Blog10 March 2026
If reports of harassment and sexual misconduct increase at a university, does that mean the problem is getting worse, or that students finally trust the system enough to come forward?
In July 2024, the Office for Students (OfS) introduced a new condition of registration requiring universities and colleges to strengthen how they prevent and respond to these issues. A pilot survey published alongside the announcement highlighted both the scale of the issue and the gap between experiences and formal reporting: 20% of students reported unwanted sexual behaviour, yet only 12% of those who experienced sexual harassment made a formal report to their university. Women were more than twice as likely as men to report sexual harassment and more than three times as likely to report sexual assault or violence.
These figures underline both the prevalence of harm and the challenge of interpreting progress. The question becomes even more relevant in light of the Home Office’s December 2025 review of what works to reduce violence against women and girls.
Understanding what reporting data can and cannot tell us is essential when universities want to measure whether their actions are actually reducing harm.
The reporting paradox in higher education
The OfS survey found that only 12% of students who experienced sexual harassment made a formal report to their university. This highlights a key challenge: reporting data does not directly measure the prevalence of harassment and sexual misconduct. In statistics we are often reminded that correlation does not imply causation. A similar caution applies here: reporting rates do not directly measure prevalence.
Whether students choose to report an incident can depend on several factors, including awareness of reporting processes, confidence in how institutions will respond, perceptions of possible consequences, and trust in confidentiality and support. Changes in reporting levels may, therefore, reflect changes in trust and accessibility, rather than changes in the underlying level of harm. Similar dynamics have been observed in other sectors. In healthcare, for example, higher incident reporting rates in NHS hospitals have been associated with stronger safety cultures, as staff feel more able to report mistakes and near misses. In this context, increased reporting is often interpreted as a sign of greater openness and learning rather than an indication that safety problems are becoming more common.
In higher education, increased reporting may indicate that students feel more confident using institutional systems. On the other hand, reduced reporting may reflect disengagement, lack of trust in available processes or barriers to disclosure.
This creates a challenge and a risk for institutions attempting to measure progress. Activities such as new training programmes or policy reforms do not automatically translate into behavioural change, and changes in reporting levels may be interpreted as either improvement or deterioration.
Why this matters for inequality in higher education
Data published by the OfS in September 2025 provides further insights into the issue and shows that experiences of harassment and sexual misconduct are not evenly distributed across the student population. A national survey of final-year undergraduates found that 24.5% of respondents had experienced sexual harassment since starting university and 14.1% had experienced sexual assault or violence.
The data also shows clear disparities between student groups. Women were nearly three times more likely than men to experience sexual harassment (33%compared to 12.2%) and more than twice as likely to report sexual assault or violence (19% compared to 7%). Lesbian, gay and bisexual students also reported substantially higher rates of harassment and assault than heterosexual students.
If exposure to harassment and sexual misconduct is unevenly distributed, its consequences may also be uneven. Experiences of harm can affect students’ sense of belonging, wellbeing and ability to engage fully in university life. These factors are closely linked to overall student success including continuation and attainment.
Seen through this lens, harassment and sexual misconduct are not only safeguarding concerns. They may also intersect with the equality gaps that organisations such as TASO seek to understand and reduce.
What the wider evidence tells us
Insights from the Home Office’s December 2025 review of ‘what works’ to reduce violence against women and girls help explain why measuring progress in this area can be complex. The review synthesised findings from 125 systematic reviews on interventions aimed at preventing violence and supporting victims. While this review examines violence against women and girls across a range of settings, rather than harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education specifically, it provides useful insights into how different types of interventions influence behaviour and reporting.
One clear pattern in the review is that some interventions have a stronger impact on knowledge, attitudes and related short-term outcomes than on sustained behavioural change. Educational prevention programmes, for example, showed strong evidence of improving participants’ knowledge and awareness of violence against women and girls and reducing acceptance of harmful myths and gender stereotypes. However, evidence on whether these programmes reduce experiences of violence or abusive behaviour was more mixed. Bystander interventions – which focus on educating young people on consent and harm in sexual encounters – showed strong evidence of improving participant’s confidence and willingness to intervene, as well as some evidence of increased bystander action. However, the review also found that effects could diminish over time and there was limited evidence that such programmes reduce abusive behaviour.
This matters for higher education because it suggests that progress may not always be visible through simple outcome measures. Improvements in awareness, confidence or willingness to act are important, but they do not necessarily demonstrate reductions in harm. That makes careful interpretation of reporting trends especially important.
What this means for universities
The 2024 OfS condition of registration requires universities and colleges to strengthen their approach to preventing and responding to harassment and sexual misconduct. Institutions are expected to publish clear information about how incidents can be reported, what support is available to students, and how investigations will be handled. The condition also requires training for staff and students, prohibits the use of non-disclosure agreements in these cases, and asks institutions to address potential power abuses in staff-student relationships.
These measures are designed to strengthen institutional systems and improve how universities respond when incidents occur. However, the evidence discussed above suggests that evaluating progress in this area is not straightforward. If interventions primarily influence awareness, confidence and willingness to report, then changes in reporting levels may be one of the first observable outcomes. In that context, increases in reporting may reflect improved trust in institutional systems rather than increases in underlying harm.
For universities, this highlights the importance of being clear about which outcomes interventions are intended to influence, and of interpreting reporting data carefully when assessing progress.
One way to strengthen evaluation is to map out how institutional approaches are expected to work, for example through a theory of change, and to track a wider range of outcomes beyond reporting rates. Collecting additional evidence, such as surveys or qualitative feedback from students about awareness, trust and experiences of reporting processes, can also help provide context for interpreting trends.
Beyond reporting: building an evidence base
The OfS condition provides important momentum for tackling harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education. At the same time, the wider evidence base highlights the complexity of measuring progress in this area.
Reporting data can provide valuable insights into how students engage with institutional systems. However, changes in reporting levels alone cannot determine whether harm is increasing or decreasing. They may reflect shifts in awareness, confidence and accessibility rather than changes in underlying prevalence of misconduct.
For universities, the challenge is therefore not only to implement policies and interventions, but also to interpret the signals those interventions produce. Doing so carefully is particularly important where experiences of harm are unevenly distributed across the student population. Women are disproportionately affected by these harms, meaning that efforts to address them are closely linked to wider questions about equality, safety and participation in higher education.
As universities continue to strengthen their approaches under the OfS condition, developing evaluation strategies that go beyond reporting rates should be considered essential. Combining reporting data with other indicators can help build a more complete picture of whether efforts to address harassment and sexual misconduct are making a meaningful difference.