assistant, postdoctoral fellow or associate serving as a full-time or part-time instructor or a teaching fellow in similar institutional roles who teaches, educates or trains students or who provides professional educational services; or a staff or member of any tertiary educational institution who may have authority over or a mentoring relationship with any student and includes coaches, supervisors of student employees, advisors and directors of student organisations, students\u0026rsquo; residential fellows, and persons who advise, mentor, or evaluate students or any person who oversees any aspect of any student\u0026rsquo;s academic work\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe same definition section construes students to include students enrolled in tertiary institutions and prospective students seeking admission to tertiary institutions. The inclusion of those applying for admission is a commendable proactive provision that recognizes the need to shield prospective students from any form of harassment or sexual blackmail that could be exacerbated by their present status. It is envisaged that this would be a good deterrent to any potential predators or harassers who might want to take advantage of the vulnerability of the applicants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSection 4 of the bill states that a member of staff (educator) is guilty of an offense of sexual harassment if he/she:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;violates the fiduciary duty of care in section 3 of this Bill; or\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eb.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;has sexual intercourse with a student or demands for sex from a student or prospective student; or\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ec.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;intimidates or creates a hostile or offensive environment for the student by soliciting for sex from the student or by making sexual advances toward a student; or\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ed.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;directs or induces another person to commit any act of sexual harassment under the provisions of this Bill or conspires with another person in the commission of sexual harassment by another person without which it would not have been committed; or\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ee.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;grabs, hugs, kisses, rubs or strokes or touches or pinches the breasts or hair or lips or hips or buttocks or any other part of the body of a student; or\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ef.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;displays, requests, gives or sends by hand or courier or electronic or any other means; explicit or suggestive pornographic messages; or text, pictures or videos or other sex-related objects to a student; or\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eg.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;whistles or winks at a student or screams or exclaims or jokes or makes sexually complimentary or uncomplimentary remarks about a student\u0026apos;s physique or stalks a student.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is interesting to note that this provision goes beyond direct physical action and involves body gestures, body language, and complimentary or uncomplimentary remarks with sexual undertones against any student in tertiary institutions at the instance of an educator. This robust provision promises to lead to a major shift in the effective management of the relationship status quo in the Nigerian educational sector when the bill becomes law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the 2019 Bill has been faulted by many as being too restrictive in scope and content (Kumolu and Adelaja, 2022; Aina-Palemo and Wellington, 2023), as it targets only academic staff as perpetrators of SHAs without cognizance of the reality that tertiary institutions are composed of nonacademic staff who may also misuse their positions for SHAs. It is, however, clear that nonacademic staff are included in the definition of educators. The Academic Staff Union of Universities vehemently opposed the Sexual Harassment Bill on several grounds, including the fact that it violates the autonomy of universities that have the power to regulate their own internal affairs. However, a public hearing held on the Bill by the National Assembly concluded, among other findings, that the bill does not violate the autonomy of universities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the Bill\u0026apos;s failure to take into account other levels of education in Nigeria, such as primary and secondary school, remains a concern regarding the extent of inclusion that the Bill offers. Despite the fact that the National Assembly passed the Bill into law in 2023, as of May 2024, the Bill is still awaiting presidential assent, without which it cannot be law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act (ICPC Act) could be relevant in handling cases of SHAs. Some instances of SHA in tertiary institutions can be framed as corrupt practices (Leach, 2013). The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act is a key legal instrument in Nigeria designed to combat corruption and related offenses. This act has been instrumental in prosecuting cases of SHA framed as corrupt practices. A notable example is the case of Professor Richard Akindele of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), who was prosecuted under this Act. Akindele was found guilty of demanding sex from a student in exchange for grades and was subsequently sentenced to two years in prison. This case highlights the applicability of anticorruption laws in addressing SHAs, providing a legal avenue to combat such abuses of power in educational institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite not having specific legislation to address SHAs in educational institutions in Nigeria, the 2019 scandal revealed by the BBC appears to have pushed institutions into action as several tertiary institutions developed and adopted SHA policies. The adequacy, awareness and effectiveness of these policies necessitated the project, which is the focus of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Literature review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Definition and Meaning of SHA\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe term \u0026lsquo;sexual harassment\u0026rsquo; was not widely recognized before the mid-1970s (Joseph, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Initially, considered alien to educational institutions, these environments were viewed as citadels of learning, supposedly free from harassment that could undermine their primary educational mission. However, increasing complaints revealed that sexual harassment had infiltrated these institutions, necessitating urgent attention and intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSHA is quite challenging to define based on the degree of subjectivity attached to it, as it is context related. Thus, the definition can be found in policies, criminal codes, labor laws, and anti-discrimination laws in specific locations. Broadly, sexual harassment is classified as violence against women and, as such, prohibited (UNGA,1993). The acts that constitute SHAs are quite encompassing, and a list to define this will be rather exhaustive. Thus, inasmuch as there has been an attempt to define it within various jurisdictions, it is quite context specific when considering the acts classified as SHAs. It is, however, obvious that SHA is behavior that is unwanted and unwelcome by the recipient even though there might be involuntary participation. The behavior in question needs to be sexual in nature and includes flirting, innuendos, and deliberately meted out to the victim.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral definitions of sexual harassment emphasize the powerplay between the perpetrator and the victim. MacKinnon, for instance, states that sexual harassment \u0026lsquo;refers to the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power\u0026rsquo; (Mackinnon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). This unequal power relationship is evident in SHAs in tertiary institutions, as educators wield more power than students in circumstances of SHAs. Thus, in the context of this article, SHA encompasses every form of undesirable, unwanted or morally wrong advance or act from an educator holding a superior position over a student during the course of the student\u0026rsquo;s academic pursuit. The incorporation of \u0026lsquo;morally wrong\u0026rsquo; actions or advances in this context is necessitated by the cultural and social perceptions that are necessary within African educational settings. It is immaterial that the student is a child, young adult or an adult but suffices that the affected person qualifies as a student within an educational system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Policy Change\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo analyze the development and impact of the GJP, this paper employs two theoretical frameworks: the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ACF posits that policy change occurs through the interaction of advocacy coalitions\u0026mdash;groups of actors from various public and private institutions who share a set of beliefs and coordinate their activities over time (Sabatier \u0026amp; Jenkins-Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). This framework is particularly relevant for understanding the GJP, as it involves multiple stakeholders, including the Shehu Musa Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation, educational institutions, advocacy groups, and donors such as the Ford Foundation. These stakeholders form coalitions based on their shared belief in the necessity of robust safeguarding policies to combat SHAs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe IAD framework, developed by Elinor Ostrom, focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules that shape policy outcomes (Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). This study provides a lens through which to analyze the effectiveness of the safeguarding measures implemented by the GJP. The framework considers the action arena (the American University of Nigeria and other institutions), the participants (students, staff, administrators), and the rules-in-use (existing and newly implemented safeguarding policies).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper evaluates the effectiveness of the safeguarding measures implemented at the American University of Nigeria (AUN) under the GJP. Despite the university\u0026rsquo;s perception of having strong policies in place, data collected from students and young adults revealed significant gaps in policy effectiveness. This analysis provides insights into the collaborative efforts and institutional changes required to enhance safeguarding policies and makes recommendations based on the findings of the GJP, including the application of anticorruption laws to prosecute SHA cases as corrupt practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Strengthening\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional SHA policies typically focus on addressing incidents after they occur, emphasizing disciplinary actions and legal recourse (Leach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, safeguarding approaches are more holistic, aiming to prevent SHAs by addressing underlying power asymmetries and creating a safe and supportive environment for all students (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) defines safeguarding in schools as measures put in place by schools to keep learners safe from harm and abuse and to create a safe learning environment. According to Chambers, Cantrell and Booth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), in safeguarding, the health, human rights and well-being of people, especially children, young adults and other vulnerable people, must be considered to ensure that they live free from fear of harm, abuse and neglect. Safeguarding can therefore be described as the process or system of preventing harm to people and the environment in which they are. In this instance, the people in question include students and vulnerable young adults in Nigerian tertiary institutions, representing the environment alluded to in the opening statement. Consequently, for the purpose of this article, safeguarding means taking reasonable and proactive steps to prevent any form of harm, harassment, abuse, or exploitation of students and young adults in the learning environment and how to respond or deal with these vices whenever they occur. The goal is to create a safe and secure learning environment for students without fear of harm or abuse and with confidence in how to deal appropriately with SHAs if they occur.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChildren and young adults, during their educational pursuits as students, are usually seen to be more vulnerable to abuse and harm in most societies; hence, they need to prioritize their safety and wellbeing. Generally, parents and guardians do not have control or much influence in schools or on how learning environments are run; thus, it is often expected that in educational communities, safeguarding is crucial. This is underscored by the fact that both children and young adults are vulnerable to different forms of abuse, harm, or exploitation at different stages of their lives (Zuure, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn essence, safeguarding and protecting children and young adults within a learning environment include the formulation and implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures across educational institutions, as well as equipping the children, young adults, staff, and volunteers with the confidence to recognize and report any issues through training and appropriate resources. Additionally, measures such as hosting an effective and anonymous whistleblowing platform would also serve as safeguarding agents, with possible perpetrators being aware that feedback mechanisms within the educational system can spotlight incidences of SHA and address such incidences accordingly. This would also strengthen students\u0026rsquo; ability to resolve institutional needs to protect their rights to safe education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Sexual Harassment in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSexual harassment in educational institutions is defined as \u0026lsquo;the use of authority to emphasize the sexuality or sexual identity of a student in a manner which prevents or impairs that student\u0026rsquo;s full enjoyment of educational benefits, climate or opportunities\u0026rsquo; (Till, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e). The University of Zambia defines sexual harassment as \u0026lsquo;unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conducts of a sexual nature, when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects a person\u0026rsquo;s employment or education, unreasonably interferes with a person\u0026rsquo;s work or educational performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment (University of Zambia, 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt has been reported that SHAs are most prevalent in countries with weak educational systems devoid of accountability and a lack of gender equality (Leach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Although this paper does not set out to investigate this topic, some facts point to these characteristics in the Nigerian context, as most public universities do not have a functional system of accountability, and the goal of gender equality in society is still far-fetched based on the thread of patriarchy strongly woven into societal norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSHA was initially underresearched and has been less commonly reported in Nigerian universities, leading to a paucity of documented literature on the extent of the problem (Ladebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The data are therefore circumscribed due to the underreporting of the cases and the culture of silence, which ensures that victims avoid the stigma and discrimination associated with them rather than seek redress. Moreover, research into the prevalence of SHAs in Nigeria, when conducted, has not necessarily embarked on a holistic inquiry into the educational system, as stated above; rather, the impact on victims of abuse has been considered. Dziech and Weiner (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) believe that SHA is a fact in HEI, and silencing victims is part of the rationale for the historical invisibility of the problem. The invisibility of the menace of SHAs notwithstanding, studies have shown that it poses a challenge to the attainment of academic qualifications in HEIs in Nigeria (Ladebo, 2001). SHA interferes with the environment intended for academic pursuit, which encapsulates learning and the inculcation of positive attitudes and rather infuses negativity through fear and intimidation (Owoaje and Olushola-Taiwo, 2010). Society\u0026rsquo;s attention gradually turned to this area aspersions were cast on the character of lecturers alleging indulgence in SHAs. Academics began to be ridiculed in light of this predatory attitude and the power-play between lecturers and students. Although academics, especially male lecturers, are mostly accused of being stereotypical perpetrators, students and other administrative staff within HEIs are also potential perpetrators (Aina-Palemo et al, 2021), while the victims are women or girls based on their vulnerability and the tenets of patriarchy mentioned earlier (Erinosho, 2018). This perception is, however, quite erroneous, as there are also male victims of SHAs within HEIs who, unfortunately, have not received as much attention as their female counterparts, probably due to prevalent gender stereotypes and the perception of society, which poses barriers to reporting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeightened by complaints and the BBC report, resolving the need to ensure that tertiary institutions remain safe for students in accomplishing the primary goal of knowledge acquisition became paramount. It became imperative to adopt a holistic approach to curb the menace that culminated in the safeguarding approach adopted by the GJP commissioned by the Shehu Musa Yar Adua Foundation to ensure that HEIs are safe for learners, especially women and young adults, by developing and implementing safeguarding policies for all, especially women and young adults, who are the most vulnerable population in HEI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Design\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe case study method was adopted to study the prevalence of SHAs and the adequacy of safeguarding measures on SHAs at a private university in Nigeria. According to Yin (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), a case study is an empirical investigation that explores a phenomenon within its real-life context, particularly when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. This approach is well suited for examining complex social phenomena such as SHAs and the effectiveness of institutional safeguarding policies. It should be noted that a case study is a research approach or design for examining a social unit rather than a technique for gathering data (Yin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe research design integrates the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) and the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework to analyze policy changes and their impacts comprehensively. The ACF guides the analysis of stakeholder collaboration and shared beliefs driving policy change, while the IAD framework focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules governing the implementation of safeguarding measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Study Setting\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at the American University of Nigeria (AUN), a private development university in Northeast Nigeria, West Africa. AUN had a total population of approximately 3,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students across various schools during the 2020/2021 academic session, with a postproject study conducted in the 2024/2025 academic session. The HEI offers qualifications for undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. The HEI has a diverse student population from all parts of Nigeria, Africa and beyond the African continent. The academic staff population spans 34 countries at the time of the study. The vision of the HEI is to train future African leaders and serve as agents of economic development in Africa. The university is known as the first development university in Africa, and AUN has fully incorporated ICT tools in its teaching and learning pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent leaders are open to both male and female students even though at the time of the data collection, the student leaders were dominated by male students. AUN has an existing sexual harassment policy spread across the university staff handbook, student code of conduct and other documents regulating different affairs of the university. The existing policy and other documents related to sexual harassment at the time of the study aimed to protect university students from harassment and abuse and strengthen the university\u0026rsquo;s core value of a discriminatory-free environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Population and Sample\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe target population of the study was all members of the learning environment\u0026mdash;students and academic and nonacademic staff. The data were collected when the students were not physically in school due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Classes during this period were online. The questionnaire was designed using Google survey forms, which were set to limit responses to members of the AUN community and with one response per participant to prevent duplication of the survey. The Google form was designed using the official email address of the first author. The survey was set to collect data anonymously without disclosing any personal information. The email addresses of the principal investigator and coinvestigators were included in the survey for communication on questions that participants may have concerning the survey. All questions, mostly on confirmation of anonymity, were adequately addressed by the investigators.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe link to the survey was shared with all members of the HEI environment through an official email to all members emanating as correspondence from the Provost, Student Affairs and Human Resources. Additionally, the survey link was shared through the weekly bulletin of the HEI, which was disseminated through email correspondence from the communications department of the HEI.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Data Collection Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe survey questions were developed based on an extensive literature review and expert consultation to ensure the representativeness of the questions. The questionnaire was structured in simple English to avoid ambiguity. The survey was pretested with 10 students and 5 staff members, and issues that arose were addressed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe main study data were collected from 16\u0026ndash;30 June 2020, and a total of 291 people responded. A total of 99.7% (n 290) of those who completed the survey consented to participate, while 0.3% (n 1) declined to participate. The survey was checked for completeness, and only one entry was excluded; 290 were analyzed using Google\u0026apos;s simple statistical method. The postproject data were collected from 16 June to 11 December 2024 through survey and interviews. Due to the sensitive nature of the study, an option was given to participants who may require counseling and psychosocial support to reach out to the HEI medical director, who is trained in mental health and psychosocial support through structured training in gender-based violence in emergencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Ethics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American University of Nigeria, Nigeria, with protocol number PRO-20-04-04 and approval number AUN-20-04-04. The research was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the IRB as listed in the ethics statement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe president and management team of the university consented to the needs assessment survey and the entire project to determine the effectiveness and gaps of the existing SHA policies of the university. Participants were informed about the goal of the study, and the survey was designed in a way that participants could only proceed to the second section of the survey after providing their consent. When participants declined consent, they automatically logged out of the survey. Participants also had the opportunity to log out of the survey midway, and no questions were included. This means that participants could skip questions that they were not comfortable with. There were no repercussions for not agreeing to participate in the survey. The post project interviews were anonymized, and consent was duly obtained from the participants. The same standards were applied as in the needs assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.6\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5.\tResults","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Demographic Information of the Participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the needs assessment, a total of 290 respondents, comprising 130 females and 155 males, were part of the survey. Five participants declined to disclose their sex. A total of 65.5% (n 190) of participants were between the ages of 15 and 24 years, while 34.5% (n 100) were older than 24 years. There were no participants younger than the age of 15. For the postproject survey, a total of 120 participants responded, 4 declined to proceed, and 116 participated in the study. The postproject participants included 75 females and 40 males, while 1 participant chose not to disclose their sex. According to the postproject survey, 72.4% (n 84) of the participants were aged 15 to 24 years, while 27.6% (n 32) were aged older than 24 years. No respondent was younger than 15 years. The demographic information is shown in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 Demographic distribution of the respondents (n= 290 for needs assessment and 116 for postproject)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"628\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds Assessment Frequency (n 290)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds Assessment Percentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoststudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n 120)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoststudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSEX\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrefer not to disclose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTOTAL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAGE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBelow 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15-24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTOTAL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCATEGORY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStaff (nonacademic)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFaculty (academic)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntern/NYSC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVolunteer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTOTAL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMARITAL STATUS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndisclosed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTOTAL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of the participants (71.4%, n 207) were students, while the other participants were spread over 21% (n 61) of the nonacademic staff, 3.1% (n 9) of the faculty members, 3.1% (n 9) of the interns and corp members and 1.4% (n 4) of the volunteers at the university. In comparison with the postproject survey, 71.6 (n 83) of the respondents were students, 21.6% (n 25) were nonacademic staff, 4.3% (n 5) were faculty, 0.9 (n 1) were interns and 1.7% (n 2) were volunteers. A total of 73.7% (n 213) of the participants in the needs assessment were single, 22.1% (n 64) were married, 0.3% (n 1) were divorced, and 3.8% (n 11) preferred not to disclose their marital status. According to the postproject survey, 80.2% (n 93) were single, 14.7% (n 17) were married, 1.7% (n 2) were divorced and 3.4% (n 4) chose not to disclose their marital status.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Experience of the SHA of Participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 shows the distribution of the experiences of participants with SHAs within the HEI studied. A total of 78.3% (n 227) of the participants confirmed having experienced sexual harassment, while 21.7% (n 63) of the participants had never experienced sexual harassment in any form. The postproject survey revealed that 75.9% (n 88) of the respondents had experienced one form of sexual harassment or the other, while 24.1% (n 28) had never experienced sexual harassment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 Experience of the SHA of Participants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds Assessment Frequency (n 290)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds Assessment Percentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoststudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n 109)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoststudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEXPERIENCE OF SHA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e227\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTOTAL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFREQUENCY OF SHA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegularly\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOccasionally\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOnce\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNATURE OF SHA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnwanted physical contact\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJokes and suggestive comments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemand for sex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThreats and verbal abuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisplay of sexually offensive materials\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemand or request for a relationship\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhone or email communication of a sexual nature\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical exposure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDrunk female harassing a male\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCat calling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRaped\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEighty-nine of the needs assessment respondents participated in the section on the nature of SHA experience. The most common feature of SHAs is unwanted physical touch (58.4%), while suggestive remarks (33.7%), demand for sex (20.2%), request for a relationship (16.9%) and threats and verbal abuse (13.5%) topped the list of forms of SHAs experienced by participants. The least common form of SHA was associated with cat calling (1.1%) and drunk-induced exposure (1.1%). On average, individuals who reported sexually offensive materials (9%) and who were phone and email about their sexual nature (10.1%) were also experienced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 43 respondents who participated in the postproject survey, 50.9% (n 28) experienced unwanted physical contact, 32.7% (n 18) experienced harassment in the form of jokes and suggestive comments, 7.3% (n 4) experienced demand for sex, 12.7% (n 7) experienced threats and verbal abuse, and 1.8% (n 1) were raped. The responses show that multiple incidences of SHA behaviors were experienced by some respondents. While very few of the needs assessment participants (3.9%) (13.5% (n 5) of the postproject) experienced SHA regularly, a larger percentage of the needs assessment participants experienced SHA once (51.3%) or occasionally (44.7%). Very few of the participants in the needs assessment participated in the postproject survey, which indicates that there were new participants in the postproject survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Perpetrators of SHA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the perpetrators of SHAs at the HEI studied, only 79 need assessment participants responded, and the responses showed that students (50%) were mostly perpetrators, while nonacademic staff (13.7%), faculty members (12.6%), management staff (5.3%) and strangers (7.4%) were also known to be perpetrators. No religious leader was recorded as a perpetrator of SHA, while a mentor (1.1%) was recorded as a perpetrator by one of the participants. The distribution of the perpetrators of SHAs is represented in Figure 1 below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.4\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Effect of SHA on Respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experiences of the respondents with SHAs differ. Eighty-one participants responded to this section, and the feelings evoked by SHAs differed across the participants, as indicated in Figure 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommon emotional feelings associated with the experience of SHA include anger (42%), embarrassment (34.6%), fear (25.9%), shock (32.1%), indifference (12.3%), depression (13.6%), disgust (50.6%) and betrayal (1.2%). While the feeling of disgust was mostly experienced, the least experienced was the feeling of betrayal from the participant who experienced SHA from the mentor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile 24.8% (n 27) of the 109 participants who responded to the question on the need for support believed that they required support or help, 39.4% (n 43) believed that they did not need any form of support. However, 35.8% (n 39) were not sure whether they required support. Only 2.5% (n = 6) of the 266 respondents approached the health center of the HEI for help with SHAs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe effect of SHAs on the respondents of the postproject survey was similar to that on the participants of the needs assessment, as reflected in Figure 2.1 above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.5\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Effectiveness of Existing Policies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA total of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e283 participants responded to the awareness of existing policies that address issues of SHAs in the HEI studied in this research. A total of 61.8% (n 175) were aware of the existence of policies, while 38.2% (n 108) were not aware that there are policies in place on SHAs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 194 respondents to this question, 12.9% (n=25) were aware of policies on SHAs in the faculty manual, 24.7% (n=48) were aware of such policies in the staff manual, and 79.4% (n=154) were aware of the policies in the students\u0026rsquo; code of conduct. While 44% of 243 respondents read the sexual harassment policies in these various documents, 56% have not read them. While the majority of the respondents (63%) believe that the policies are adequate to protect them, 37% believe that the policies cannot adequately protect them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 shows the level of awareness of the three major forms of policies existing at the HEI prior to the project and the policies in existence after concluding the project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 Level of Awareness of Existing Policies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds Assessment Frequency (n 290)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeeds Assessment Percentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoststudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (n 109)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoststudy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAWARENESS ON EXISTING POLICIES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy in Faculty Manual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy in Staff Manual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy in Students\u0026rsquo; Code of Conduct\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e154\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSafeguarding Policy on Women and Young Adults\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THE SHA PROVISIONS IN THE POLICIES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePERCEPTION ON EXTENT OF PROTECTION FROM SHA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eACCESSIBILITY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEED TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF THE POLICIES\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e242\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSomehow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCONFIDENTIALITY GUARANTEE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e153\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding accessibility to the policies, 52.8% (n 123) of the needs assessment respondents answered negatively, while 47.2% (n 110) answered positively. 91% of the respondents believe that there is a need to intensify efforts to create more awareness of the policies, while 2.3% believe that there is no need for more awareness. A total of 6.8% held the view that there was somehow a need to create more awareness. A total of 65.1% (n 153) of the 235 respondents who answered the question on confidentiality were positive that confidentiality was guaranteed when they handled sexual harassment complaints, while 34.9% (n 82) of the respondents believed that confidentiality was not guaranteed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 3 years of project implementation, the postproject survey revealed an increase in the level of awareness of the policy in the faculty manual, SHA policy in the staff manual and SHA policy in the Student\u0026rsquo;s Code of Conduct. A total of 48.2% (n 43) of the 91 respondents confirmed being aware of the new Safeguarding Policy on Women and Young Adults adopted after the Gender Justice Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe postproject survey further revealed that the level of awareness of the content of the SHA policies was approximately the same, with only a slight increase compared with the number of respondents. A total of 58.3% (n 56) of the respondents of the postproject survey believe that the SHA Policies adequately protect them, while 41.7% (n 40) believe that the Policies are inadequate. This shows an improvement compared with the needs assessment. Like in the needs assessment, respondents in the postproject survey believe that there is a need for an increase in awareness creation. However, there was a significant increase in the confidentiality level of handling cases considering the number of respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.6\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Complaint Processes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA total of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e39.8% of the needs assessment respondents knew who to complain about whether SHA occurred, while 31% did not know the appropriate channel to complain about. A total of 29.2% were not sure of the compliance mechanisms for SHAs. The postproject survey showed that almost half of the respondents (49.5%) understood the complaint process, 22.9% did not know about the complaint process, and 27.6% were unsure of the reporting mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs indicated by Figure 3, judicial affairs (39.2%) and anyone whom the complainant feels comfortable (37.7%) top the list of appropriate people/departments for reporting a complaint to the SHA, while the police (0.7%) is the least common person to whom such a complaint should be made.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLike in terms of the results of the needs assessment, many respondents in the postproject survey believed that complaints about SHAs should go to judicial affairs (43.1%) or anyone whom they are comfortable with (30.3%), as shown in Figure 3.1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of the needs assessment respondents (62.9%) believed that such a complaint should be in person, while other respondents believed that the complaint could be by email (31.6%), phone call (2.9%), memo (1.5%) or text message (1.1%). Comparatively, 53.2% of the postproject survey respondents believed that complaints should be in person, while 39.4% believed that they should be by email.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost of the 157 respondents (49%, n 77) who were satisfied with the complaint and investigation processes were neutral about how pleased they were with the processes in the past, as indicated in Figure 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnly 7.6% (n = 12) of the needs assessment respondents were extremely satisfied, while 18.5% (n = 29) were satisfied. A total of 15.3% (n 24) were dissatisfied, while 9.6% (n 15) were extremely dissatisfied with the processes. Like in the needs assessment, 63.2% of the postproject survey participants maintained their neutrality in terms of their level of satisfaction with the complaint process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the postproject survey, two students and two faculty members were interviewed by the principal investigator. The interviews were conducted at high magnification and recorded. Participants in the interviews were recruited through mass email to the university community with the instruction to reach out by email if they were willing to complete an interview. Three of the interviewees were females, while one student was male. The two students were between the ages of 19 and 21, while the two faculty members were between the ages of 38 and 43. Prior to recording the interviews, the participants were informed of their rights and the confidential nature of the interviews. The participants all consented to the structured interviews, which lasted for approximately one hour per participant. Most questions are open ended to allow the participants to express themselves freely.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the level of awareness of the recently adopted Safeguarding Policy, Participant A (a male student) was of the opinion that the existence of the Safeguarding Policy has led to increased awareness of the rights of students and the mechanisms of reporting a complaint. Participant C, a female faculty member, agreed with participant A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the level of safety offered by the Safeguarding Policy, participant B, a female student, held the view that the Safeguarding Policy was able to control illicit activities both among the students and from faculty and staff who would otherwise exploit students. However, she holds the view that students tend to abuse the Policy because they arbitrarily report cases. When prompted, if such students who arbitrarily report cases are penalized in any form, participant B responded that the nature of the penalty for such students is not enough to deter students from setting up lecturers or their fellow students. Participant D believes that the Safeguarding Policy strikes a balance on the rights of the parties and is all encompassing. She stated that \u0026lsquo;the major problem is not the policy but the attitude of those that it seeks to protect.\u0026rsquo; She said that the majority of the HEI community has not taken time to read and understand the Safeguarding Policy but rather relies on the information given during training sessions and from what members of the community discuss among themselves. She said that this attitude is largely responsible for the misconceptions among faculty members that the Safeguarding Policy is targeted at male faculty members.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, all the interviewees agreed on the need to intensify training and create more awareness of the policy. According to participant D, \u0026lsquo;there is a need to take community ownership of the policy so that it will become effective.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe respondents of both the needs assessment and postproject studies were mostly young adults aged 15-24 years, which is the bulk of the population in HEIs. This study showed that while females may be more vulnerable to SHA, both males and females experience SHA. However, males are more willing to talk about their experiences than females are. Analysis of the data collected showed that respondents who reported frequent and recurring incidences of SHA were females. This finding supports earlier studies in Ghana (Norman et al, 2014) and Uganda (Agardh et al, 2011) in which female students were twice as likely to be sexually harassed than their male counterparts were.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the common perception that SHAs are usually perpetrated by academic staff at most tertiary learning institutions (BBC, 2019), this study reveals that any member of HEIs could perpetrate SHAs against students and young adults, thereby validating the claims of Erinosho (2018) and Aina-Pelemo et al. (2021). This revelation also supports the wide definition of an \u0026lsquo;educator\u0026rsquo; in the definition section of the Bill.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn line with the findings of previous studies (Chiodo et al, 2009), this study revealed the patterns of SHAs in HEIs, with unwanted physical touch, sexual jokes and comments, and corresponding sexual nature being the most common trends. The findings therefore show that there is no exhaustive list of acts or omissions that could constitute SHAs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile policies are essential for safeguarding young adults and women in HEIs, it is clear from the findings of this study that it is not sufficient to have policies in place; effort must be made to create adequate awareness of the content of the policies. It is also essential to conduct studies regularly to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of the policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a result of this study, the Gender Justice Project (GJP) was built to fill the gaps identified in this study as they relate to particular HEIs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7.\tThe Gender-Justice Project","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Gender Justice Project (GJP), an initiative of the Shehu Musa Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation (SMYF), was established to improve safeguarding against women and vulnerable adults in work and education spaces in Nigeria (Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation, 2024). Supported by the Ford Foundation, the GJP promotes the establishment of safe spaces for women and young girls by providing platforms to report sexual harassment and implementing frameworks and policies for safeguarding Nigerian institutions. The focus extends beyond sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) to safeguard itself in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.1. Project Implementation at AUN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe project began with a needs assessment to harmonize existing policies, develop a safeguarding policy, and create a safeguarding toolkit for policy implementation. A whistle-blowing platform was also developed, allowing anonymous reporting without fear of victimization. Policy enforcement was strengthened by forming committees with representatives from various university community stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGaps identified in the needs assessment were used to develop a standardized safeguard policy adopted and implemented at the AUN. Following its adoption by the Senate, the Safeguarding Toolkit was used to develop training curricula and materials. The university has structured compulsory training for all departments, with student training conducted in collaboration with the Student Governing Association (SGA). Safeguarding training was incorporated into the compulsory AUN 101 course for new students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA safeguarding committee was established to address complaints from individuals who experienced SHAs. Members drawn from all university departments and including student representatives underwent rigorous training before beginning investigations of complaints received through the whistle-blowing platform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLessons and outputs from the AUN project informed and influenced the implementation of projects on other university campuses, including the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Bayero University Kano (BUK), and the University of Lagos (UNILAG).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2. Advocacy coalition framework (ACF) analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ACF provides a comprehensive approach to understanding policy change by focusing on the interactions between various coalitions within a policy subsystem. Several key components of the ACF are particularly relevant to the GJP at the American University of Nigeria (AUN).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2.1. Coalitions and Shared Beliefs:\u003c/strong\u003e The primary coalitions involved in addressing SHAs in Nigerian tertiary institutions include the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e●\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Shehu Musa Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e●\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Gender rights activists in HEIs such as AUN, UNN, UNILAG and BUK\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e●\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Advocacy groups include women\u0026rsquo;s rights advancement and protection alternative (WRAPA), gender mobile, and education as a vaccine (EVA) groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e●\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Student organisations, including the Student Government Association at AUN and the National Federation of Female Students Associations in Nigeria (NFSAN)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e●\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Donors such as the Ford Foundation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese coalitions share a belief in the necessity of robust safeguarding policies and gender justice, aiming to make university communities safer for women and girls.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2.2. Focusing Events and Policy Windows:\u003c/strong\u003e A significant external event that influenced the policy subsystem was the 2019 BBC documentary \u0026lsquo;Sex for Grades: Undercover in West African Universities.\u0026apos; This documentary acted as a critical focusing event, drawing significant public and legislative attention to the issue of SHAs. This documentary provided a policy window that the GJP leveraged to advocate for significant reforms, including the implementation of comprehensive safeguarding policies at the AUN.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2.3. Strategies and Resource Mobilization:\u003c/strong\u003e The coalitions employed various strategies to achieve their goals, such as conducting awareness campaigns, developing and distributing a Safeguarding Toolkit, establishing a whistle-blowing platform for confidential reporting, and organizing training programs for students, staff, and administrators. The GJP effectively mobilized resources from donors, expertise from advocacy groups, and institutional support from the AUN to sustain its advocacy efforts and implement safeguarding measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2.4. Policy Learning and Adaptation:\u003c/strong\u003e Policy learning was crucial in the GJP approach. The project engaged in continuous policy learning by gathering feedback from the university community, assessing the effectiveness of safeguarding measures, and adapting strategies based on new insights. Surveys collected data on the prevalence and experiences of SHAs, and feedback was used to identify gaps and improve policy implementation. Knowledge was disseminated across the coalition through regular meetings, policy roundtables, and public forums.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe IAD framework focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules that shape policy outcomes. Applying the IAD framework to the GJP at the AUN provides further insights into the institutional changes and effectiveness of safeguarding measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3.1. Action Arena:\u003c/strong\u003e The primary action arena includes the AUN and other partner universities (the UNN, BUK, and UNILAG). This case study focuses on the AUN, where the project was implemented. The action arena comprises various participants, including students, staff, administrators, and external stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3.2. Participants:\u003c/strong\u003e The GJP participants included the Shehu Musa Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation, university administrators, faculty members, students, advocacy groups, and donors. Each plays a critical role in developing, implementing, and monitoring safeguarding policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3.3. Rules-in-use:\u003c/strong\u003e Before the GJP, rules-in-use were fragmented and inconsistent, often lacking comprehensive procedures for reporting and addressing SHA incidents. These rules were primarily reactive, focusing on punitive measures after incidents occurred, with little emphasis on prevention or systemic change. The GJP introduced new rules-in-use, including the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e● \u003cstrong\u003eStandardized Safeguarding Policy:\u003c/strong\u003e Provided clear guidelines on reporting and addressing SHA incidents, emphasizing prevention and creating a supportive environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e● \u003cstrong\u003eSafeguarding Toolkit:\u003c/strong\u003e Offers practical policy implementation guidelines, including training materials and resources for students and staff.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e● \u003cstrong\u003eWhistle-Blowing Platform:\u003c/strong\u003e Enabled confidential and anonymous reporting of SHA incidents, ensuring that reports could be made without fear of victimization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese changes ensured a coordinated and proactive response to SHAs, aligning with the coalitions\u0026apos; objectives of creating a safer educational environment and promoting gender justice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3.4. Interactions:\u003c/strong\u003e Interactions among participants involved regular training sessions, awareness campaigns, policy roundtables, and feedback mechanisms. These interactions facilitated continuous learning and adaptation, allowing the policies to evolve based on new insights and feedback from the university community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3.5. Outcomes:\u003c/strong\u003e The outcomes of the GJP at AUN included increased awareness of SHA, higher reporting rates through the whistle-blowing platform, and improved institutional capacity to respond to SHA cases. The establishment of safeguarding committees and the integration of safeguarding training into the AUN 101 course are significant achievements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3.6. Evaluation of Institutional Arrangements:\u003c/strong\u003e The institutional arrangements at the AUN were strengthened through the GJP, primarily because the rules-in-use were improved. The creation of safeguarding committees, regular training programs, and the implementation of a whistle-blowing platform enhanced the university\u0026rsquo;s ability to prevent and respond to SHAs. The standardized safeguarding policy provided clear guidelines and practical tools, ensuring a proactive and coordinated response. However, challenges such as resistance to change, lack of awareness, and cultural norms persist, requiring ongoing efforts to address these barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.4. Challenges and barriers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe GJP faced challenges and barriers, including opposition from individuals and groups within the university who were resistant to change and institutional barriers such as lack of awareness, inadequate training, and cultural norms that perpetuate SHAs. Overcoming these obstacles requires persistent advocacy and engagement with stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Postproject Study","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo test the effectiveness of the GJP, a survey was conducted after three years of project implementation using the same survey used for the needs assessment but with the addition of the Safeguarding Policy. The findings show a gradual relapse in the efforts made by the GJP, which could be attributed to several factors, including institutional leadership interests/continuity, inadequate access to the Safeguarding Policy and reduced awareness and training on the Policy. The postproject survey revealed that while there was an improvement in the protection of women and young adults in AUN, there was still a gap reflected in the level of awareness and complaint mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA perusal of the available documents on AUN’s website shows that while AUN sexual harassment policy is publicly available, the same cannot be said of the Safeguarding Policy that was posted on the website shortly after the closure of the GJP. It is therefore imperative to adopt a sustainable approach to maintaining a protective culture against SHAs in HEIs. It is also important to involve students actively in the protection and awareness culture of SHAs in HEIs, as achieved at the University of Lagos (Akiyode-Afolabi, et al, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"9. Conclusion and recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study showed that even though the HEI had SHA in place, members of the HEI cannot be described as having the requisite awareness and education of the policies. It was also found that having policies in place must be complemented by strong and impartial implementing bodies in place.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is therefore important that HEIs be determined to ensure that the learning environment is safe for all individuals, especially females and young adults. The management of every HEI must put measures in place to ensure that students, staff and visitors are aware of their safeguarding policies on SHAs as well as the penalties associated with violating those policies. It is also crucial for those saddled with the implementation of these policies to have the requisite capacity and update their ability to respond to the needs of members of the HEI on a regular basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollow-up research is needed to test the effectiveness of the GJP by conducting a similar study in a pilot institution and other HEIs that have adopted the safeguarding policy. This will measure the effectiveness of the GJP and the follow-up initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number: Not applicable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical consideration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American University of Nigeria, Nigeria, with protocol number\u0026nbsp;PRO-20-04-04 and approval number\u0026nbsp;AUN-20-04-04. The research was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the IRB as listed in the ethics statement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data for this research are not publicly available to protect the privacy of the research participants in accordance with ethical approval and the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023. The interviews were video recorded with the approval of the participants who were not given approval to share the recordings. The survey contains sensitive information, and the university has not given permission to share the data publicly. The data can be requested directly from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish the declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdelakun, O., 2021. Internally displaced children in Nigeria: A rights-based situational appraisal. In: R. Adeola, ed. National Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa: Beyond the Rhetoric . s.l.:Springer International Publishing, pp. 65-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAgardh, A., Odbeng-Petterson, K. \u0026amp; Ostergren, O., 2011. Experience of sexual coercion and risky sexual behavior among Ugandan university students. BMC Public Health, Volume 11, p. 527.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAina-Palemo, A. D. \u0026amp; Wellington, O. A., 2023. Institutional frameworks for sexual harassment in Nigeria: Perspective of higher education students. UI Law Journal, Volume 12, pp. 234-266.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAkiyode-Afolabi, A. et al., 2022. Harnessing student involvement: Perspectives from building infrastructure for sexual harassment prevention and response at the University of Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Global Health, Volume 12.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAyado, S., 2024. Senate passes a sexual harassment bill and pegs 14-year jail term for predators at a tertiary institution. Business Day.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBritish Broadcasting Corporation, 2019. Sex for Grade, s.l.: BBC.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChambers, D., Cantrell, A. \u0026amp; Booth, A., 2021. Recognition of risk and prevention in safeguarding of children and young people: A mapping review and component analysis of service development interventions aimed at health and social care professionals. BMC Health Services Research, Volume 21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChiodo, D. et al., 2009. Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20 March, 45(3), pp. 246-252.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDziech, B. W. \u0026amp; Weiner, L., 1990. The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus. 2nd Edition ed. s.l.:University of Illinois Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErinosho, S., Oduwole, E. \u0026amp; Femi-Oyewo, M., 2018. Sexual harassment on campus: A study in a Nigeria University. AGOGO Journal of Humanities, Volume 4.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIbezim, E., 2023. Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions in Nigeria: The Developing Law and Practice. Journal of Legal Studies and Research, 9(6), pp. 257-286.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJoseph, J., 2015. Sexual harassment in tertiary institutions: A comparative perspective. Temida, 18(2), pp. 124-144.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLadebo, O. J., 2003. Sexual harassment in academic in Nigeria: How real?. African Sociological Review, 7(1), pp. 117-161.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeach, F., 2013. Corruption as abuse of power: sexual violence in educational institutions. In: Transparency International, ed. Global Corruption Report: Education. s.l.:Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee, E., 2023. What is safeguarding in schools?, s.l.: CPD Online College.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMackinnon, C., 1979. Sexual Harassment of Working Women. s.l.:Yale University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMordi, K., 2019. S*x for Grades: BBC documentary exposes UNILAG lecturer more. 7 October.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOstrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOwoaje, E. T. \u0026amp; Olusola-Taiwo, O., 2009.\u0026nbsp;Sexual Harassment Experiences of Female Graduates of Nigerian Tertiary Institutions. International Quarterly Community EducationHealth Education, 30(4), pp. 337-348.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSabatier, P. A. \u0026amp; Jenkins-Smith, H. C. eds., 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy). Ist Edition ed. s.l.:Westview Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSMYF, 2024. Shehu Musa Yar\u0026apos;Adua Foundation. [Online] Available at: yaraduafoundation.org\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e[Accessed 2nd June 2024].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe University of Zambia, 2006. The University of Zambia HIV and AIDS policy, Lusaka: UNZA Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTill, F. J., 1980. Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students, Washington DC: National Council on Women\u0026apos;s Education Programs.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTolu-Kolawole, D., 2024. Asuu backs FG at 18 years of university admission age. Punch Nigeria, 23 April.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Bank Group, 2024. Tertiary Education, s.l.: World Bank.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYin, R. K., 2009. CaseStudy Research: Designs and methods. 4th ed. s.l.:Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZuure, D. N., 2018. 2018. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(2), pp. 50-55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Public Health](https://link.springer.com/journal/12982)","snPcode":"12982","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/12982/3","title":"Discover Public Health","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"gender justice, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, safeguarding, tertiary institutions, Nigeria","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6128133/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6128133/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSexual harassment and abuse (SHA) in Nigerian Tertiary Educational Institutions has been a persistent issue, contributing to a rise in gender-based violence and creating an atmosphere of fear among students. The 2019 BBC documentary \u0026lsquo;Sex for Grades: Undercover in West African Universities\u0026rsquo; revealed the alarming prevalence of SHA, prompting significant public and legislative attention. Unfortunately, the success was only short-lived, as the menace found its way back into the educational systems but reinforced her zest at concealing acts of SHAs, which made detection challenging. In response, the Shehu Musa Yar\u0026rsquo;Adua Foundation, with support from the Ford Foundation, launched the Gender Justice Project (GJP) to develop and implement standardized safeguarding policies to prevent SHAs and promote gender justice in tertiary institutions across Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper analyses the effectiveness of safeguard policies and mechanisms as deterrents to SHAs at universities, using the American University of Nigeria as a case study. It employs the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to analyze the development and impact of the GJP at the American University of Nigeria (AUN). The ACF highlights the role of coalitions of stakeholders with shared beliefs in driving policy change, while the IAD framework focuses on the institutional arrangements and rules that govern decision-making processes. Using an explorative and participatory method, this study evaluated the effectiveness of safeguarding measures implemented at the AUN under the GJP. Despite the University\u0026rsquo;s perception of having strong policies in place, data collected from students and young adults revealed significant gaps in policy effectiveness. This analysis provides insights into the collaborative efforts and institutional changes required to enhance safeguarding policies. We make recommendations based on the GJP findings, including the application of anticorruption laws to prosecute SHA cases as corrupt practices.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Safeguarding Students and Young Adults in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions: An Evaluation of the Gender Justice Project","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-03 09:24:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6128133/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-04-22T17:16:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-21T06:21:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"266011987920522344054544450311498431335","date":"2025-04-12T10:11:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-10T10:43:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"79459013781364856561728295387976903753","date":"2025-04-06T10:34:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-01T07:44:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-03-27T09:26:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-03-20T22:34:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Public Health","date":"2025-03-20T22:33:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Public Health](https://link.springer.com/journal/12982)","snPcode":"12982","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/12982/3","title":"Discover Public Health","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"84458860-d079-4630-af1d-f759e0a6ddf6","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-17T16:06:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6128133","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-01064-w","journal":{"identity":"discover-public-health","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Discover Public Health"},"publishedOn":"2025-11-10 15:57:23","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 10th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-03 09:24:47","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12982-025-01064-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-01064-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6128133","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6128133","identity":"rs-6128133","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}