In 2024, the Office for Students (OfS) launched a pilot survey asking UK students about sexual misconduct during their time in higher education.
For the first time, there is now a national attempt to capture data on how widespread such incidents are, and how effectively students are supported when they come forward.
The release of the survey’s results will be a moment that reflects a growing reckoning within the sector: one in which the old tools and quiet handling of disclosures are no longer fit for purpose, and the need for culture change is undeniable.
This new initiative – known as the Sexual Misconduct Survey (SMS) – ran as a supplement to the National Student Survey (NSS), which since 2005 has become a familiar, if evolving, feature of the higher education calendar.
While the NSS focuses on broad measures of the student experience, the SMS attempts to delve into one of its most difficult and often under-reported aspects – sexual harassment, violence, and misconduct.
Its arrival comes against the backdrop of high-profile criticisms of university handling of disclosures, including the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and a new OfS regulatory condition (E6) requiring institutions to take meaningful steps to tackle harassment.
Understanding the SMS
The Sexual Misconduct Survey collects both qualitative and quantitative data on students’ experiences. It examines the prevalence of misconduct, the extent to which students are aware of reporting mechanisms, and whether they feel able to use them. Its core aim is clear – to ensure students’ experiences are not just heard, but systematically understood.
Previous, disparate studies — many led by the National Union of Students and grassroots campaigners — have long indicated that sexual misconduct in higher education is significantly under-reported. This is especially true for marginalised groups, including LGBTQ+ students, Black and disabled students, and students engaged in sex work. The SMS marks an attempt to reach further, with standardised questions asked at scale, across providers.
Despite its intention, the SMS is not without issues. A key concern raised by student support professionals is the opt-out design. Students were automatically enrolled in the survey unless they actively declined – a move which risks retraumatising victim-survivors who may not have realised the nature of the questions until too late.
Timing has also drawn criticism. Coming immediately after the exhaustive NSS — with its 26 questions and optional free-text fields — the SMS may suffer from survey fatigue, especially during an already intense period in the academic calendar. Low response rates could undermine the richness or representativeness of the data gathered.
There are also complex ethical questions about the language used in the survey. In striving for clarity and precision, the SMS employs explicitly descriptive terminology. This can potentially open up difficult experiences unrelated to higher education itself, including childhood abuse or incidents beyond university campuses. Anonymous surveys, by nature, can surface trauma but cannot respond to it — and without parallel safeguarding or signposting mechanisms, the risk of harm increases.
Lastly, the handling of disclosures matters. While survey responses are anonymous, students need to trust that institutions — and regulators — will treat the findings with sensitivity and respect. Transparency about how data will be used, how institutions will be supported to act on it, and how students will see change as a result is essential to building that trust.
What to do next?
The data from the pilot survey will be shared with institutions where response rates and anonymity thresholds allow. But even before the results arrive, universities have an opportunity — and arguably a duty — to prepare.
Universities should start by preparing leadership and staff to anticipate that the results may reveal patterns or prevalence of sexual misconduct that are difficult to read or acknowledge. Institutional leaders must ensure they are ready to respond with compassion and commitment, not defensiveness or denial.
Universities should be prepared to review support systems and communication now. Are reporting tools easy to find, accessible, and trauma-informed? Is the student community confident that disclosures will be taken seriously? These questions are important and there is potential for the survey to act as a prompt to review what is already in place as well as what might need urgent attention.
Universities should also engage students meaningfully. Institutions must commit to involving students — especially survivor advocates and representative bodies — in analysing findings and shaping the response. The worst outcome would be seeing the SMS as a tick-box exercise. The best would be for it to spark co-produced action plans.
When data is released, institutions avoid the urge to benchmark or downplay. Instead, they should be ready to own the story the data tells and act on the issues it raises. A lower prevalence rate does not necessarily mean a safer campus; it may reflect barriers to disclosure or fear of speaking out. Each result will be different, and a patchwork of responses is no bad thing.
Finally, it is important to look beyond the numbers and see the person. Qualitative insights from the SMS will be just as important as the statistics. Stories of why students did not report, or how they were treated when they did, offer vital direction for reform and should be something which university leaders and policy makers take time to think about.
This is only the first year of the SMS, and it is not yet clear whether it will become a permanent feature alongside the NSS. That said, whether the pilot continues or evolves into something new, the challenge it presents is real and overdue.
The sector cannot afford to wait passively for data. If the SMS is to be more than a compliance exercise, it must be the beginning of a broader culture shift – one that faces up to what students have long known, listens without defensiveness, and builds environments where safety, dignity, and justice are non-negotiable.
Lasting change will not come from surveys alone. Asking the right questions — and acting with purpose on the answers — is a critical start.
