Students who face harassment or sexual misconduct while at university can be left feeling devastated, with some wondering whether they can continue their studies. Ensuring those who come forward feel supported by their institution is crucial.

That is why we are determined that procedures for responding to student reports of harassment and sexual misconduct are robust, transparent and informed by best practice – a situation that will help ensure institutions are trusted by everyone involved in any complaint or investigation.

To achieve this we have launched a consultation seeking views on a examining these reporting procedures. To help us prepare this section, we’ve consulted widely with frontline practitioners, sexual violence liaison officers, experts in investigations, complaints handlers and student advocates.

This work has provided an enormous amount of insight into how the sector’s procedures operate, with five key themes emerging from our discussions with experts – all of which we have emphasised throughout our draft.

����Vlog

The first is welfare. Supporting those who bring forward testimony of misconduct is, of course, paramount. But being investigated for this kind of misconduct can also have a profound impact: it is essential to ensure that students in this position are offered the same high-quality advice and compassionate support. Students benefit from support that is ongoing and available when they need it, not only at set points in a process. To do so, providers may need to make use of both internal resource and external services to deliver the support students need.

Staff welfare should also not be overlooked. Although the OIA has no direct role to play in the employer-employee relationship, our guidance recognises that staff taking on investigatory roles must be supported to minimise the distress of undertaking such work.

����Vlog

To support student and staff welfare, effective communication is also crucial. Reporting students need clear information about the process, what it can and can’t achieve, and alternative options such as making a report to the police. Reporting students also need to be informed of the outcomes of making a report, including when a staff disciplinary policy has been engaged. We welcome input from human resources and legal professionals about how (not whether) this can be achieved.

Those students facing accusations also need clear information about the misconduct that is being investigated, about the process and about the possible consequences if a finding of misconduct is made. Communication should be simple, direct and iterative. We encourage providers to draw on the principles of .

The third theme is flexibility. Already one of our , being flexible and responsive to the specific circumstances that are reported to a provider is critical to balancing the complex and sometimes competing needs of those involved. Although the draft framework outlines a chronological process for responding to reports and then conducting investigations under a student disciplinary process, it recognises the need to listen to students and adapt. Anyone looking for a one-size-fits-all step-by-step guide to fairness will, we’re afraid, be somewhat disappointed.

The fourth theme is assessing risk. In our experience of casework, providers usually carry out a risk assessment when a formal report is made. However, we have heard uncertainty from providers about how and when to consider risk, particularly in response to anonymous reports, or in a perceived grey area between a “disclosure” and a formal “report”. Clearly providers will not always be able to fully describe risks or identify mitigations when the information they are given is limited.  

����Vlog

Our view is that it is good practice to begin the assessment of risk as soon as possible, and to revisit the assessment regularly and when new information emerges. It’s essential that risk management is not seen as a one-off activity. When processes may become drawn out for reasons beyond the provider’s control, it’s particularly important to regularly re-evaluate the effectiveness and impact of risk mitigations. We would welcome input from providers who feel that they have a particularly strong risk methodology in this area.

Training is the final thread that runs through the draft. We have heard from experts who support people who have experienced harassment or sexual misconduct, that the impact of a poorly handled process can be severe, both compounding and prolonging trauma. It is not reasonable to expect any member of staff to take on support, investigative or decision-making roles without appropriate training to support their understanding of the purpose of the role they will undertake, and the skills necessary to do so effectively. The framework does not describe a comprehensive training programme, but it does suggest some areas for inclusion. The framework itself can form the basis for some training in what makes a process fair.

We recognise that many providers have already invested heavily in developing their processes for responding to reports of harassment and sexual misconduct, while others are at an earlier stage. We intend for the framework to offer helpful operational guidance for the whole sector, and would be grateful to hear your thoughts.

Jo Nuckley is head of outreach and insight at the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for ����Vlog. The OIA consultation on the is open until 6 February 2026.

����Vlog