DfE’s non-medical help research describes students’ support experiences and access difficulties

Updated Sep 07, 2026

The Department for Education published IFF Research’s report on non-medical help (NMH) through Disabled Students’ Allowance on 30 April 2026. It concerns England and describes students’ experiences and perceived support quality; publication did not itself introduce a new rule. GOV.UK publication.

Who the research includes

The study focused on experiences of NMH in 2024/25, using Student Loans Company records across 2022/23–2024/25 to construct its sample. It reports 2,879 completed screening surveys, 200 interviews and a five-day online exercise with 12 students. Survey fieldwork ran from 30 June to 29 September 2025; data were weighted by age, gender and application year.

The report notes limitations from voluntary qualitative participation and its focus on students who received support. It therefore gives limited insight into people unable to access NMH. Methods and limitations, pages 13–16.

The summary reports application difficulties and unclear expectations alongside positive accounts of tailored, consistent support. Some participants described delays until their second semester. It also describes generic advice and changes of support worker as problems. These are reported experiences, rather than independently measured effects on retention or attainment. Executive summary, pages 7–11.

Using the evidence in a support review

Our practical suggestion is to examine each stage of the local support journey: application, allocation, first contact and ongoing sessions. Invite feedback through accessible routes and include people whose applications stalled, so that a review of recipients does not become the only evidence of access.

Distinguish what students expected, what was agreed and what they received. Discuss who owns each step across the institution and external support providers. Clear roles can help a team investigate a difficulty without assuming all services offer the same kind of support.

Protect sensitive information when gathering or analysing comments. Do not combine individual case records with survey feedback simply because both mention disability. Agree the purpose, appropriate access and handling of urgent concerns before creating an aggregate report.

The student comment analysis governance checklist can support that planning. The research can guide questions for local review, but does not establish the quality of every institution or show that an analytics service improves support.

Review note, 7 September 2026: clarified the 2024/25 experience period, earlier sampling records, fieldwork and recipient-only limitation. Replaced broad national and causal claims with a bounded account of the published evidence.