The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 4 Findings from THE VICTIM CONSULTATION

introduction

4.1 In order to ascertain victims' support and information needs, and to assess the impact of the SIVYC service on the victims who took part, three questionnaire surveys and 37 in-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken with victims of youth crime. It is difficult to compare results from the baseline, comparison and main monitoring surveys meaningfully, since numbers of respondents are small and respondent and offence profiles are different. However, from the data that was collected, the following findings emerged:

• Incidents were considered to be moderately serious and anger, especially for crimes not against the person, such as theft and vandalism, was the main reaction to victimisation. A large number of victims also agreed that they would have liked to have known what happened to the person/people who committed the offence against them at the time that it occurred. At the time of survey, the main lasting effect of victimisation was fear and this was more prevalent among victims of assault.
• Information from the police and information on the progress of the case were cited more often than a need for more practical or emotional support. The police were also named as the main source of providing case outcome information where it was known.
• Findings from the monitoring survey suggests that victims were confused about the SIVYC service. Only half of those surveyed said that they had heard of the VSSSIVYC service before receiving the questionnaire. Those receiving the SIVYC service expressed different ideas about how they had come to learn of the service and what had been offered. Only a small number had received information about the outcome of the case, however, most of these were happy with the information received.
• Victims who had taken part in the SIVYC scheme were more than two times more likely to have received support from Victim Support Scotland than those in the comparison area. However, they were only marginally more likely to have received support from VSS than baseline survey respondents. Victims in the baseline survey were more likely to have received support from the police whilst comparison area victims received support from family members, This is a positive reflection of the activity undertaken by the VSSSIVYC team in the main monitoring area.
• Despite having received more information than non-pilot victims, still 74% of respondents in the monitoring survey said that they would have liked more information about the progress of the case. This is similar to the 70% of baseline survey respondents who said that they would have liked more information but significantly less than the 92% who would have liked more information in the comparison area.

4.2 A detailed breakdown of survey responses is presented in the remainder of this chapter.

Victim Surveys

4.3 Three victim surveys were undertaken, these being:

Baseline survey: a questionnaire survey of victims of youth crime in the pilot area who had been victimised prior to the implementation of the SIVYC pilot. The purpose of the baseline survey was to clarify the context in which the scheme was developed, noting the features of the existing support systems for victims of youth crime and the needs of victims which were not being met.

Main monitoring survey: a questionnaire survey of all victims who had been offered an opportunity to take part in the SIVYC scheme. This exercise was undertaken to explore victims experiences of victimisation in addition to satisfaction levels in relation to the information and support received.

Comparison area survey: a questionnaire survey of a sample of victims of youth crime in the West Lothian Police Force area to explore experiences of victimisation, information and support needs and services received among victims outwith the pilot area.

4.4 A short questionnaire was developed and, across the three surveys, the same questions were used to explore victims' experiences and reactions to victimisation, in addition to their information and support needs. This enabled comparison of results. In the main monitoring survey, victims were also asked a number of specific questions relating to their experience of the SIVYC scheme, including their contact with each of the principal stakeholders. In the baseline and comparison areas, victims were also asked about their awareness and understanding of the Children's Hearings System, the Children's Reporter and Victim Support Scotland.

Response Rates and Data Quality

4.5 For all surveys, to protect the anonymity of victims, questionnaires were distributed on behalf of the research team by the Police (in West Lothian) and a combination of the Police and the VSSSIVYC team in Forth Valley.

4.6 For the baseline survey, it was felt that a sufficiently large sample of victims could be achieved by surveying victims from the two months prior to the SIVYC pilot. For the months of August and September 2003, 359 victims of youth crime were identified in the Forth Valley area and questionnaires were distributed to them all.

4.7 For the main monitoring survey, questionnaires were sent to all victims who had been offered an opportunity to take part in the SIVYC scheme.

4.8 Because victims of youth crime were not readily identifiable from the West Lothian crime database, a retrospective review of all crimes from the start of the pilot period (October 2003) to identify victims of youth crime between October 2003 and December 2003 was not possible.

4.9 The comparison area survey therefore ran from January 2004 to the end of the assessment period. The police noted victims of youth crime on a monthly basis to create a list of all crimes (by crime report number) and all victims associated with each crime. This included not only those crimes that resulted in a report to the SCRA, but also minor crimes and first time offenders ie all victims of all youth crimes on a monthly basis.

4.10 A rough estimate of 50-70 youth crimes per month for West Lothian was given, with some of these having more than one victim. Given the need to manually search all written crime reports to identify victims and write address labels for questionnaires, it is was not expected that Lothian and Borders police could send questionnaires to all victims. A sample approach was therefore agreed. This was random ie every Nth victim was processed. As a result, 20 questionnaires were issued per month, for a nine month period.

4.11 The questionnaire survey response rates were disappointing. From 359 victims surveyed in the baseline exercise, 65 responses were received, a response rate of 18%. For the main monitoring exercise, 1337 victims were surveyed, and a total of 133 questionnaires returned (11%). For the comparison area survey, 180 questionnaires were issued with 26 returned (14%). A decision was taken not to issue follow up letters due to the volume of administrative work already attached to the SIVYC scheme for those distributing the questionnaires. Also, there appeared little likelihood that this would greatly increase the returns.

4.12 Regrettably, this means that the survey results cannot be generalised reliably. Representativeness cannot be assumed.

4.13 For the main monitoring survey, there were also issues with the quality of data yielded, due to the timing of questionnaires being sent in relation to the time taken to process cases in the scheme. For the main monitoring exercise, questionnaires were sent eight or more weeks after the anticipated conclusion of a victims' case, as determined by the original pilot protocol. However, delays in processing meant that many victims received their monitoring questionnaire before the case outcome information and could not, therefore, comment on that element of their experience. For victims who were referred into the scheme in the last two months of the pilot, a shortened questionnaire was issued that did not ask questions about case outcome information.

Respondent Profiles

4.14 The following text presents the results from the three surveys. Although the comparisons are not without interest, it must be acknowledged that the low interview numbers and response rates mean that only large variations in responses would be significant, especially with respect to the comparison survey. Table 4.1 shows the number and proportion of respondents in each of the three surveys responding directly, being helped by someone else, or completed by a young person.

Table 4.1 Survey completion by respondent status

Note: Percentages relate to valid percent with non-responses excluded

4.15 Table 4.2 shows that the age and gender profiles of survey respondents were similar for all surveys.

Table 4.2 Age and Gender Profiles of Survey Respondents

Note: Ages relate to victims rather than any proxy respondents.

4.16 For the baseline and monitoring sample, respondents' were also classified by their home council area. Table 4.3 shows the number and proportion of respondents in these two samples from each of the three council areas, along with the total and proportion of the Forth Valley population in each area. The distribution of respondents across the area broadly reflected the population distribution in Forth Valley for the main monitoring exercise, with a slightly greater proportion of respondents in the baseline survey from the Stirling area and fewer from the Falkirk area.

Table 4.3 Respondent Profiles by Home Council Area

Note: Percentages show proportion within Forth Valley and exclude 'other' areas and non-responses. Population data derived from 2001 Scottish Census.

Victimisation Profiles

4.17 Table 4.4 shows the victimisation profiles of the three survey samples. Violence took precedence over theft and theft took precedence over vandalism. A comparison shows that a higher proportion of victims in the monitoring and comparison area surveys were victims of assault, robbery or threats compared to the baseline.

Table 4.4 Victimisation Profiles by Sample

Notes:

1 For the main monitoring survey, there were three incidents where the only code was 'breach of the peace'. This did not readily fit into any of the three summary categories, and was included in the vandalism category.
3 Percentages relate to valid percent, and exclude cases of non-response.

4.18 For both the baseline and comparison area surveys, information was not available for the total population from which responses came. However, a comparison of monitoring survey respondent profiles with all SIVYC victim profiles held by VSS shows that the sample, despite being small, was not significantly different from the overall population of victims referred except for some variation in the age of respondents.

4.19 A particularly low proportion of young people (aged under 16) responded to the survey in comparison to the total number of young people referred. This may be explained by parents completing victim questionnaires on behalf of the young person and completing their own age details on the questionnaire. Although adults helping others complete the questionnaire were requested not to do this, the small number of questionnaires completed by this age range may suggest that this was not adhered to. Survey work more generally also usually shows lower response rates among younger age groups.

4.20 A higher than average proportion of the monitoring survey responses was in the older age band (age 60 or over).

4.21 The proportion of survey victims reporting incidents of vandalism was also higher in the survey sample compared to the overall victim population whilst the proportion of breach of the peace cases was lower. It should be noted, however, that survey respondent crime classifications were based on victims' definitions of the crime and this may account for some of the variation.

Offender Profiles

4.22 Victims were asked to describe their perpetrators ethnicity. In all surveys, the majority of offenders were described as being white. In the baseline, in one case there was a mixed group with both black and white young people, and in another, the offender was described as being of 'ethnic race'. In the remaining five cases, the respondent did not know the ethnicity of the offender(s). Similarly, in the main monitoring, sixteen respondents said that they did not know the ethnicity of the offender(s) with all the remaining 117 respondents saying that the offender(s) were white. The greatest variability in ethnicity was found in the comparison area where 21 of the 26 offenders were described as being white, 1 as Indian and 4 as Pakistani.

4.23 Victims were asked how well they knew the offenders, if at all. Table 3.6 shows the breakdown by survey. In the baseline and monitoring surveys, most offenders were not known to the victims. Some of the victims did know the young person involved, with 17% of baseline victims saying that they knew the offender(s) well, and 25% saying that the offender was known casually or by sight. In the main monitoring exercise, 22% of victims said that they knew the offender(s) well, with a further 28% saying that they knew the offender(s) casually or just by sight. In the comparison area, victims were more likely to have known the offender(s).

Table 3.6 How well victims knew the offender(s) across all surveys

2.24 Table 3.7 shows the relationship between the victims and offenders across the three surveys. In all surveys, the majority of victims had no relationship with the offender(s) or only recognised them as children in the neighbourhood.

Table 3.7 Victims relationship to offender(s) by survey

4.25 An analysis of the main monitoring survey showed that young victims were the most likely to know the perpetrator(s). Of the 22 victims aged under 16, just one did not know the offender. Eight (36%) knew them well, six (27%) knew them to speak to casually and seven (32%) knew them just by sight.

Perceived Seriousness of the offence

4.26 For each of the surveys, victims were asked how serious they thought the crime was, on a scale of one to 10. They were given an example of a minor incident being theft of milk bottles from a doorstep (which would be marked at 1), and a very serious crime such as murder being marked at 10 (although there were no such incidents in any of the samples). Table 4.8 shows the mean seriousness rating for each survey and the average rating for all the summary offence codes.

Table 4.8 Seriousness rating for incidents across all surveys

4.27 There were no notable differences in mean seriousness rating across the three surveys, with the incidents rated on average around 5 out of 10. For all surveys, incidents of violence (assault/robbery/threats) were considered most serious.

Feelings at the Time of the Incident

4.28 Respondents were asked to describe how they felt immediately after the incident. Responses were categorised into eight groups, as shown in Table 4.9. Respondents often described more than one emotion, and totals therefore exceed 100%.

Table 4.9 Victims' Reactions at the time of the incident by survey

4.29 Feelings of anger were expressed most commonly in the baseline and main monitoring surveys, and were also mentioned by a third of comparison area respondents. Often anger was accompanied by an immediate desire for revenge or retribution, and this was often expressed during qualitative interviews (discussed below).

4.30 For the main monitoring exercise, an analysis of emotions experienced at the time of the incident was carried out for each offence type, showing considerable variation across categories. For example, while three quarters of victims of theft and vandalism described feelings of anger, this was true for only a third of victims of violence. Victims of violence were far more likely (45%) to indicate fear than victims of theft (8%) or vandalism (11%).

Figure 4.1 Selected Types of Emotion by Offence Type

4. 31 Respondents were presented with a number of statements about their feelings and asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each at the time of the incident. Table 4.10 shows the number and proportion of victims who said they 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with each of the statements regarding their feelings at the time of the incident.

Table 4.10 Feelings at the time of the incident across all survey victims

4.32 Across all surveys, the highest level of agreement was expressed for feeling upset by the incident. However, a number contradicted this by agreeing that they were 'annoyed by the incident rather than upset'. In all surveys, a high proportion of victims also said that they wanted to know what happened to the young offender(s).

Feelings Later On

4.33 Respondents were also asked how they felt about the incident at the time that they completed the questionnaire. This was to assess any change in feelings about the incident from the time that it occurred to the time of the survey. Table 4.11 shows the responses.

Table 4.11 Feelings about the incident at the time of the survey

4.34 Unlike feelings at the time of the incident, for baseline and monitoring survey respondents, only one victim described strong lasting emotions such as shock, or violation. Few remained angry at the time of the survey and the main lasting effect for the baseline and monitoring surveys was one of fear (being scared, frightened or panicky). Indeed, over a quarter of all victims in each of the separate surveys expressed fear as a lasting effect. Victims' written descriptions included:

"I'm afraid it will happen again"

"Never left house, too frightened, have social anxiety"

"Afraid to go out alone"

"I feel on edge when I hear children outside"

"I still don't feel safe in my own home".

4.35 Feelings of fear at the time of the survey were much more common for victims of assault (42%) than for victims of theft (23%) and vandalism (28%) in the monitoring survey.

4.36 Again, respondents were presented with a number of statements about their feelings and asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each at the time of completing the questionnaire. Table 4.12 shows the number and proportion of victims who said they 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with each of the statements regarding their feelings at that time.

Table 4.12 Feelings about the incident at the time of the survey

4.37 Fear, and in this case, fear of repeat victimisation, appears to be the main lasting effect. This may indicate a requirement for support some time after the incident.

Support and Information

4.38 Respondents were given a list of some of the types of support or information that may be needed when people become a victim of crime, and they were asked to indicate which (if any) helped or would have helped following the incident. Table 4.13 shows that, most victims said that information from the police (eg whether the offender had been identified or charged) was, or would have been helpful. Almost half of baseline respondents, and around two thirds of monitoring and comparison area respondents indicated the helpfulness or potential helpfulness of information on the progress of the case (for example, whether someone had been charged with the offence). Someone to talk to or moral support was also identified by around one third of monitoring and comparison area respondents as being required, although was less in demand among baseline respondents.

Table 4.13 Information and support needs of victims

4.39 Victims were also asked to describe the information and support that they had received following their victimisation. In the baseline, only 31 respondents said that they received any support or information (48%), compared to 90 (72%) monitoring victims and 14 (54%) comparison area victims. Thus, the victims who had taken part in the SIVYC scheme were around 50% more likely to have received help or support than those outwith the pilot.

4.40 Table 4.14 shows the number and proportion of respondents who had received any information/support across the three surveys by the source of that information or support.

Table 4.14 Sources of Information and Support Received

4.41 At the aggregate level, victims were equally as likely to have received support or information from the Police, Victim Support Scotland or from their family. However, a comparison of sources across the three surveys shows that victims who had taken part in the SIVYC scheme were more than twice as likely to have received support from Victim Support Scotland than victims in the comparison area. They were only marginally more likely to have received support from VSS than baseline survey respondents. Interestingly, baseline survey respondents were almost twice as likely as monitoring or comparison area victims to say that the police had provided information or support. This may reflect a shift in the information/support provision to VSS among the SIVYC sample compared to activity undertaken by the police prior to the pilot.

4.42 Respondents in the baseline and comparison areas were also asked if they had previously heard of Victim Support Scotland. In the baseline survey, most respondents (88%) said that they had heard of Victim Support compared to just 15 (58%) in the comparison area. Of those who said they had contact with Victim Support, none had contacted Victim Support directly. The most common means of contact was by Victim Support contacting the victim or by means of police referral.

4.43 Among those who had contact with Victim Support, there was a mix of opinion regarding how helpful the service was. Across the two surveys, only 27 respondents that had had contact with Victim Support provided a response about how helpful the service had been. Seven said that they had found the service 'very helpful', 5 'fairly helpful', 9 'not very helpful' and 6 said that they did not know. Due to the low numbers of respondents, it is difficult to determine the reasons for victims' satisfaction with the Victim Support Service in the baseline and comparison areas. Qualitative interviews did provide some further insight and these are reported in section 3.2 below.

4.44 Respondents in the baseline and comparison areas were asked about the information that they had received regarding the progress of the case and whether they would have liked more information about this.

4.45 In both surveys, most respondents said that they knew whether the police had found out who committed the crime (83% of baseline respondents and 92% of comparison area respondents). This information usually came directly from the police.

4.46 In order to explore general awareness of the youth justice system, respondents were asked whether they had heard of the Children's Reporter and of Children's Hearings. Table 4.15 shows that, in both surveys, around a third said that they had heard of the Children's Reporter and knew what they did. Similarly, around a third of respondents said that that they had heard of the Children's Reporter, but were not sure what they did. The remaining respondents in both surveys said that they had never heard for the Children's Reporter. Two thirds had therefore had heard of the Children's Reporter. Respondents in the main monitoring sample were noticeably more likely to have heard of the Children's Reporter and know what they do.

Table 4.15 Awareness and Understanding of the Children's Reporter

4.47 Table 4.16 shows that, in all surveys, more respondents had heard of Children's Hearings than the Children's Reporter.

Table 4.16 Awareness and Understanding of Children's Hearings

Note: One comparison area respondent did not answer this question and accounts for the remaining 4%.

4.48 In both the baseline and comparison surveys, most respondents said that they did not know whether those who committed the offence had been referred to the Children's Reporter (80% in the baseline and 69% in the comparison area). Of those who did know whether a referral had been made, most said that they knew this because they had been informed by the police.

4.49 Similarly, most respondents said that they did not know whether the offender had been referred to a Children's Hearing (84% in the baseline and 88% in the comparison area). Again, where referral information was known, the Police were the main source of information.

4.50 When there had been a referral to a Hearing, none of the respondents knew the outcome, with the exception of one victim who said that they had attended the Hearing.

Need for More Information and Support

4.51 In order to assess the demand for case progress information, such as that provided by the SIVYC service, respondents were asked about their demand for more case progress information and support.

4.52 Table 4.17 shows that most respondents said that they would have liked more information about the progress of the case. This was true for 70% of baseline victims and 92% of comparison area victims. Victims of violent crimes were the most likely to have wanted more information about the progress of the case, and victims of theft were the least likely.

Table 4.17 Victims requirements for more information about the progress of the case

The SIVYC Service

4.53 For the main monitoring survey, a number of additional questions were included in the questionnaire to cover victims' views of the service received.

4.54 When asked whether they had heard about SIVYC before receiving the questionnaire, half (65 respondents, 51%) said that they had, but 58 (46%) said they had not and 4 (3%) were not sure. Of the 65 respondents who said that they had heard of SIVYC, 32 (49%) said they had first heard of it from Victim Support, 25 (38%) had first heard of it from the police, 5 (8%) some other way, and 3 (5%) could not remember.

4.55 Of the 110 people who responded, 80 (73%) said that they had been contacted by VSSSIVYC, 13 (12%) said they had not and 17 (16%) were not sure. Those who had been contacted by VSSSIVYC were asked what service(s) VSSSIVYC provided them. Table 4.18 shows the responses received with the main service being information on the progress of the case. A third of victims also reported that they had received information about the youth justice system from the VSSSIVYC team and just under one quarter said that they had received emotional support.

Table 4.18 Services Received from the VSSSIVYC Team

Note: Percentages add up to more than 100% due to multiple response.

4.56 Respondents were also asked to rate various aspects of the SIVYC service that they had received and also to note those services that were available but which they felt they had not needed. Table 4.19 shows the number of respondents who did not receive the service and the number who said it was not needed. The remaining respondents gave their opinion of the helpfulness of each, and the percentages given are of those who expressed an opinion.

Table 4.19 Victim ratings of VSSSIVYC team services

4.57 Of the 79 respondents who answered, 38 (48%) said that the volunteers/staff at SIVYC were well informed, 38 (48%) were unsure and just 3 (4%) said the volunteers/staff were not well informed. It is not clear why so many respondents said that they were unsure about how well informed volunteers were, however, case study interviews would suggest that this may be linked to victims finding it difficult to recall what they had been told by VSS staff.

4.58 Of the 93 respondents who answered, 17 said they could not remember how long after the incident SIVYC got in touch. Of the 79 who did:

• 22 (28%) said SIVYC got in touch 1-7 days after the incident;
• 26 (33%) said 8-14 days;
• 17 (22%) said 15-28 days;
• 5 (6%) said 1-2 months; and
• 6 (8%) said more than 2 months.

5.59 Of these 79 respondents who were able to say when SIVYC contacted them, 54 (68%) said they wanted to be contacted about the time that they were, but 24 (30%) would have liked to have been contacted sooner, and 1 person (1%) would have liked to have been contacted later. Of the 92 people who answered, just 28 (30%) said that they have received a letter about their case. Of these, 21 (75%) said the letter was helpful.

5.60 Of the 129 victims who responded to the question, 26 (20%) said that the people responsible for the offence had been referred to a Hearing and 12 (9%) said they had not been referred. However, most victims (91, 70%) said that they did not know whether the perpetrator(s) had been referred to a Hearing.

5.70 Among those who knew whether the perpetrators had been referred to a Hearing, sources of this information were:

• The Police (10 cases, 34%);
• Victim Support (8 cases, 28%);
• 'Letter' (source unspecified) (4 cases, 14%);
• Other (7 cases, 24%).

5.71 The respondents who said that the perpetrators had been referred to a Hearing were asked the outcome of the Hearing. Two thirds did not know the outcome or said that they were waiting to hear.

5.72 When asked whether they would have liked more information about the case, 94 (74%) respondents said that they would, 26 (20%) said they would not and 7 (6%) did not know. The most common reason given for wanting more information was to know what form of punishment the offender had received (29 cases, 36%). The second most common reason was simply 'to be kept informed' (14 cases, 18%). Three respondents (4%) said they wanted more information to ensure that the case was being dealt with and not forgotten about.

Case Study Interviews

5.73 In depth interviews were carried out with victims as part of the baseline, main monitoring and comparison area consultation. A total of 37 interviews were carried out - 10 baseline, 21 monitoring and 6 in the comparison area. Despite the self-selection recruitment, the profile of respondents was similar to the overall population of victims referred. Appendix 2 provides a table summary of the personal profiles of victims interviewed as part of the case study exercise. Appendix 3 provides timetable information for each of the 21 victims who took part in qualitative case study interviews.

5.74 The main responses presented by victims are summarised below. It is important to note that, as with the survey data, there were few differences in the experiences of victims across the three surveys with regards to reactions to the incidents and the information and support needs expressed. The data are therefore presented without distinction. Only where victims commented directly on the SIVYC service are monitoring case study interview data used alone.

Reactions to Victimisation

5.75 Qualitative interviews with victims across all surveys supported the quantitative findings in terms of victims' reactions to incidents. The main feelings expressed were of anger and a desire, immediately after the incident, to "take the law into their own hands". Some expressed the view that young people "get off too lightly", and their feelings of a need to "punish" young offenders stemmed from the frustration that there would be no action taken by others:

"If I'd caught them, I would be locked up now."

"If you lift your hands you're in the bad books…it's hard to bite your tongue and walk away."

"I'd like to know who the buggers are… I'm 69, I'm a wee bit past fisticuffs these days, but I'd like to look at them."

"Vigilantes are going to take over… It will definitely happen…because that's the way this country is going - the whole country is fed up, but all we hear is 'Oh, you can't hit little Jimmy.'"

4.76 Conversely, it is worth noting that many victims, without prompt, expressed a desire for greater involvement in post-charge activities undertaken with young offenders:

"I would have liked to have been there (at the Hearing), to meet with the parents and the child. It'd help me to come to terms with it. I want to tell them how things are from my perspective".As it was, everything wascompletely out of my hands."

"We want the chance to talk to them and ask them why the hell they did it. They're old enough to know right from wrong. They should be made to face the victims. You should be able to have your say at Children's Hearings as well."

"I'd love an opportunity to speak to her. And also to look like I'm still in control, that they haven't scared me."

" As a victim, I feel that my input may be constructive and, as a society, we should have the right to meet those who have stolen from us. A controlled, calm and constructive meeting may help. It would have given me an opportunity to tell them what I think of them and maybe have an effect on them."

Views of the SIVYC Service

4.77 In general, victims interviewed in all areas welcomed the general principles of the SIVYC scheme:

"On so many occasions, you never find out who did it or catch anybody, so when you do know who it is, it's good to find out what's happened to them."

"I definitely wanted more information about what happened to the perpetrators. You want to know they're being dealt with. It's a reign of terror in the community, these kids running riot. I'd like to know something was being done. Something needs to be done to stop them re-offending."

Satisfaction with the SIVYC Service

4.78 At the general level, victims expressed satisfaction with their participation in the SIVYC scheme:

"I found it interesting, and understand a wee bit more about the procedures now."

"All information was sent by letter, although I have also spoken to someone from Victim Support a couple of times on the phone. He's been very good, very helpful, he listened to me."

"The communication has been very good. Victim Support have been really good, they've kept me informed each step of the way, with concise, informative letters - I can't fault them."

The Need for Information and Support

4.79 In the majority of interviews, victims felt that they personally were not in need of 'support' per se, as illustrated by the following statements:

"I've never contacted Victim Support for help - I kind of think 'Why bother going to them when I can solve it myself?'"

"If we'd needed it, then yes, Victim Support would be very helpful. We don't really need to talk to someone though - we can sit here and bash it out on our own. They've done what they could, but at the end of the day, it hasn't really been a lot. It's all very well going and telling a stranger how you feel and things, but you still have to come back home to it."

"I had my husband to support me - we could deal with it."

"They can't really give you any assistance. We had a phone call, and one time two people came down to the house. They just told us things we already knew anyway so it wasn't very helpful. They were very nice about it, but they couldn't really help us."

"I had no need of counselling or anything. I can appreciate that there are people that would require counselling - I could understand it, if someone's house has been broken in to, and something was stolen with sentimental value… but I didn't need it". Although some people require counselling or help from Victim Support etc, a lot of folk dinnae need that, they're strong."

"Even when the car was vandalised, apart from wanting to wring his neck, I had no need for emotional support - I think I can cope".

"It was nice to get stuff from them [Victim Support] but I didn't feel like a victim as such - I wasn't burgled [theft by housebreaking] or anything". The victim also explained that he might have needed moral support "if I'd been beaten up or something."

4.80 It is important to note that due to low numbers of interview respondents, such findings cannot be readily generalised. Indeed, when looking at all referrals to the pilot, victims of assault represented the greatest proportion of all referrals. Further, although victims who responded to the consultation often referred to their victimisation as being a minor or low tariff crime, the crime categories pertaining to the victims involved in the pilot were replicable to those of the victims that Victim Support Scotland supports within the adult criminal justice system and it cannot be assumed that the experiences of victims of youth crime are less serious than those of other victims.

4.81 One respondent explained that her contact with Victim Support had come about after they had sent her a couple of letters. She felt that their resources would be better spent dealing with victims of more major crimes: "They've not been in the house, or violated myself or my kids". Although she said that she did not need emotional support from the Victim Support volunteer, she thought that he was nonetheless "very helpful". She also commented that:

"The Victim Support guy spurred me on to write to the Panel. They [Victim Support] made me aware that I could write to the Reporter and say how I'd been affected. I had no other way to tell them how me and my family have been affected by it". She also commented that if the volunteer from Victim Support had not advised her to do this, she "probably would've left it otherwise… so I've benefited practically there, as I was able to state my case".

4.82 In most cases, however, although victims did not want any kind of moral support, they did want information about the progress of the case and would like to know what action, if any, had been taken against the offenders. This supported the quantitative survey findings.

A Need for "Punishment"

4.83 In most cases where the respondent said they would have liked more information about the progress of the case, the reason given was to find out what "punishment", if any, the offender received. Punishment was a notion that was expressed widely by victims who often used the term jointly with expressions of anger and feelings of frustration that, if young people were not reprimanded for their activities, there was no deterrent from future offending. This was a common theme among case study interviews, where victims frequently expressed frustration at not being informed about the progress of the case:

"There is no follow-up at all; you don't hear what's happening. You just give your statement and then you are shoved to the side. If you don't hear that anything's happening you just think what a waste of time getting the police involved."

"I feel angry because I still see (the offender) in the local area, walking around without a care in the world. I can't believe that nothing happens to young people like that."

"It just makes you angry. The punishment never seems to fit the crime. Youths today just seem to get a pat on the back and a fortnight in Tenerife! There's youth crime everywhere. They're constantly hanging around vandalising cars and things, but I don't think they can be charged because they're under 16, so there's no deterrent."

"We need more police on the streets, and more punishment - and the punishment should fit the crime".

Confusion Regarding the SIVYC Service

4.84 Despite general support for the scheme, interviews with those who had participated in the pilot suggest that there was a degree of confusion among victims with regard to how they had become involved and who exactly the service had been delivered by:

"I don't know how it worked, if the police informed Victim Support or if they had access to some kind of database - but the police never gave me any information about Victim Support - the letter came out of the blue."

"I can't remember if it was that thing in your questionnaire [ SIVYC] or just normal Victim Support."

4.85 Indeed, for many, the police were believed to have been responsible for delivering the information they had requested and for taking action against the young people concerned:

"I want them [the police] to come and tell me if he's been charged or whatever."

"They [the police] told me everything I needed to know, and they told me when it happened as well."

"If the police don't take action then the kids will think they can get away with it and go out and do the same things to Joe Public as well."

"They [the police] came every time even though they were mostly minor incidents, and they were always very supportive."

4.86 Some respondents also felt frustrated at the time taken to deliver information and felt that their contacts with Victim Support had not been as helpful as anticipated because of wider process issues with the pilot:

"The lady I talked to was so efficient… she did always try to find out the information I wanted - but if she's not getting the information, she's not able to pass it on."

4.87 The same respondent felt that the woman he spoke to at Victim Support was:

"A little bit vague, because she could not get very much information from the Children's Reporter. Victim Support did a fantastic job overall - but there are lots of things lacking - in the system, not with Victim Support…"

4.88 Another victim commented that, because all he needed was information rather than emotional support, this may have made him a low priority case. He explained:

"I know what happens to low priorities… they tend to get pushed aside. From the outset, they had the wrong information about what happened… and there hasn't been much of an improvement… there was communication, I've no complaints about that, but there were no further developments. I don't know where the glitch has been - it could be that the Reporter still hasn't dealt with the case, but I'd be surprised - it was eight or nine months ago now."

4.89 The respondent was quite happy with the contact he had had with the VSSSIVYC staff:

"They were very pleasant and helpful" but felt that, at the end of the day, "they didn't manage to deliver what they said would be delivered". The victim concluded that SIVYC is "a good idea, there's no doubt about it - if it works effectively."

4.90 One victim also summed up shared concerns about multiple contacts with different agencies as being something that might impact on the effectiveness of the system, and the way that it is perceived by victims. He explained that

"I thought, let's see what they can do, so I responded positively saying that I wanted the information."

4.91 Victim Support then sent a second letter, referring to his motorbike that had been damaged. This incorrect information made the respondent think "something's wrong here". He spoke to the person at Victim Support who had written the letter, who explained that their information comes from the police: "It made me wonder whether things were as they should be.

4.92 The victim also said he was "surprised that the person who made the initial contact wasn't the second person to contact me". The two letters he received from Victim Support were from different people, and he also spoke to two different people on the phone. The victim concluded:

"That might be a fault in the system - it's difficult for them to follow up effectively if there are different people working on each case."

Opt in versus Opt Out

4.93 Some victims expressed confusion about the need to opt in to or out of the SIVYC scheme. A 48 year old male who had been referred to the SIVYC scheme following vandalism to his car reported in his questionnaire that he wanted information from the police about whether the offender had been identified and charged, information on the progress of the case, someone to talk to/moral support and a £60 compensation order to cover the cost of the insurance excess. The victim said he had not, however, received any information at all about the progress of the case and was "not aware of whether it's been dealt with or not… I am uninformed; I'd prefer to be informed". The victim felt "confident that somebody has been charged", although he had based this assumption partly on that the fact he had received a monitoring questionnaire, which he thought suggested that someone had been charged.

4.94 The respondent had heard of the Children's Reporter and the Children's Hearings System, but was not sure how the system worked. In the questionnaire, the respondent said that he did not receive any information about the Youth Justice System and at interview said that he may have been given this information, but he was not sure.

4.95 The victim explained in the interview that he had written a letter to the Children's Reporter to tell them that he thought the incident was "foolishness gone wrong" rather than anything malicious. He was of the opinion that the offenders were throwing stones at each other "and the window just got in the way". The respondent had written to the Reporter 'off his own back', because he "didn't want him [the offender] to get into trouble".

4.96 The respondent had received a reply from the Reporter, who had said that this was a very positive attitude to take. However, the letter also explained that the Reporter had not been informed of the incident in question. The respondent commented "maybe they have by now… if not, it'll just have been a ticking off by the police - but I don't know".

4.97 The victim had not received any further correspondence from the Reporter regarding the outcome of the case as he had, according to VSS and SCRA records, opted out of the scheme. The VSS database shows that, following discussions with the victim, it seemed that he may actually have wished to 'opt in' to the scheme. It is unclear why the victim did opt out of the scheme and this may reflect some confusion about the need to opt in versus opt out.

4.98 In the interview the victim commented, "I just want to be kept informed". He could not remember ever being asked whether or not he wanted to receive information from the Reporter about the progress of the case, because if he had been offered, he would have opted in.

4.99 Another respondent, who had not opted out of the scheme, explained that he did not know whether the offenders had been referred to either the Reporter or to a Hearing. He had received a letter from the police about SIVYC, which said he should contact them if he did not want information about the progress of the case. However, the note that was left by Victim Support said that he should ring them if he did want information. He took no further action and presumed he would hear more from SIVYC about the case, but "we never heard anything back from them after that". The same respondent stated that he had heard of Children's Hearings, but did not know how they work. He had not heard of the Children's Reporter. He explained in the interview that he had heard of the Children's Panel, but "didn't know what jurisdiction they had… whether things went to court or whether they just had a word with the parents". An information leaflet issued by the police with the initial letter, or issued with the VSS letter, may have helped to address the victim's confusion:

Quality of Letters

4.100 Evidence from the interviews would suggest that victims were also confused by the correspondence they received:

"The first letter said it was being investigated, then there was a second letter saying they'd got someone for it".

4.101 Following the second letter, the respondent received a phone call:

"from 'the Victim Support Unit' [ VSS] asking if I was interested in finding out what happened… I said yes, and that was the last I heard".

4.102 The respondent was told that the offender was 13 during this phone call. This was the last contact the respondent had with SIVYC, and he did not know whether the young person had been referred to the Reporter or to a Children's Hearing. He commented in the interview that although he appreciated that "because it's an underage person they can't give you all the details", he still felt that "I don't know if it's been dealt with or not". The victim commented that he would appreciate some kind of interim response, "so that I know they're still dealing with it". He did receive a letter like this to start with (saying that the incident was being investigated, before anyone was caught), which he was glad to receive.

4.103 One case highlights the general confusion that was common across interviews. In this incident, the victim said that they felt that "I was treated as if I was the person causing the problem."

"I had a letter a few weeks ago from the Children's Reporter, saying they weren't going to take it any further, and that Victim Support would know why. "I was furious when I got the letter. I didn't do anything immediately, because I wanted to calm myself down - I don't want to lose the rag with someone I shouldn't be losing the rag with. Later I rang Victim Support to find out what had happened and they didn't know anything about it. I thought of writing back to the Children's Reporter, but then I thought 'what's the point'? And it's not just me, other people have had bother - so why let him off?"

4.104 Stakeholder records show that a copy of the outcome letters was not received by VSS (since no contact had been established with the victim). Procedurally, this element of the scheme has changed so that VSS now receive copies of outcome letters in the event that the victim should require follow up support, as illustrated here. Having copies of the letters issued to victims means that VSS can engage more meaningfully with victims who seek follow up support.

Unmet Expectations of the SIVYC Service

4.105 Interviews with pilot victims also revealed an element of frustration on behalf of victims with regards to the scope of the SIVYC service. In particular, the information provided by the Reporter did not satisfy their needs to know that appropriate action had been taken.

4.106 One victim who received a letter from SIVYC saying that the case was still on-going commented:

"It'll come back 'no further action' - which annoys me. Guidance staff [at schools] spend time doing the reports, and the admin staff put so much time into it - and then no action is taken".

"All I got was they'd been put on a course - I don't know what for though… I asked them to find out but I never got a phone call back. It could've been a cookery course, a driving course, a holiday to Portugal - I really don't know - but I do know they're still hanging around, being threatening, intimidating people".

4.107 One of the victims interviewed explained that she had received information that the young person had been diverted to a restorative justice scheme. The victim expressed her understanding of this as:

"A 'youth scheme' which aims to "get the youth to take responsibility and encourage them to apologise. But I don't see the point - she'd apologise but she wouldn't mean it".

4.108 Another respondent had been informed by letter that the offender had been referred to the Children's Reporter, but not to a Hearing, and the victim explained that this made her think that youth crime was not taken seriously enough. She described the letter as 'not helpful' because 'nothing was done except a warning'. The same victim expressed a view that the letters they received were:

"Very vague… there was no explanation as to why [the decision was made]. It was as if they saw it as a very trivial thing - which I suppose it is, compared to other things, but it's not trivial when you're living through it".

Formal Versus Informal Information

4.109 Whilst victims appeared confused about their involvement in the SIVYC pilot, it became clear during interviews that many victims had informal knowledge relating to young people who had perpetrated crime against them. Almost everyone interviewed said that they recognised their perpetrator as a local person or knew the offender in some other way. This meant that, in many cases, local gossip often became confused with formal information received by victims. As one respondent explained:

"We had some phone calls, and three or four letters. Basically just telling us what support was available, they said 'don't hesitate to call', that kind of thing. They've kept us up to date as far as they could, but they've told us nothing we didn't already know, because of local knowledge - everyone knows what goes on around here".

4.110 Sentiments such as these might offer an explanation for some of the confusion expressed by victims regarding the SIVYC service. For some victims, local knowledge and hearsay may be confused with formal information received, resulting in confusion about both the referral decision made and the system as a whole.

Summary

4.111 The above case studies provide an insight into victim's responses to the SIVYC service. It also provides an illustration of the administrative procedures involved in case processing and some of the hurdles and complications that can arise in the processing of SIVYC cases by each of the main agencies. In summary, interviews with victims revealed that:

• the police were considered by many to be responsible for the provision of information to victims on case outcome/processing information. This sentiment was expressed by victims even after they had been informed of the official route through which information could be obtained from the Reporter;
• many victims did not feel that emotional support was required from VSS and practical support and case income information appear to be the main victim requirements;
• there was some frustration with the limited scope of information that could be provided. Despite this, victims still preferred to receive some rather than no information about action taken against the perpetrator; and
• there was much local knowledge with regards to perpetrators of youth crime and information received through local knowledge may, in some cases, have clouded victims' understanding of the formal processes involved in administering referrals based on their own individual victimisation.

4.112 Although the case studies presented above represent only a small number of victims involved in the SIVYC pilot, it should be noted that the timetable information presented in Appendix 3 is indicative of some delays in issuing victim information letters due to administrative and procedural issues. Many victims were receiving decision information a long time after the date of the incident and, in some cases, this could not be explained by delays in awaiting reports from the police or other agencies. Despite this, many victims interviewed were understanding of the time required to administer cases.

« Previous | Contents | Next »