What students say helped, when asked later

Consistently small, specific and human.

Ask people who nearly left and stayed what made the difference and the answers rarely name a service. They name a person who noticed, an extension that was granted without a fight, somebody who explained an option they did not know existed, or a message at the right moment.

The consistency of that across institutions suggests where the effect actually lies, which is in individual discretion exercised quickly rather than in the structure around it. Systems that remove discretion in the interests of consistency remove the thing that works.

The corollary is that the staff who produce these outcomes are frequently doing so slightly outside process, and an institution that formalises everything they do will not get the same result. What can be formalised is the permission and the time.

It also explains why support quality varies so much within one institution. It follows individuals rather than departments, and it leaves when they do, which is an argument for treating retention of these staff as a strategic matter rather than an administrative one.

The other thing students mention is being treated as an adult with a problem rather than as a case. That is a matter of tone and it is not trainable in a module, though it is entirely visible in how a service writes to people.