Executive Summary s16

Cleveland Victim Referral Dip Sample Report

January 2015

1 Executive summary

The total number of crimes reported and victims referred in Cleveland mean it is impractical to scrutinise every case to ensure the quality and appropriateness of the support offered to victims. Subsequently, referrals made to Victim Support by Cleveland Police over a random three day period in July 2014 were examined to establish the processes used and the support provided.

One hundred and eighteen cases were referred to Victim Support by Cleveland Police via Automated Data Transfer (ADT) over the three day period 21-23 July 2014. Of these:  one related to a crime type excluded from provision of support under current MOJ funding arrangements;  five were duplicate referrals;  two referrals related to young victims of rape where consent was not provided;  two involved child protection issues where contact was deemed inappropriate;  one victim was unable to use the telephone because of a disability and, as the referral was potentially related to domestic abuse, it was considered unsafe to send a letter and as no further information was available in relation to contact methods the case was suspended;  Two female victims of domestic abuse were referred back to the police because incorrect telephone numbers were given, one domestic abuse referral was rejected because no safe contact number was provided and the remaining 14 suspended because it was deemed unsafe to continue to try and contact them - males had answered the telephone number given; no other safe contact details were available and there was considered to be a potential risk to the future safety of the victim if VCU staff continued to attempt contact through the number provided.

Of the remaining 90 referrals, initial telephone contact was attempted in 58 cases, SMS text messaging was used for two initial contacts and letters sent to the remaining 30 victims. Nineteen of the telephone contacts included two or more unsuccessful attempts at which point a standard letter was sent. Of the SMS text messages and letters sent out (including those issued as a result of failed telephone calls) only two replies were received. In total, 40 victims were successfully contacted.

Twenty two victims declined support but in the 18 cases that were provided with on-going support, this was significant, wide ranging and tailored to the expressed needs of the individual victim.

Victim Support has nationally mandated procedures in place for the delivery of services to victims and it was evident that these had been followed in all of the cases examined. However, how these procedures work in practice highlighted some areas that are deemed to be worthy of further scrutiny:

 Blanket exclusion of certain crimes could potentially result in opportunities for early intervention and support to be missed in cases where there is a sustained campaign against individuals or communities e.g. anti-social behaviour or where the incident could be driven by prejudice e.g. hate crime;

 There was a very poor response rate to letters and SMS Text messages;

2  Initial contact methods are based on crimes defined as “more” or “less” serious and consideration should be given as to whether this is still appropriate given the trend to tailor support to the individual needs and circumstances of victims rather than the crime type;

 The accuracy and appropriateness of the information contained in the initial ADT referral from the police is crucial and a number of weaknesses were identified in the data being transferred e.g. individual referrals containing as many as five different telephone contact numbers for victims, many of which were incorrect, unavailable or related to other support organisations for example;

 Similarly, although Cleveland Police operate an ‘opt out’ system for referral to Victim Support, referrals for crimes relating to rape and/or sexual violence must have the victims’ explicit consent and there were referrals included in the sample where this had either not been obtained or not passed on to Victim Support and subsequently cases had to be rejected or suspended;

 Other than standard scripted questions, there is a lack of clarity over who is responsible for the identification and on-going assessment of vulnerability and associated needs particularly when this is not always evident or visible and victims are often reluctant to expose themselves by answering questions relating to their mental health for example in case it compromises the perceived validity of their claims;

 Case recording does not always capture outcomes for victims particularly in relation to coping with the immediate aftermath of a crime and short and long term recovery from the impact. This would also apply to participation in and information relating to ongoing criminal justice processes.

In conclusion, although the number of victims receiving support was low, the service delivered was robust and covered a range of issues. In addition, all processes and protocols were followed in line with Victim Supports’ nationally mandated guidance and operating procedures. However, these very processes might account for the relatively low response from victims.

In addressing the issues identified the following recommendations are made:

 Dip sampling is repeated at regular intervals;  The dip sampling exercise is extended to incorporate on-going CJS involvement such as Court processes, Restorative Justice, etc.;  Work is undertaken to discuss and jointly agree data requirements to reduce inefficiencies and increase effectiveness of contact;  Existing processes relating to the assessment of need are jointly reviewed to establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities;  Existing protocols relating to excluded crimes and definitions of “more” and “less” serious crimes are discussed and renegotiated to better reflect evidence that support for victims should be tailored to individual need rather than the crime type;  Consideration is given to exploring the introduction of a more robust triage system that ensures the level and quality of support that is delivered to victims is commensurate with objective criteria, rather than administrative or organisational need. 3 1. Background

Cleveland Police is committed to supporting victims of crime, protecting vulnerable people and subsequently inspiring confidence in victims and local communities. Equally, the Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner has expressed his commitment to ensuring a better deal for victims.

Commissioning the majority of services that enable victims of crime to cope and recover became the responsibility of Police and Crime Commissioners from 1 October 2014. An essential element of seeking to continually improve existing support and commissioning new services is an understanding of current effectiveness; the identification of any concerns that need to be addressed and working examples of good practice that could be shared.

Separately, the Victims’ Codei governs services to be provided to victims of crime and outlines the duties that criminal justice agencies must comply with to ensure victims receive the right support and information when they need it. These duties include provision of an enhanced service to victims of the most serious crime and those most persistently targeted as well as vulnerable and intimidated victims.

In addition, Article 8 of the European Directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime states that victims and (depending on the degree of harm suffered as a result of the crime) their families should have access to support services before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings. The services must be free and confidential and there should be a mechanism for referring victims to those services. These support services should be available irrespective of whether the crime has been reported to the police.

The number of people who become a victim of crime each year makes it impractical to independently scrutinise every case to ensure that it has been managed appropriately in terms of supporting victims to cope and recover from their experience, compliance with the Victims Code and preparing for the introduction of the EU Directive. Scrutinising a sample of cases is intended to help identify and analyse any existing, or emerging, trends or patterns that require attention in order to improve victim experience.

2. Methodology

Referrals to Victim Support (VS) via automated data transfer (ADT) from Cleveland Police over a three day period covering 21-23 July 2014 were scrutinised in the following areas:

 The level and quality of information provided to ensure meaningful referral for support;  Where a referral was made what was the degree of responsiveness;  What interventions/support were offered and/or delivered;  Was the time and resources applied to resolution of the matter appropriate and proportionate;  What, if anything, has been identified that would improve current practice.

4 A more comprehensive breakdown of the areas for consideration is included in appendix 1.

While dip‐sampling of this nature is essentially a management process, the scrutiny, analysis and identification of key trends and issues is also intended to demonstrate a commitment to meaningful monitoring of compliance with policy and legislation; support continuous improvements in quality of support for victims and contribute to the commissioning of victim services process by providing an evidence base for services being commissioned or decommissioned.

3. Findings

3.1 Number of Referrals Referrals from police forces across the country are received at a central VS repository and then passed on to the appropriate regional Victim Support Victim Care Unit (VCU). Cleveland Police referrals are passed on to the North East Regional VCU in Newcastle. The VCU is open 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 5pm on a Saturday.

Over the three day sample period a total of 339 crimes were recorded by Cleveland Police. Approximately 34% (118) of these were referred to VS via ADT. The crimes experienced by victims referred over the sample period were as follows:

Crime Type Number Additional Information Actual Bodily Harm 26 10 domestic abuse and 2 young people Burglary Dwelling 12 Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm 3 1 related to domestic abuse Wounding or carrying out an act 3 endangering life Robbery of personal property 4 1 victim was a young person Criminal Damage to dwelling 23 3 related to domestic abuse Theft in a dwelling 9 1 related to domestic abuse Distraction burglary in a dwelling 1 Public fear alarm or distress 1 Assault without injury 26 16 related to domestic abuse, 2 victims were young people and 1 was hate crime related Perverting the course of justice 1 Domestic abuse related Theft from person 1 Arson not endangering life 1 Attempted burglary in a dwelling 1 Rape of a male aged 16 or over 1 Rape of a female child under 16 2 Rape of a male child under 13 1 Sexual assault on a female over 13 1 Sexual assault on a male under 13 1 Of these referrals:  One victim fell within a category that is not currently supported by MOJ funding (arson not endangering life) subsequently no contact was made and no further action taken;  Two referrals related to rape of a young person where consent was not obtained and subsequently could not be pursued; 5  Two referrals involved child protection issues where contact was deemed inappropriate  One victim was unable to use the telephone because of a disability and, as the referral was potentially related to domestic abuse, it was considered unsafe to send a letter. As no further information was available in relation to contact methods the case was suspended;  Two female victims of domestic abuse were referred back to the police because incorrect telephone numbers were given, one domestic abuse referral was rejected because no safe contact number was provided and the remaining 14 suspended because it was deemed unsafe to continue to try and contact them - males had answered the telephone number given; no other safe contact details were available and there was considered to be a potential risk to the future safety of the victim if VCU staff continued to attempt contact through the number provided;  Five were duplicate cases.

3.2 Contact times Of the remaining 90 referrals, all were contacted, or attempts made to contact, within 24 hours. The timing of the contact is an issue of particular interest and this relies on a number of elements. Current processes relating to the timing of contact is governed by nationally mandated and agreed protocols and it is expected that initial contact where possible is attempted within 24 hours of receiving the referral at the VCU.

A number of issues can impact on the time taken to contact victims, for example:  Data is recorded by the police and downloaded overnight so that the VCU receives it the following day unless there are IT problems when a delay could occur;  Similarly, the VCU is closed on Sundays so referrals from Saturday are received on the following Monday;  The quality and accuracy of the data sent to Victim Support is crucial to avoid further delays caused by inaccurate telephone numbers or addresses or the inclusion of several numbers and addresses with no indication which is the victims’ preferred one. This is particularly important as staff in the VCU could potentially have to try several numbers several times before contacting the victim and this can delay contact by two or three days. Equally, if details are inaccurate, there is a time delay while the case is suspended while waiting for more information from the police. In this sample there were a significant number of referrals where five or more telephone numbers had been listed under victim contact details, some of which had been inaccurately recorded, were not recognised, had been discontinued or belonged to other agencies. This resulted in delays while details were checked and/or more information asked for;  If the initial contact is by letter, there is clearly a two or three day hiatus between letters being posted and received by victims;  Cases relating to rape are required to have explicit consent and if this is not provided at the time of referral, there is a delay while this is obtained.

However, there is well researched evidence to suggest that the optimum time for contacting victims needs to be assessed on an individual basis and tailored to the particular circumstances of the

6 victim. Achieving this relies on systems that are not organisational or process driven but demonstrate:  The importance of initial screening (e.g. first response);  Early and ongoing assessment of need;  A sound knowledge of victim issues and related policy and guidance;  A sound knowledge of specialist and mainstream service availability and associated referral protocols;  The adequacy and appropriateness of the information gathered and used in decision making processes;  An acknowledgement of and the importance of prioritising immediate needs e.g. health, safety of person and property, support networks available;  Provision for regular review and evaluation;  An acknowledgement and utilisation of primary and secondary triage.

3.3 Method of contact The method in which victims are contacted and services delivered are governed by Victim Support’s nationally mandated Victim Services Operating Procedures (VSOP). A number of contact methods are used including telephone, SMS, e-mail and letter. The method of contact is determined by the VSOP taking into account any specific information provided in the referral relating to the victims’ preferred method of contact. However, the method of contact can also depend on a variety of other factors such as a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the victim by telephone resulting in a letter being sent.

For victims of crime classed as “more serious” as defined by the VSOP i.e. homicide, bereavement following a road crash, violence with injury, sexual violence, robbery, burglary, domestic abuse, Action Fraud referrals and arson endangering life, the first attempt at contact is always by telephone. For crimes classed as “less serious” i.e. violence without injury, criminal damage, theft, harassment, other fraud, arson not endangering life and other miscellaneous offences initial contact is made by letter or SMS (text message) except where any of the following apply when contact is via telephone:

 The victim has been identified as vulnerable  Repeat victimisation  Known Hate crime  Child / young person under 18  Previous incidents have been recorded  Referred personally by police  Any suggestion in the referral that telephone contact is more appropriate

In addition, if the referral is for a victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence, homophobic or transphobic hate crime or bereavement following a road crash, the VCU determines if it is safe and appropriate to contact by telephone, making sure to check any instructions about the preferred telephone number or time or whether contact by another means, e.g. via a third party, has been specifically requested. For example, if the contact number for a female victim of domestic abuse is 7 answered by a male, the VCU will not continue with the call to help protect the victim from further victimisation by the alleged perpetrator because they discover the victim has sought help. These cases will be referred back to the police as unsafe to contact via the details provided. Follow up letters are never sent to victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence to militate against reprisal if the correspondence is seen by a potential perpetrator.

Initial contact in these sensitive cases is only done by SMS, letter or email if the referring officer or agency confirms that a specific request has been made to do so. Any instructions about making safe contact are followed and clearly recorded.

There is a standard SMS Text message that reads as follows: “This is the Victim Support charity contacting you about the crime you reported to the police to offer free help and support. Text Y & we’ll call you. For more info contact us on www.victimsupport.org.uk/SMS. If you want us to delete your details, reply N”

On the advice of the Information Commissioners’ Office, only one SMS message is sent using the above wording. The VCU must not follow up victims by SMS if they do not receive a response, although other contact attempts by letter can be made. If victims respond ‘Y’, to the SMS, VCOs carry out a needs assessment by phone as usual. If another method is requested to help someone who is deaf or hard of hearing, for example, this is supported by commissioning appropriate specialist communication support. If victims respond ‘N’, their information is automatically deleted within 6 weeks, the VCU makes no further contact and the case is immediately closed.

Telephone calls (to mobile or landline) are always made using number withheld facilities and messages are only left if there is 100% confidence in the quality of the information given in the initial referral. If VCOs have any doubts about leaving a message that might compromise the future safety of the victim a message is not left. Messages are never left for victims of domestic abuse.

Of the 90 contact attempts, 58 were initially by telephone, 2 by SMS and 30 by letter. Nineteen of the telephone contacts included two or more unsuccessful attempts at which point a standard letter was sent. Of the SMS text messages and letters sent out (including those issued as a result of failed telephone calls) only two replies were received. In total, 40 victims were successfully contacted.

3.4 Support Provided Where direct contact is made by telephone, following VSOP instructions, an initial “visit” risk assessment is undertaken to establish where any follow up support can be safely delivered and an initial needs assessment is carried out by a member of staff from the VCU. A desk top guideii to needs assessment is available to facilitate consistency but is to be used only as a prompt and it is expected that VCOs will work in their own style but must communicate key information about Victim Support and how they can help. Immediate emotional support, provision of certain small items of safety equipment and onward referral to relevant services can be provided directly at that point or, where more in-depth support is deemed necessary, a referral is made to VS local community services.

8 Of the 40 victims successfully contacted, 22 declined the offer of support but were provided with telephone numbers for future use if necessary; five were provided with safety equipment such as personal, window and door alarms and the remaining thirteen received a range of on-going support.

Occasionally the need for immediate emotional support is identified by the VCU during the initial call. Immediate emotional support (IES) involves giving telephone support to a victim who is in such distress that it would be inappropriate to take any action other than to meet their presenting need. IES is distinct from the usual emotional support offered by the VCU during a phone call and involves the following:  Identifying a clear and pressing need to provide IES;  Holding back any other service provision until IES has been given;  Ensuring that at least 15 minutes of the call is focused on providing IES.

When IES has been given, VCOs are required to:  Assign the case to a relevant manager in community services to arrange for a volunteer to provide more in-depth support as soon as possible;  Note that IES has been provided on the victims’ record;  Arrange other service needs as usual.

It is expected that IES will only be provided by VCOs in exceptional cases.

Thirteen of the referrals in the sample received a level of ongoing support. At a community level, support is delivered by a mix of service delivery managers and volunteers. A service delivery manager initially contacts the victim, carries out a more in-depth assessment, agrees initial needs and allocates a volunteer where appropriate.

The full range of support that can be delivered is outlined in the VSOP and includes but is not restricted to; Follow-up calls to re-assess need , initial and on-going emotional support by phone, face to face emotional support, specialist emotional support delivered by specially trained staff or volunteers, onward referral to counselling services, provision of safety equipment, personal and home safety planning, crime prevention advice, home security, help with costs of replacement glazing, locks, etc., cleaning and repairs, emergency accommodation, short term care for pets, subsistence (e.g. food vouchers), child care costs, assistance with filling in forms, help with criminal injuries claims, provision of information, advocacy, liaison across agencies, signposting/referral to other appropriate agencies, support through RJ processes, witness support, help with transport, help with removals.

Victim Support currently receives funding from the Prisoners’ Earnings Act and uses this to commission a range services such as emergency accommodation if a victim can’t go back to a burgled home, food vouchers, safety equipment, counselling and interpreting services.

Of the thirteen victims receiving an on-going service there was evidence of a range of support being delivered. Examples include emotional support and reassurance, assistance with transport to meetings, support with housing issues, signposting and advice, help with criminal injuries

9 compensation, liaison with various agencies such as police, health, etc., safety advice and planning and provision of a range of safety equipment.

Additionally, the number of contacts with victims varied from as few as three to over 30 as did the period of time over which support was provided with some victims receiving support for several months.

However, there was also evidence of victims disengaging early in the process by failing to turn up at agreed appointments or not responding to follow on calls from community services.

3.5 Referral to other agencies There was clear evidence of referral to, and liaison with, other agencies where appropriate. For example, housing, health, specialist support agencies, etc. In addition, the VSOP gives very clear guidance about the parameters of support offered and where onward referral to specialist services is more appropriate.

However, there appears to be some dislocation in relation to victims of domestic abuse and rape/sexual violence. There were examples where some of the victim contact telephone numbers given on the referral were for specialist domestic abuse or sexual violence agencies. When these agencies were contacted, victims were already known to and/or receiving support from them. This can at best lead to duplication of effort but, more importantly, confusion and frustration for victims.

Equally, while Cleveland Police have an ‘opt out’ policy in place for referral to Victim Support (meaning that victims have to proactively say they do not wish to be referred), in cases of rape and sexual violence, consent must be obtained before they can offer support. There were two examples where this had not been provided and subsequently the victims could not be contacted.

4. Summary of findings and priorities

4.1 Victim Support has very clear nationally mandated operating procedures in relation to responding to referrals received via ADT arrangements with the police. In all of the cases scrutinised, VS protocols and policies were followed in terms of contact method and timescales; initial assessment where contact was successful; responding to the immediate needs of the victim and referral from the Victim Care Unit to community based services or to other specialist agencies if this was deemed appropriate.

4.2 The accuracy and level of detail provided via ADT gives some cause for concern in terms of efficiency. In a significant number of referrals five or more telephone numbers were listed with no indication of who they related to. There were examples of numbers being provided for local authority, other specialist agencies, housing providers, numbers that were no longer in operation etc. This leaves VCU officers with no alternative other than to work their way through the whole list and the subsequent time involved in this. Equally, there could be issues of confidentiality if the number relates to another agency.

10 4.3 While a relatively small number (18) of referrals received some level of support, the range provided was wide and included on-going emotional support, advice, information and updates on criminal justice processes (CJS). Liaison and advocacy across agencies; assistance with completion of documentation (Criminal Injuries Compensation for example); safety planning; provision of safety equipment and onward referral to other appropriate agencies was also evident.

4.4 The distinction between “more” and “less” serious crimes and those excluded from further action does not take account of victim perceptions and EU Directive guidelines that recommend support is tailored to the needs and circumstances of an individual rather than the crime they have been a victim of.

4.5 There is little clarity about how vulnerabilities are initially identified (in terms of personal circumstances and characteristics rather than crime types) and assessed other than asking standard questions e.g. “Do you have a disability?” In some cases these standard questions are insufficient to establish vulnerabilities with any degree of accuracy. For example, evidence suggests that victims who have mental health problems may not admit to this when asked in case it compromises the validity of their testimonyiii. Equally, being asked about sexual preference can be intimidating if a victim has not disclosed this to family or friends. Further, the EU Directive acknowledges that the very nature of being a victim of a crime and subsequent CJS processes can leave victims feeling very vulnerable.

4.6 A number of domestic abuse referrals were included in the sample and evidence that victims had already been referred to specialist agencies as well as Victim Support. Being contacted by a number of different agencies creates confusion and frustration for victims and results in duplication of effort. Similarly, there were examples of victims of rape where explicit consent had not been available and subsequently victims could not be contacted.

4.7 There are a number of crimes that are not currently supported within the funding allocated to Victim Support by the Ministry of Justice. While on the face of it these might be deemed to be relatively low harm and low impact, in certain circumstances they could be seen as indicators of more serious crime. Regular and sustained low level crime against an individual, such as vehicle damage for example, might be part of a more serious hate crime campaign. Similarly, regular episodes of antisocial behaviour in a particular community could also have far reaching consequences. There appears to be no formal protocols to ensure victims have access to support, despite the crime being 11 excluded from current funding arrangements. For example, it is unclear how referrals of victims of excluded crimes who have asked for support are flagged at the referral stage to ensure that these are not simply rejected by VCU processes.

4.8 More insight is needed as to the contact methods currently used. Few of the victims contacted by SMS or letter responded to the offer of support and further investigation of why this should be the case would be helpful in discussing and agreeing the most appropriate way for initial contact in the future.

5. Conclusions

While the number of victims receiving some on-going support was relatively low, the service delivered was wide ranging and demonstrated that some victims require support for a significant length of time. In addition, all processes and protocols were followed in line with Victim Support’s nationally mandated guidance and operating procedures. However, these process driven requirements might account for the relatively low response from victims. For example, the sample showed a very poor response to SMS and letters. In addition, while crimes that are currently excluded are governed by Home Office Codes and subsequently are unlikely to be referred, this does not take account of cases where the victim would benefit from support despite having being a victim of one of the excluded crimes.

The initial contact methods employed based on definitions of ‘more’ and’ less’ serious crime can result in lost opportunities to deliver a more personalised, tailored offer of support when letters or text messages are sent rather than telephone calls.

The way in which cases are recorded make it difficult to establish what outcomes were achieved for victims as a result of the support provided. Although Victim Support and the Police undertake regular service user surveys these are predominantly linked to “satisfaction” rather than outcomes. Outcome measurement is likely to be a key feature of performance monitoring in the future and work is being undertaken by Victim Support to address this. However, given the nature of the victims’ journey and the potential number of agencies involved in this, there would be significant benefit in discussing and agreeing how this could be done jointly to ensure a co-ordinated approach to agreeing and measuring outcomes and ultimately improving victim experience.

There is little clarity over who takes responsibility for assessment of the individual needs of victims other than the use of vulnerability criteria and standard scripted questions which are used by both the police and Victim Support. This will be particularly important if the “cope and recover” model of support recommended by the MOJiv is to be implemented successfully and the eight categories of need identified in the model responded to.

12 6. Recommendations

6.1 Dip sampling is repeated at regular intervals The very nature of dip sampling is that it provides a snapshot in time. To be fully effective the exercise should be repeated regularly and routinely to track progress of any agreed improvements, monitor quality and take a consistent approach to identifying and addressing issues.

6.2 The dip sampling exercise is extended to incorporate on-going CJS involvement such as Court processes, Restorative Justice, etc. There are often several agencies involved with victims throughout their participation in CJS processes. Support for victims is most effectively delivered where there is a clear partnership strategy to enable needs to be identified and addressed in a co-ordinated manner. Extending the dip sampling would assist with developing a jointly owned quality improvement action plan.

6.3 Existing processes relating to the assessment of need are jointly reviewed to establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities The EU Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (2012) is clear that member states should develop a tool or method for conducting individual assessments. Further, acknowledging that vulnerabilities cannot always be seen from the outside, the Directive advocates for clarity in terms of which agency is expected to conduct the assessment and determine the level of scrutiny needed using appropriate guidance, tools and protocols to enable assessments to be carried out in a consistent manner for all victims.

6.4 Existing protocols relating to excluded crimes and definitions of “more” and “less” serious crimes are discussed and renegotiated to better reflect evidence that support for victims should be tailored to individual need rather than the crime type. These discussions should include the development of protocols that ensure victims of excluded crimes where a support need has been identified are not automatically rejected as they are in the current system.

6.5 Consideration is given to piloting a triage system that is based on provision of adequate information being gathered and shared to:  Enable speedy onward referral/access to appropriate service/support  Increase accuracy of screening  Provides a more timely response  Facilitate early and ongoing assessment of need  Make provision for regular review and evaluation  Acknowledge and utilise primary and secondary triage

13 6.6 Further examination of the data provided via ADT and agreement on minimum requirements would help to reduce current inefficiencies in contacting victims e.g.  Checking accuracy of telephone numbers and addresses  Only providing those numbers and addresses that have been confirmed by victims

6.7 Consideration should be given to developing a single pathway for victims of domestic abuse and rape/sexual violence that eliminates duplicate referrals to Victim Support and specialist agencies (it is understood that work is currently being undertaken on this in respect of sexual violence)

14 Appendix 1

Dip Sample – April 2014 Area for consideration Notes The number of crimes reported compared to the What means were used to refer to an agency number referred to Victim Support by ADT or to other than ADT, are these part of an agreed another support agency by another means protocol?

The level and quality of information provided to Was the crime type recorded correctly, were ensure meaningful referral for support contact details accurate? On what basis was the decision made to Was an initial risk/vulnerability assessment refer/not refer? undertaken? What assessment process was used to establish the needs of the victim and/or their wider family/community? Was the victim supplied with sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding their referral for further support? How was consent obtained?

Where a referral was made what was the degree How soon was the victim contacted? of responsiveness? How was initial contact made e.g. telephone, text, letter, etc.? What, if any, further risk assessment was undertaken? Was the victim supplied with sufficient information about the support that could be provided? What assessment process was used to establish need and agree outcomes with the victim? Were the victim and any other interested party provided with regular updates? Is there evidence that the support provided was tailored to the needs of the individual victim, their family and/or the wider community and that any unique needs/circumstances were taken into account? Was the victim provided with a single point of contact

What interventions/support were offered and/or Would onward referral to another specialist delivered? agency have been more appropriate? Is there evidence that the support agency took on a co-ordinating, liaison role to take account of any multiple/complex needs identified? 15 Was the time and resources applied to resolution of the matter appropriate and proportionate? What, if anything, has been identified that would improve current service delivery

16 i Code of Practice for victims of Crime, MOJ 2013 ii Victim Services operating Procedures, Victim Support September 2014 iii At Risk, yet dismissed – the criminal victimisation of people with mental health problems, 2013 iv Victim Services Commissioning Framework – MOJ 2013