The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

C hapter 3 the pilot in operation

Introduction

3.1 This chapter summarises the activity undertaken during the pilot. Views of the VSS volunteers who took part in the scheme are also presented before going on to report victims' perceptions of the service in chapter 4.

3.2 The absence of a unique identifier for SIVYC referred victims across all agencies means that it was not easy to track victims through the SIVYC scheme. For both the police and VSS, it was possible to identify single victims associated with single crimes with which a young person had been charged. At SCRA, the units of measurement were grounds referred, with multiple grounds against single crimes as recorded on the police database. The reference numbers allocated to individual grounds were linked to unique SCRA registration numbers and these were not the same as the Crime Reference Number used by the police. A separate spreadsheet was developed by SCRA to link ground numbers to registrations and ultimately CRNO numbers so that all reference numbers could be linked to specific victims. However, this data was not available for analysis by the research team.

3.3 It is not possible, therefore, to say how many victims can be tracked across all three databases. Table 3.1 below shows the total number of 'referrals' recorded by each of the stakeholders for the pilot period, however, it should be noted that the individual cases held on each database were not always the same cases. For example, the 1233 cases held by VSS cannot all be identified from within the 1289 cases held by the police. Some VSS records were not contained on the police database and some police records (opted in) were not found on the VSS database. The number of grounds recorded on the RAD as requiring a victim information response offers the best means of comparing referrals between organisations. Multiple grounds may, however, be linked to a single victim and the number of grounds, therefore, cannot be taken as a measure of number of victims referred, only the number of victim information decisions required.

Table 3.1 Number of 'cases' recorded by each stakeholder organisation

3.4 Some of the discrepancies in the datasets can also be accounted for by the time period of analysis. For example, some of the cases referred to SIVYC by the police in the final months of the pilot would appear in the VSS database and not in the SCRA data since police reports had not yet been submitted to the Reporter. Other discrepancies include self-referrals or undetected crimes to VSS that are not included in the police database or the SCRA database.

3.5 The numbers presented here therefore offer an insight into referral activity for each of the stakeholders, rather than the number of victims involved in the pilot. Detailed breakdown of activities undertaken in respect of referrals to each organisation is provided in the following sections.

Police Data

3.6 Monitoring data was not collected, as such, by the police, for whom the only information requirement was to identify all victims of youth crimes in the pilot period. At the conclusion of the pilot, the police provided the research team with a summary of all SIVYC eligible cases processed throughout the pilot.

3.7 In total, police records show 1289 victims related to separate incidents that were eligible for the SIVYC scheme in the pilot period. Of these, 1119 were referred on to either VSS or SCRA and 170 were eligible but were not referred. This included victims who opted out of the scheme directly as well as victims opted out of the scheme by the police. Figure 3.1 provides a breakdown of the reasons for non-referral for each of these cases.

Figure 3.1 Police 'opt out' cases by reason for non-referral

3.8 The majority of cases classified as 'opt out' by the police were those not-referred due to an error in the triggering process for eligible victims. In the early stages of the pilot, some victims contacted the police to decline contact with VSS and the overall SIVYC markers was removed. This resulted in cases which should have been referred to SCRA for information only being opted out of the overall scheme involuntarily as the SIVYC marker was mistakenly removed. This occurred in 45 cases.

3.9 A further 24 victims declined both information and support and are correctly recorded as 'opting out' of the scheme. In a further 8 cases the offence record was marked as 'not required'. In these cases, it is also assumed that the victim declined the service. Differences in labelling the cases resulted from definitional differences between staff carrying out the SIVYC marker task.

3.10 In 57 cases, it was deemed that individual cases were either 'not applicable' or 'not appropriate' for referral, or were simply not offered the scheme by the police. These cases will include those where the offence may have been 'greyed out' or where the police decided that referral was not appropriate for one of the reasons outlined in chapter 2. It is not clear exactly what the difference in these categories is. However, at the time of writing, the police were making changes to their crime recording system to minimise reliance on free text fields. In the pilot, these caused some confusion with inconsistent entry of information to indicate victims opt in or opt out decisions and eligibility for SIVYC referral.

3.11 In 17 cases, youth crimes were recorded but the victim was not eligible for referral as the victim was corporate in nature. In one further case, there was no identifiable victim.

3.12 Finally, in 18 cases that were marked as 'opt out' by the police, the SIVYC service was offered. The police made some verbal referrals to VSS for some 'greyed out' cases where they had been 'locked out' of the crime recording system. These cases, which did not have the SIVYC marker, did not appear in the police database but did appear on VSS lists.

VSS Data

3.13 Victim Support Scotland provided data for the full 12 months of the SIVYC pilot, with records showing 1233 referrals. Referrals here are defined as the principal victims associated with individual incidents. Principal victims are those recorded by the police as 'complainers' and are different from co-victims that may have been recorded by VSS on their database as linked to individual referrals. An example of this would be a child victim of assault recorded on the police database (principal victim) with the parent(s), who may have been affected by the crime, being recorded by VSS as co-victims following initial contact with the main victim referred. In these cases, only the principal victim in relation to the case entry was eligible for receipt of information from the SIVYC pilot, although support and generic information about the youth justice system may be offered and provided to all victims listed. This is worth noting purely as a consideration of the workload of the VSSSIVYC team relative to the number of victim records.

3.14 Victim Support cases were identified by Crime Reference Numbers provided by the police, meaning that duplicate crime reference numbers appeared in the data where multiple primary victims had been identified as requiring SIVYC in relation to the same incident.

3.15 Figure 3.2 provides a breakdown of referrals to the VSSSIVYC team over the duration of the pilot.

Figure 3.2 SIVYC Referrals to VSS by Month

3.16 Of the 1233 referrals received, 81 were marked as VSS declined. Of the remaining 1152 referrals, 1139 were marked as ' VIS applicable', meaning that the victim was eligible to receive victim information and support. Those for whom victim information and support was not applicable included corporate, commercial or local authority victims.

3.17 Of the 1152 referrals received, VSS made contact with 781 victims (68%). A total of 371 victims could not be contacted and were, therefore, referred to SCRA as requiring information direct in the absence of opting out. Figure 3.3 shows the type and number of contacts made throughout the course of the pilot, with 1356 individual contacts undertaken.

Figure 3.3 Number of contacts made with victims by VSS

3.18 The numbers presented here include attempted contacts for referrals where personal contact was not achieved. No show contacts refer to failed attempts at face-to-face meetings with victims, (for example, calling at the victim's home). In addition to the contacts listed above, information packs were issued to 516 victims.

3.19 Of the 1139 victims for whom the victim information and support service was applicable, 526 opted into the scheme (46%). Of these, the majority opted to receive information regarding case outcomes via VSS (85%) and 15% directly from SCRA. A total of 449 victims therefore received both information and support from the Victim Support SIVYC Team.

3.20 Figure 3.4 below shows the breakdown of victimisation types for each of the 526 victims who opted in to victim information and support through VSS. This shows that the highest proportion of all victims opting in to the scheme via VSS was for assault (not being serious assault). The greater need for Victim Support for personal victimisation of this kind, compared to household or other crimes, was also reflected in interviews with victims.

Figure 3.4 Victimisation categories for victims opting in to VSS information and support

SCRA Data

3.21 The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration provided monitoring data for each of the three areas covered by the pilot, in addition to national level data for all 44 Reporter teams.

3.22 For SCRA, single referrals are defined as offence grounds referred from the police. In total, 5045 offence grounds were recorded by SCRA for the pilot area during the first 12 months of operation. Table 3.2 shows the total number of offence grounds referred to each area Reporter in each local authority during the pilot period, and the percentage of grounds referred that had associated victim records.

Table 3.2 Offence grounds referred and victim linked referrals by pilot area

3.23 In total, 21% of all offence grounds recorded by SCRA during the pilot period had a victim record associated with the ground. This means that decision information was required for victims in relation to 1066 grounds referred. This does not equate to 1066 individual victims as many of the grounds referred will relate to single victims, ie multiple grounds in relation to a single incident against one victim.

3.24 Similarly, grounds referred may relate to more than one child involved in a single incident. In such cases, victims may receive multiple decisions relating to different charges against one young person or multiple decisions regarding different children involved in the same incident.

3.25 As the main unit of referral on the RAD is grounds referred, it was not possible to extract the total number of victims associated with the 1066 victim information records. At the time of writing, the RAD does not have the capacity to search for the total number of individual victims marked against the total number of grounds referred, as the intention was never to create an identifiable victim database. However, changes to the RAD that have been commissioned will support a count of victims in the future.

3.26 Figure 3.5 shows the distribution of offence types across all victim linked records. The most common ground for referral was assault (341 cases) followed by vandalism and malicious mischief (322 cases). Breach of the peace and theft (other) together accounted for a further 25% of all grounds referred (143 and 123 cases respectively). The theft (other) category excludes theft by opening a lockfast place, theft of motor vehicle and theft by shoplifting. It also excludes attempted thefts, all of which are subsumed under the 'other category', accounting for just over 10% of all referrals. Theft by housebreaking was the only single type of theft for which there were 20 or more referrals received. Indeed, all other single offence types not listed here were referred less than 20 times and are, therefore, included in the 'other' category.

Figure 3.5 Breakdown of victim linked referrals to SCRA by offence type

3.27 The five main offence referral types for victim linked records did not differ from the main types of non-victim linked offence grounds referred to SCRA during the pilot. The main offence types for victim linked records are also from the same as the most prevalent offence types referred to SCRA across all teams, including non-pilot sites. Only the sixth most prevalent type of offence (theft by housebreaking) differed from national and local non-victim linked referral prevalence rates, with theft by shoplifting appearing sixth most prevalent in these cases. Essentially, there is nothing unique about the victim linked records in the pilot compared to non-pilot referrals.

3.28 Against the 1066 offence grounds marked with a victim record, a total of 906 records showed that a decision had been made by the end of the pilot period. This represents 85% of all victim information requests received. Table 3.3 provides a breakdown of victim information requests against decisions made for each of the pilot areas.

Table 3.3 Decisions made against Victim Information Requests

3.29 The proportion of grounds referred on which decisions had been made was high across all areas. Some of the variability between the areas may be accounted for by delays with reports required to assist decisions (for example, from social work or education departments). Due to the need to protect anonymity of the young people involved, detailed information of this kind was not available for analysis by the research team.

3.30 It should also be noted that a number of cases awaiting decision should be expected since the data provided for the 12 month period was generated one day after the end of the pilot. This means that some cases entered onto the RAD during the final weeks of the pilot period will not have reached a decision due to awaiting police reports, social work or education reports or standard administrative timescales.

3.31 An analysis of the time taken for SCRA to receive a Standard Police Report ( SPR) following detection of the incident suggests that the average time taken was 32 calendar days (with a range of 1 to 230 calendar days, based on 703 cases for which date information was available). The average time taken between receipt of the SPR and Reporter decision was 57 calendar days (with a range of 1 to 326 calendar days, based on 906 cases for which date information was available). However, an analysis of cases in which decisions had been made relative to the date of SPR receipt suggests that it was not necessarily the more recently referred cases that were awaiting decisions. This suggests that delays with background reports may account for some of the non-decisions shown above rather than SCRA administrative processes alone.

3.32 Figure 3.6 shows the number of SPR reports received, by month, compared to Reporter decisions made for the 12 months of the pilot. Not surprisingly, the ratio of reports received to decisions made at the start of the pilot was high given that decisions were taking approximately one and half months to process from date of receipt. The number of referrals received and decisions made in the middle of the pilot were more comparable, with the number of referrals received remaining steady for most of the pilot period. It is unclear why the ratio of referrals received to decisions made changed during the final month of the pilot. An analysis of VSS referrals received during the final month of the pilot suggests that the number of victims in this period was only marginally lower than earlier months.

Figure 3.6 Referrals Received by SCRA and Decisions Made by Month

3.33 Figure 3.7 below provides a breakdown of victim information requirements for each of the victim linked grounds referred. Most victims opting to receive information chose to do so via VSS or another third party (47%). Notification through another relevant person accounts for only 2 of these 502 cases. A high proportion (38%) of all victims were issued with information directly (405 cases), however, it was not possible, from the data provided, to distinguish the victims who asked to receive information directly from those who received information directly by default. That is, those that could not be contacted by VSS (therefore resulting in a letter sent directly), from those opting out of information provision via VSS.

Figure 3.7 Victim Information Notification Requests for all areas

3.34 It should also be noted that the 161 grounds marked as 'no notification' do not match the 'opt out' cases as recorded by the police. With only six grounds being considered by Reporters as being not appropriate for decision information release, it is unclear why the remaining 155 grounds are marked as non-disclosures. It is assumed that, for many of these cases, decision requirements were simply not known or recorded on the RAD.

3.35 Table 3.4 below shows a breakdown of victim information requests for the main offence grounds referred. The total number of cases presented here adds up to 1068 due to some instances of double entry in the data provided by SCRA. Numbers in brackets represent the percentage of all cases within offence ground categories choosing each type of information delivery.

Table 3.4 Victim information choice by offence type

3.36 There was little variation in crime types impacting on decisions made by victims. The only exception to this was assault, where the number of cases marked as 'do not notify' was notably lower than for all other ground categories. In the assault category, a higher proportion of cases were marked as requiring information via VSS. This may reflect different needs of victims of this type and the high proportion of all VSS opt-ins in the assault category overall. Victims of theft by housebreaking were most likely to be marked as no notification required and, of those to be notified, a higher proportion chose to be contacted directly.

3.37 Table 3.5 below provides a breakdown of all decisions made in respect of the victim linked referrals. Decisions listed here add up to 1070 due to some cases of double entry in the data provided by SCRA. Numbers in brackets indicate the percentage of all decisions made on victim linked cases referred to each area Reporter.

Table 3.5 Reporter decisions by area for all victim linked referrals

3.38 There was some variation in the proportion of different decisions made across areas and this reflects the differences in case types referred. Notably, however, the number of decisions to arrange no hearing and to take no further action accounted for a significantly higher proportion of all decisions in Falkirk than in the other two pilot areas. In Stirling and Clackmannanshire, the proportion of decisions to arrange no hearing due to current measures was higher than the proportion of those decisions made in the Falkirk area. Finally, the proportion of referrals awaiting decision was greatest in Clackmannanshire, with almost a quarter of all referrals awaiting decision. It was not possible to say from the data collected whether this was due to delays with reports for these cases or as a result of administrative delays. Overall, only 15% of referrals to SCRA during the pilot period were awaiting decisions at the time that the monitoring data were delivered.

3.39 Table 3.6 shows a breakdown of decisions by offence type.

Table 3.6 Decisions made by offence types

Non-Disclosures

3.40 A specific objective of the research was to examine the background characteristics and current circumstances of all cases referred to the Principal Reporter in the pilot area where it was decided it was not appropriate for information to be given to the victim.

3.41 Over the duration of the pilot, there were only six grounds referred in which a decision was made not to disclose information to the victim. These grounds related to three incidents, (one of which was administrative error only), and all were administered by the Stirling team. The reasons for non-disclosure were:

• Incident 1: the Reporter felt that sending a decision letter to the victim might spark further tensions between the accused and the victim;
• Incident 2: the victim was himself charged with assault of the perpetrator and it was, therefore, deemed inappropriate to release outcome information to the victim.
• Incident 3: the victim was named against grounds referred for two separate children, however, he had been victimised by only one of the two children. The victim therefore received outcome information in relation to only one young person, despite a second victim record existing within the database.

VSS Volunteers

3.42 Five of the VSS volunteers who had been trained to deliver the SIVYC service were interviewed. The views expressed by the volunteers mirror some of the comments made by victims and are presented here to show how these service providers viewed the scheme in relation to the victims receiving that service.

3.43 In general, VSS volunteers felt that service was being well received by victims. They all agreed that most victims with whom they had met had little or no understanding of the Youth Justice System in Scotland and had welcomed the generic information that VSS had been able to provide:

"I would say that most people have never heard of the Children's Hearing, and don't know that it's not the end of the world if the child doesn't come before a hearing, that alternative measures can be put in place. And that sometimes is not satisfying because they don't know what the alternative measures are, but they just want to feel that their complaint is not lost in the system."

3.44 Similarly, VSS volunteers suggested that delivering the SIVYC service was rewarding from their own perspective as they felt that they could offer information of real benefit to victims' recovery:

"I think it's been fantastic, the response that I've had. You're working with detected crimes within SIVYC, so it's totally different. You know that somebody's been detected for this crime against this person, so you're going out to them and saying 'look, we can give you information' - it is very limited", but people are quite happy about that. I think they'd like more information, everybody would, but they seem quite happy that now the Children's Reporter or the police are releasing limited details - it just puts their mind at ease that something is being done."

3.45 Volunteers did suggest that one of the biggest challenges that they faced was speaking with victims about incidents that had occurred several months ago:

"We're perhaps opening up incidents that happened three, four months prior to me going to visit, and some people have actually managed to move forward."

3.46 The main area of disappointment for VSS volunteers was that victims appreciated their time and support but perhaps felt that, ultimately, the SIVYC service had achieved little:

"Having to go back to some people who are living in situations, in communities, where there didn't seem to be any change in circumstances is a problem. There didn't seem to be anybody stopping the children actually offending, and a lot of people while they were able to show anger, and distress and concern, about what was going on in their community, they didn't see that anything that SIVYC did, even passing on information, actually changed the situation."

3.47 The volunteers also felt that some victims were frustrated by the information they received and this presented volunteers with a difficult situation:

"Quite a lot of victims will ask what sort of information they will receive, and to be quite honest with you, a lot of the letters are, 'there'll be no further action' - which leaves us at a bit of a sticky point as well. If it says there's enough 'in place', people will ask us, you know, well 'what will be in place?', or 'why might that be?', and we can't answer that because you don't know the past history of the perpetrator that you're dealing with - plus you don't want to give people false information anyway. You can only assume, and give them a wide range of choices so they can decide what one they think would be most appropriate to the person."

3.48 The same volunteer commented that:

"Although the letters are quite self-explanatory anyway, it may be that there's things behind the letters that you can maybe give a bit more information about."

3.49 Another volunteer explained:

"Sometimes the letters from the Reporters weren't very clear for us to understand, what they put out to victims. Why? Well they were maybe saying that it was adequate measures of care, or there was something being done about it - but we didn't know what was being done about it as volunteers, so we couldn't explain to the actual victims what was being done about it. They might say restorative justice has been applied, or this or that or the next thing, but they could maybe make it a wee bit clearer about what's happening to these kids, so we can tell the victim".

3.50 It was also felt that, whilst some victims were frustrated with the information, this was not always due to a need for feelings of retribution. Instead, victims were seen as being genuinely interested in the welfare of the child and this is type of information that they would have liked:

"A lot of the victims that I've spoken to don't want these kids hung ,drawn and quartered - that is the general opinion a lot of people get. The kind of victims I've spoken to just wanted to know what was happening to these kids - and they wanted to make sure these kids were getting looked after, because a lot of the victims really knew that these kids had some underlying problem, if you like."

3.51 On a procedural note, volunteers expressed a preference for having an information booklet to take with them to meetings with victims. As one volunteer explained:

"In the last three or four months they've decided that they send the wee green booklet out with the initial letter that they get, and the volunteers don't take it out - which I'm not so keen on, if you like. It was great going out with the wee booklet, it was a wee tool that we had, if you like, to give to the victims to leave with them, and explain it - if nothing else, it was a foot in the door: "I've got this wee booklet, can I come in and explain it to you?" "Aye, in you come." Because a lot of the time, you just get kept on the doorstep. So I found that the booklet was a good wee tool for the volunteers to have."

3.52 The main benefit of the system as perceived by VSS volunteers was that victims felt a great sense of empowerment as a victim. As one volunteer explained:

"Going out and just listening is perhaps the greatest support that we can give. Certainly, quite a few of the people have felt it's been helpful to write letters to the Reporter. To have direct contact with the Reporter - and I've been involved with quite a few, either helped to write the letter, or encouraged them to put a letter forward, and that means that they feel slightly more involved. I think that's a good way of perhaps allowing them to take more control."

Summary

3.53 Due to the data inconsistencies, it is not possible to say exactly how many victims were referred into the SIVYC service.

3.54 Police records show 1289 victims linked to separate incidents who were eligible for the SIVYC scheme. Of these, 1119 were referred on to either VSS or SCRA, and 170 were eligible but were not referred. The main reason for non referral was the nature of the incident in which the victim was involved and police decisions that the release of information could compromise either the victim or the young person involved.

3.55 Victim Support Scotland records show that, from 1139 victims for whom the victim information and support service was applicable (and who were referred to them), 526 opted into the scheme (46%). Of these, the majority opted to receive information regarding referral outcomes via VSS (85%) and 15% directly from SCRA. A total of 449 victims therefore received both information and support from the VSSSIVYC team.

3.56 For the twelve months of the pilot, 1066 grounds referred to SCRA were linked to SIVYC victims. It was not possible to extract the total number of victims associated with these records. Against the 1066 offence grounds marked with a victim record, a total of 906 records showed that a decision had been made at the end of the pilot period. This is 85% of all victim information requests received. This is partly accounted for by cases that had not fully run their course by the end of the pilot period.

3.57 Most victims opting to receive information chose to do so via Victim Support (47%). Many (38%) victims were issued with information directly from SCRA (405 cases). However, it was not possible to identify how many victims asked to receive information directly and how many received it directly by default, i.e. because no contact had been made with any of the agencies to indicate an opt out.

3.58 Interviews with VSS volunteers suggested that the scheme was well received by victims and was also rewarding for the volunteers themselves. They shared the frustration of some victims in relation to delays with decisions and the level of detail that could be disclosed, however, overall, there was a shared sense that the scheme was meeting victims' information needs. The following chapter presents the findings from the victim consultation and offers further understanding of the way in which the SIVYC service was received.

« Previous | Contents | Next »