When people report being sexually assaulted they can be examined by a specially trained doctor to see how the assault might have affected them. They may also ask for help from a counsellor or other specially trained support workers. These staff might belong to a sexual assault referral centre (SARC). This study reports findings from work that staff from St Mary's SARC in Manchester did so that they could improve the services they offer to people with learning disabilities who have been sexually assaulted. A staff survey showed that staff thought they might not always recognise if a person had learning disabilities or another learning difficulty like dyslexia. We wonder if knowing the difference is as important as knowing how to support people well. Looking at patient notes showed that patients with learning disabilities received less follow‐up care than patients without learning disabilities. This study describes the first step that the SARC team took to improve their service. Improvements have been made based on these first findings, including some of those recommended by staff in their surveys. These will be reported in another paper to see if they have made a difference to people with learning disabilities. Abstract Background People with learning disabilities are more likely to experience sexual abuse and less likely to access support than the general population, this is due to a range of variables at the individual, societal and service‐delivery level. This study presents a service evaluation of St Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre, Manchester to explore its ability to provide meaningful support to people with learning disabilities and to identify ways to improve its responses. Materials and Methods The service evaluation had two components: (i) A staff survey to elicit self‐perception of the knowledge and skills required to meaningfully support people with learning disabilities who attended the centre following an allegation of rape or sexual assault (ii) An audit of patient notes to compare service delivered to patients with a learning disability to those without. Results Forty‐two members of staff (over 75% response rate) completed the survey which found a lack of differentiation between learning disabilities and other types of neurodiversity. The majority of responders reported having enough knowledge about learning disabilities to do their job and feeling confident in their abilities. Nonetheless, all the staff reported that they would like more learning disability training. An audit of the patients’ notes found people with learning disabilities accessed fewer follow‐up care services than people without learning disabilities. Conclusions The results identify areas for staff training to improve meaningful support for people with learning disabilities alongside a note of caution against a focus on labelling. By introducing more accessible support a diverse group of people can benefit.