The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

C hapter 2 The Pilot protocol

INTRODUCTION

2.1 This chapter details the operation of the SIVYC pilot during the period 1st October 2003 to 30th September 2004. It begins with a summary of the pre-pilot practices of the three main stakeholders, before detailing the SIVYC protocol and the changes that were made to the scheme as the pilot progressed. The final part of the chapter details the referral activity undertaken by each of the main partners before discussing the issues that remain for the future of the scheme.

Pre-Pilot Practices

Central Scotland Police

2.2 All crime recording for Central Scotland Police is managed by the Policing Management Unit ( PMU). The existing computerised crime recording system (Crimefile) allows letters to be generated for victims of all crime to inform them about the local Victim Support Scotland ( VSS) service and to advise them that they may be contacted by that service. Letters are generated from the police system by a field in the crime recording database, which is marked ' VSS Applicable' for all relevant cases. Letters are sent to all victims for both detected and undetected cases.

2.3 Pre-pilot, letters to victims alerted them to the local VSS service and advised them that their details would be passed on to that service unless otherwise requested by the victim. Victims had a period of 24 hours in which to contact the police and request that their details were not passed to VSS. Pre-pilot experience suggested that there were only a small number of victims who opted out of referral to Victim Support Scotland and these were mostly for minor incidents.

Victim Support Scotland ( VSS)

2.4 Victim Support Scotland has a network of community based services throughout Scotland along with services in each of the High Courts in Edinburgh and Glasgow and 49 Sheriff Courts. Services are delivered to both victims and witnesses of crime. During 2002-03, Victim Support Scotland supported over 105,000 people affected by crime as victims and witnesses - over 60,000 in their victim service and over 45,000 in their witness service.

2.5 Pre-pilot VSS practices in Forth Valley were the same as local offices across the country.

Local Victim Support offices receive lists of referrals from the police containing basic information about the victim and the nature of the offence. Local co-ordinators process this information and make an assessment of the victim's support needs, and provide, as appropriate, information packs delivered by post, telephone calls, face-to-face visits or other correspondence. The nature of the support given is logged on the local VSS monitoring system as is any further action taken or the outcomes of contact with the victim. Data is collated at the local area level on a monthly basis and is returned to one of Victim Support's central offices for analysis on a quarterly basis.

2.6 Information about the Children's Reporter, the Children's Hearings System and youth justice system per se, is not routinely available across VSS and very few of the VSS volunteers have specific training in youth justice issues. Despite this, VSS have made significant steps in recent years towards improving the services that are offered to victims of youth crime, including setting up the Victims of Youth Crime ( VOYCE) project in Dundee. This project, unlike the standard VSS local services, requires VSS staff to work closely with the Children's Reporter to ensure that victims of youth crime are afforded the opportunity to contribute to work that is undertaken with young people who have perpetrated crimes against them.

Scottish Children's Reporter Administration ( SCRA)

2.7 The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration ( SCRA) is Scotland's central administration for facilitating the work of Children's Reporters throughout the country. The SCRA 2003-2004 Annual Report (2005) shows that, in 2003-04, 45,793 children or young people were referred to the Reporter. Of these, 16,470 were referred on offence grounds and 33,379 on non-offence grounds.

2.8 Figures for 2003-04 show that, for Reporter's decisions on offence cases, approximately 11% were referred to a Children's Hearing, 9% were dealt with under an existing supervision requirement, 9% were referred to the local authority or police, for 11% of offence cases there was insufficient evidence to proceed and, for 42%, no further action was required.

2.9 All referrals, including offence referrals to local Reporters are recorded in SCRA's Referrals Administration Database ( RAD), a national database that was rolled out to all SCRA offices in 2002-03. This database records information on referrals received and processed by individual Reporters, detailing decisions made by the Reporter, the outcome of Hearings and disposal information.

2.10 Referrals to SCRA on offence grounds are usually made by the police. The Reporter's role is to assess whether the child is in need of a compulsory measure of supervision or other disposal and, after preliminary investigations, the Reporter will decide whether to:

• take no action;
• not arrange a hearing due to insufficient evidence;
• not arrange a hearing due to family action taken;
• not arrange a hearing but to divert the child elsewhere (for example, a restorative justice scheme);
• not arrange a hearing but refer the child to a local authority;
• not arrange a hearing as the young person is currently subject to supervisory measures; or
• arrange a hearing which will inform the final disposal option.

2.11 A summary of the Children's Hearings System is provided in Appendix 1.

Establishing the Pilot

2.12 At the start of the pilot, an implementation group was convened to develop the pilot protocol and to determine the key roles of each of the agencies involved in the pilot. Figure 2.1 provides an illustrative summary of the pilot protocol that was agreed.

Figure 2.1 The Pilot Protocol

Police Practices

2.13 The police bespoke crime recording system was modified to enable SIVYC monitoring and administration. During the pilot, every incident was recorded on the police system under a separate crime file. A Crime Reference Number ( CRNO) was allocated which provided a unique identifier for that incident. Each crime file could potentially have referenced multiple victims, multiple offenders and multiple charges. If there was no victim, the Procurator Fiscal ( PF) was recorded as the complainer (crime against the crown).

2.14 The pilot operated on the basis that it would be the police who would identify victims of youth crime that fell within its scope. When a Reporter received a police report, the police would indicate as part of that report, or in an attachment to the report, details of any victims connected to the offence.

2.15 Searches of the police recording database were carried out on a daily basis to identify incidents where the accused, or one of the accused, was aged under 16. Given the need to search on the basis of offender's date of birth, only detected cases were included in the pilot, where the perpetrator was known to have been under 16 at the time of the offence. Undetected cases were immediately filtered through the normal VSS local service referral route.

2.16 For clarification, the police recorded the date of birth of the offender at the time of the offence rather than at time of detection, so cases classified as 'youth crime' referred to those incidents where the perpetrator was aged under 16 at the time that the offence was committed, rather than when the crime was detected or processed.

2.17 Searches of the police databases were carried out by administrative staff. After identifying all SIVYC eligible incidents, some were screened out for the purposes of the SIVYC pilot. These included:

• cases where the PF was recorded as the victim;
• cases where the accused and the victim were resident in the same residence and VSS referral was considered an inappropriate decision in order to protect the safety of the victim;
• cases where the accused and the victim were primary relatives, for example, parent and child relationship, or where information about the progress of the case would have been available to the victim through another route; and
• cases of a sexual nature, where individual officers were assigned to provide support and offer a more in depth victim support service through one-to-one contact with the victim.

2.18 Additionally, some cases were 'greyed out' which did not enable administrative staff to mark them as SIVYC eligible cases. These included serious crimes and cases where Police Reports had been prepared and submitted before the review of the case in the SIVYC search. In these cases, the police 'opted out' on behalf of the victim. In November 2004, following the pilot period, the police database was revised to enable such cases to be marked as SIVYC eligible. Police discretion is still used, however, to filter out some serious crimes and others deemed inappropriate for referral.

2.20 The police database required a ' VSS' field to be triggered on the system to alert officers to incidents where the victim should be referred to VSS. This was the case for most victims who would ordinarily have been issued with a letter regarding the local VSS service. For the purposes of the pilot, the same field was used to indicate eligibility for the SIVYC pilot with the VSS trigger remaining on for all cases where SIVYC had been offered. The VSS trigger enabled a free text SIVYC field to be edited, in which administrators then indicated that SIVYC was applicable. Both the presence of a VSS trigger and the free text SIVYC marker collectively triggered a referral for SIVYC.

2.21 In cases where the SIVYC service was declined, the police amended the case file by editing the free text field to indicate that SIVYC (support and information) had been declined, and then deactivated the VSS marker. This enabled a search by VSS marker for all cases where the accused was under 16. If the VSS trigger was left on, this meant that either support from the VSSSIVYC team and/or information from the Reporter should be offered to the victim ie the victims details should be referred to one of these two agencies. The free text field was also used to note which, if either, had been declined. The VSS trigger 'off' should only have been used when both the VSSSIVYC service had been refused AND information directly from the Reporter had been refused. An entry to this effect should also have appeared in the free text field.

2.22 It was not possible to search the free text field for SIVYC as this retrieved all cases where SIVYC support and/or information had been both accepted or declined. Only by searching for cases where the VSS trigger was deactivated and the accused was under 16 could the police identify cases where SIVYC (support AND information) had been declined.

2.23 The four scenarios presented by the police recording system are shown below for all cases where one or more offenders had been identified as being aged under 16 at the time of the offence:

2.23 Where the police 'opted out' on behalf of the victim, the VSS trigger was removed.

2.24 For all cases that were not SIVYC declined, a letter from the police was generated to explain the nature of the SIVYC service and inform them that their details would be passed to the VSSSIVYC team unless the police were advised otherwise. Victims had 48-hours in which to opt out of the scheme. Where the victim was under 16, the police wrote to the parent or guardian.

2.25 For the SIVYC pilot, the crime management unit worked on a daily basis to identify all victims of youth crime and highlight these on the database. A dedicated victim support liaison officer collated lists of victims of youth crime which was sent by fax to the VSSSIVYC team on a daily basis. This included victims across all crime categories.

2.26 Information provided to the VSSSIVYC team included the Crime Reference Number, victim details, brief details of the incident, date of reporting, date of detection and date of entry onto the police system. Referrals should not have been made for corporate/commercial crimes where there was no victim and lists received by VSS from the police should also have excluded victimless crimes.

2.27 Witnesses were, on occasions, also listed on the reports sent to VSS and, in such cases, the VSSSIVYC team filtered out these cases as appropriate. Police lists sometimes included multiple entries for one victim if there was more than one offender, or more than one charge associated with the incident for each or all offender(s).

2.28 For all recorded youth crimes, the police also generated a list of referrals to SCRA. These lists contained the names of victims that were eligible for the pilot - one of the main obligations that the police undertook in the pilot. This list identified all SIVYC cases where there had been no opt out of information from the Reporter and indicated if a specific request had been made by the victim that information be received direct from the Reporter rather than via VSS. In all other cases, the Reporter must assume that information was to be sent directly, unless contacted by VSS who requested that information should be sent via the VSS office as requested by the victim. Only if a victim had been in contact with VSS and requested this diversion should information have been sent this way.

Victim Support Scotland

2.30 From the start of the pilot, Victim Support Scotland had a dedicated SIVYC team. This team complemented the local services that were already in place, which continued to operate as before. Existing services comprised two full time victim service office bases, one in Stirling and one in Falkirk, and one part time office in Clackmannanshire. The VSSSIVYC team in Forth Valley comprised three dedicated, paid staff (a co-ordinator, a youth justice officer and an administrator) in addition to youth justice trained volunteers. At the start of the pilot it was envisaged that 18 volunteers would be needed. These were recruited and 15 were active by the end of the 12 month pilot period.

2.31 The VSSSIVYC team took referrals both directly from the police and from other sources (self-referrals and local service referrals). Victims of undetected incidents who self-referred were only eligible for VSS support and generic information relating to the youth justice system and did not qualify for information on Reporters decisions. Witnesses were also only eligible for these services, but not for Reporter decision information. VSSSIVYC operated a policy on prioritisation akin to that used within the generic Victim Service.

2.32 On receipt of referral lists, all eligible victims were sent an initial information letter that explained more about the SIVYC service. This was followed up by telephone or face-to-face contact within 48 hours of anticipated receipt of the letter. When making contact, VSS staff tried to ascertain the support and information needs of victims and action these appropriately. For victims who did not qualify for the 'full' SIVYC service (eg witnesses, corporate victims etc), generic youth justice information and support was offered.

2.33 Different practices were in place for child victims and adult victims. In the course of the pilot, VSS developed separate information leaflets for adult and child victims and these were distributed accordingly. The adult version of the information leaflets were launched in September 2003 and final versions of the younger age range materials were available from May 2004. As a point of note, VSS records showed that for those victims referred into the scheme where age was known, 396 were 16 years or under and 778 were over the age of 16. Sixty of the over 16's were in the 17-20 age bracket. There were 165 females aged 0-16 and 231 males. In total, 294 of these were victims of assault.

2.34 For the purposes of the pilot, the VSSSIVYC team developed a new database and contact record form. This form enabled VSS to collect information on the impact of youth crime more accurately than their generic victims services are able to do. The SIVYC database recorded this information, in addition to all information received from the police and information about follow up action taken by the team and any outcomes of contact. The database enabled VSS to identify those cases where information or support was given, what information was provided by the Reporter, and any follow up contacts made.

2.35 All victim records were marked to indicate whether the victim had requested the information, had opted into victim information and support to be delivered by VSS or for information to be sent directly from SCRA. Cases where VSS had been unable to make contact with the victim were marked to receive information directly from SCRA. There was some variation in the number of attempted contacts made with a victim before they were marked as such, however, all victims received an initial information letter with VSS contact details in the event that they chose to opt in via VSS. These latter cases were only temporarily marked as closed and could be re-opened if the victim contacted VSS after the referral had been passed to SCRA. This included victims who opted to receive information directly from the Reporter (actively or by default) but who sought post-decision support from VSS. The VSS database also contained a comments section which enabled staff to enter reasons why the victim had chosen to opt out of the scheme where this was known (ie contact had been made and the victim had opted to receive information directly from SCRA).

2.36 Where the Reporter's initial decision was to refer the case to a Hearing, the case remained open until a final decision was made.

2.37 In addition to referral administration, the SIVYC team engaged in a number of public and community awareness raising activities throughout the pilot. These included visits and presentations to Community Councils, Church Groups, Youth Groups and the Youth Justice Network Conference. The VSS team also invested staff time and resources into distributing SIVYC information packs to local libraries and community facilities throughout Forth Valley.

SCRA

2.38 At SCRA, recording of victims referred was complex since it required matching victim records to offence grounds referred for individual children and young people. The Referrals Administration Database ( RAD) records details of all young people referred to the Reporter and lists associated offence and other grounds for which they have been referred. For the pilot, SCRA were able to integrate requirements through existing screens for young people referred. A new victim information screen was added to accommodate a wide range of information within one record.

2.39 Like VSS, SCRA received regular lists from the police of crimes in which a young person had been involved and an eligible SIVYC victim could be identified. The trigger for the creation of a victim record form on the RAD, however, was receipt of a Standard Police Report ( SPR). The RAD is designed such that it generates its own unique identifiers.

2.40 The RAD contains a registration receipt date, generated when the case was entered. This is the date that the police report was received - not necessarily when the request for information was made. A victim record date indicated when the victim record was generated but, again, this was not necessarily linked to the time of request for information. Other fields were included for the victim's name and contact details and communications fields to indicate what types of letters were to be sent, when and also the dates that letters were issued. A registration screen was used to record the details of the Reporter responsible for considering each individual ground referred.

2.41 Cases were entered onto the RAD and letters generated locally at Reporter offices. Cases could, however, be scrutinised centrally and copies of letters generated from headquarters.

2.42 Standard letters, as agreed at the pilot implementation stage, were issued with advice that victims should contact VSS for further explanation or support. VSS follow-ups with victims could be ongoing but, for the purpose of the SIVYC scheme, no additional information was available from SCRA.

2.43 The protocol developed for the SIVYC pilot meant that SCRA provided information (on an opt out basis) despite the only legal requirement being for information provision when requested.

2.44 Two months into the pilot a SIVYC co-ordinator was employed to take on responsibility for all administrative work required by SCRA in relation to SIVYC referrals. The role of the co-ordinator became central to the administration of the SIVYC pilot at an early stage and she acted as the main liaison between the SCRA and the partner agencies. The role involved regular monitoring of incoming SPRs to ensure that SIVYC eligible cases were dealt with promptly and noting victims' requirements on the RAD. The co-ordinator also undertook the task of distributing referral outcome letters to VSS and to victims (as appropriate) and played a crucial role in answering victim enquiries that came directly to SCRA, for example, seeking clarification of the information received. The co-ordinator provided valuable input into the revisions of the scheme based on their interaction with the partners and victims involved in the pilot. The co-ordinator continues to work closely with Reporters in ensuring that referral information is delivered in a timely and accessible fashion.

Changes to the Pilot Protocol

2.45 From early contacts with each of the stakeholders, it became clear that some difficulties were being encountered with the scheme as set out in the original pilot protocol.

Identifying Victims

2.46 From the outset of the pilot, it seems that some confusion existed about who should be responsible for identifying eligible victims. Both VSS and SCRA expressed disappointment that they were having to review police reports and referral lists to try and identify numbers of victims for each incident and numbers of victims eligible for the pilot, and it was felt that this was an obligation for the police as set out in the originally agreed protocol. This resulted in unnecessary duplication of effort by both VSS and SCRA staff.

2.47 Police lists received by VSS were also inconsistent with lists being issued to SCRA. VSS often received details of cases with eligible victims before SCRA. When VSS contacted SCRA to request victim information, SCRA were unable to locate the appropriate case records since the Standard Police Report ( SPR), which initiated the victim record, had not yet been received.

2.48 A meeting between the key partners ten months into the pilot resolved that the police would continue to send VSSSIVYC the daily referral sheet identifying victims of detected youth crime who had not opted out of SIVYC. The team would therefore continue to support all the victims of detected youth crime they received referrals for.

2.49 It was decided that the police would cease to send a copy of this sheet to SCRA. Instead, once a decision had been made that a young person would be referred to the Reporter on offence grounds, the police would send a referral sheet identifying the victims to both VSS and SCRA. This would be done at a time when the Police Report had been sent to the Reporter or jointly to the Procurator Fiscal and Reporter in joint referrals (discussed below).

2.50 This was intended to also identify the numbers of offenders per victim for VSS and the actual victim details for SCRA - information that was not provided previously.

2.51 The partners agreed that this adaptation would now activate the Reporter decision process rather than the original method whereby information was sent to SCRA at the initial referral stage (without associated SPRs).

Communications with Victims

2.52 One of the earliest changes to the pilot protocol concerned the wording of the standard letters to be issued to victims. The police letter was changed to ensure that victims were clear about the distinction between the two strands (support and information) of the SIVYC service, and that they were able to opt out of one or both elements.

2.53 There was also some confusion expressed by victims about who had sent the initial correspondence regarding the SIVYC service. Since police letters were signed by the Victim Support Liaison Officer, many victims mistook this to mean that the letter had been issued by a member of the VSS team. Letters were changed to show clearly that they originated from the Policing Management Unit.

2.54 For cases where victims had been referred to the local VSS service prior to a case being identified as a youth crime, VSS were also concerned that letters from the VSSSIVYC service could be confusing. Again, these letters were adapted to make clear the distinction between the local and dedicated VSSSIVYC services.

2.55 Where an individual had been the victim of more than one offender in a single incident, or where there was more than one charge against an offender for a single incident, multiple decision letters would be generated. Where victims requested it, VSS retained letters relating to single grounds referred or single perpetrators charged until all decisions had been made in respect of the incident. This meant that victims received only one letter informing them of all decisions rather than ad hoc letters as separate grounds were concluded. VSS prepared covering letters to attach to multiple decision letters from SCRA when forwarding them to victims.

2.56 SCRA letters were also modified to indicate whether decisions related to perpetrator one of two, or incident one of two (etc) as appropriate. This was to clarify for victims and VSS the total number of decisions that might be expected in total, since the number of grounds referred could not always be deduced from police correspondence with VSS.

2.57 Experience early in the pilot also meant that VSS requested copies of letters sent to victims where no contact had been made and they received information direct from the Reporter by default. This facilitated communication with victims who contacted VSS after receiving a decision letter and who sought post-information support.

2.58 A change was also made to one of the standard Reporter's decision letters as a result of wording that seemed to indicate that an offence was not serious. At the end of the pilot, further changes to Reporter letters were pending and are discussed below.

2.59 In addition to revising prototype letters, a new '90 day courtesy letter' was developed by the VSSSIVYC team. VSS was concerned about the time between initial contact with victims and the outcome of cases. Three months could pass following initial contact and still no outcome information was available. At this time, VSS wanted to be able to contact victims to explain that they had not been forgotten about, and that, due to procedural considerations, the information would be delayed.

2.60 A similar courtesy letter was developed by SCRA to inform VSS of delays with decisions that they were awaiting. This letter was developed for cases where there had been a significant delay in achieving final decisions, usually due to delays in receiving the reports required for presentation at Hearing.

2.70 Against protocol expectations, SCRA also reported that they were not issuing victims with information letters when Hearings had been arranged. They felt that this was administratively time consuming and not helpful to the victim and was one way in which the process could be streamlined.

Automatic Updates

2.71 The SCRA database was observed in the early months of the pilot to automatically update the victim record field when staff entered the system to update or read entries on the RAD. The victim record date updated to the date of access entry and this was changed soon after the error was noticed. It did mean, however, that some victims in the monitoring exercise showed victim records that had been created significantly later than the date that the victim referral had actually been made.

The Revised Protocol

2.72 Figure 2.2 provides a summary of the revised pilot protocol encompassing all changes introduced and clarifying any re-definition of roles that occurred during the pilot.

Figure 2.2 SIVYC Pilot Process including procedural changes and requests for changes.

issues that Remain at the end of the pilot

2.73 At the conclusion of the pilot period, final formal interviews were carried out with representatives from each of the three principal stakeholder organisations. These identified the main successes of the pilot, as perceived by the principal stakeholders, in addition to highlighting a number of areas of ambiguity that still existed in the administration of the pilot. Before going on to explore the operation of the pilot in more detail, these are highlighted. The main issues were:

• Unique Referral Identifier: It became apparent to the partners in the second quarter of the pilot's operation, that the CRNO being used by the police when issuing Standard Police Reports ( SPRs) to the SCRA may subsume more than one CRNO as supplied to VSS. To allow accurate tracking of victims across the three agencies, identifiers were required not only for victims, but for incidents, offenders and charges. An indication of the SPR numbers in which multiple entries can be found was also required to enable successful tracking across the systems. Since it was not possible to share personal details for victims and offenders between the agencies, nominal identifications needed to be derived. This is something that requires further exploration and is discussed in chapter six.

• Correspondence and Multiple Contacts with Victims: As the pilot progressed, all partners had concerns about victims receiving multiple letters as part of the SIVYC scheme (initial police letter, letters from VSS, courtesy letters, referral decision letters, of which there may be more than one, and evaluation/feedback letters). Any rollout should, therefore, consider the potential for reducing multiple correspondence.

• Clarity of Letters: Although changes to victim decision letters were made during the pilot, further changes were thought to be required as stakeholders reported that some victims were still having difficulties in understanding referral decisions. This is something that SCRA were developing at the end of the pilot and is especially important for victims receiving information directly from SCRA (i.e. without a covering letter from VSS) as VSS letters often provided additional context in which the decision could be understood. Discussions with SCRA suggested that the revised letters would be more accessible to victims and preclude the need for additional covering letters from VSS.

• Joint Referrals: Confusion was arising where a crime was committed by a group of young people - one of whom was referred to the PF and for whom referral outcome information was not, therefore, available. In such cases, victims were confused about who referral information could be provided for.

• Review of Police Cases: The police reviewed cases on the police database on a daily basis with a search for cases where the accused was under 16 (juvenile accused) being used to highlight all SIVYC eligible cases. If there were no obvious reasons to 'opt out' the victim, the SIVYC marker was applied in the free text field. Whilst new accused added to the database in multiple offender cases were captured as part of this review process, new victims, added to cases that had already been reviewed and referred, were not systematically identified by the system. Whilst the police believed that such cases would be rare, repeat reviews of cases were possibly required to systematically identify new victims, such that SIVYC eligible victims were not lost in the system.

• Free Text Fields on Databases: Common to all databases, but especially the police and SCRA databases was the presence of 'free text' fields for completion by data entry staff. Manual errors in data entry were observed in all the databases when monitoring data was delivered to the research team. In particular, police use of free text fields to note opt in and opt out decisions resulted in some cases not being referred into the pilot which should have been. These are discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

• The ' SIVYC' Label: Early on in the assessment, it became clear that the term ' SIVYC' was being used as both the generic name for the pilot and to describe the VSS dedicated team responsible for implementing the VSS element of the SIVYC service. Data from interviews with victims, presented in chapter four, suggested that they were also confused about who was involved in administering the SIVYC scheme. This may suggest a need for greater clarity in initial letters to victims to explain the roles of respective partners in the scheme.

• Preparation of Standard Police Reports: One of the biggest problems faced by SCRA was the timely receipt of SPRs. A huge amount of work was done during and since the pilot and for the period from October 2004 to February 2005, the submission rate for reports to the Reporter within 14 days increased to a Force Average of 68.7%. This compared to a reported rate of mid 30's in the preceding year. Further steps were being taken at the time of writing to improve the rate further and the issues is noted here purely as a caution in the context of rollout, since other forces may experience similar process issues that may impact on a similar scheme elsewhere.

• Police Warnings: Further discussion may be required on how to engage with victims of cases where young people receive police warnings. Extending SIVYC to police warning cases was perceived by Victim Support Scotland as a potentially valuable extension to the SIVYC scheme as victims would still like to know that something happened. This may address the need of victims to know that something was done to confront the offending behaviour that affected them.

• Scope of the Service: Some of the key stakeholders identified a potential danger with the legislation being misinterpreted by the general public. For a number of reasons, victims may be confused about whether they are eligible to receive information when, in fact, they are, not. These include joint referrals where the PF/adult criminal justice system deals with the case and cases where the child is under the age of criminal responsibility. In light of these comments, it seems that a promotion strategy may be required to avoid any public misunderstanding that all victims of youth crime are eligible to receive referral decision information. Stressing the age confinements, the need for detection and some of the legal processes which may preclude some victims from accessing the 'full' service (ie VSS support, information and Reporter Decision Information), would need to be integral to any early public awareness raising of the SIVYC service.

• Opt Out Cases: Reassurance was needed that involuntary opt outs were occurring on a systematic and well grounded basis. Clarity was also required on who should be storing details of opt out cases and whether it is necessary for information on these victims to be shared by all agencies.

Summary

2.74 A number of procedural difficulties hampered the operation of the pilot as originally conceived. Each agency had its own database and problems arose in communicating between these. Most importantly, the unique identifier that was to be used by all agencies in identifying victims was not used consistently by all the three agencies.

2.75 The stakeholders responded to initial difficulties by making revisions to the protocol during the pilot to improve the service received by victims. At the time of writing, further changes to SIVYC data processing were being considered, and these should address any remaining operational difficulties and inefficiencies.

2.75 In sum, whilst much was achieved in a short time in establishing the SIVYC pilot, there remained some irregularities and issues that needed to be clarified before all partners could be confident that the SIVYC process was working as effectively as it should. Monitoring data presented in the following chapter highlights the need for these changes.

« Previous | Contents | Next »