Durham Victim Referral Dip Sample Report
Final
November 2014

Executive summary

This Dip sampling exercise was undertaken as a means of establishing that correct processes were followed and an appropriate response given to victims of crime reported to Durham Police and referred to Victim Support. The total number of crimes reported and victims referred mean it is impractical to scrutinise every case. Subsequently, a sample of cases chosen over a random three day period in April 2014 were examined to review the response to victims and establish that correct procedures had been followed.

Eighty Five cases were referred to Victim Support by Durham Police via Automated Data Transfer over the three day period. Of these, 14 related to crime types excluded from provision of support under current MOJ funding arrangements, one was automatically rejected because insufficient contact details were given and four (all domestic abuse related) were referred back to the police because it was felt the safety of the victim would be compromised by continued efforts to contact.

Of the 66 remaining cases, 37 initial contacts were attempted by telephone, 16 by SMS and 13 by letter. Six of the initial telephone contacts were unsuccessful after two or more attempts and letters were sent. No response was received from any of the victims sent a letter or SMS. Of the 31 successful telephone contacts, two victims were no longer in the area, seven declined any offer of support, 11 were sent additional information in the post, two were provided with safety equipment by post and nine were referred to community based services for on-going assessment and support. Initial contact methods are assessed using Victim Supports’ Victim Services Operating Procedures that refer to “more” or “less” serious crimes where initial telephone contact is always by telephone in the case of more serious crimesand SMS or letters are sent to those categorised as less serious.

In the sample, although a relatively small percentage of cases were referred for on-going support, where this was provided it 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;
  • 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;
  • Several cases were identified where there were both primary and secondary victimsbut the referral and contact details given were for the landlord of the property rather than the person who was actually involved in the incident or the business owner rather than the member of staff who was subjected to the crime, for example. Similarly, only one victim was referred for an incident where there were a number of parties involved;
  • 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 regular, follow-up support at a community level was low, the service delivered was relatively 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 a common definition of “victim” or “IP”;
  • 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.
  1. Background

Durham Constabulary is committed to focusing on victims of crime, carrying out high standards of investigation, protecting vulnerable people and subsequently inspiring confidence in victims and local communities[i]. Equally, the Durham Police and Crime Commissioner has emphasised his commitment to making local communities and the victims of crime feel empowered[ii].

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’ Code[iii] 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.

Although County Durham and Darlington remains one of the safest places in the country to live; it has below average crime rates, above average detection and outcome rates and above average victim satisfaction[iv], the volume of victims 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, complyingwith the Victims Code and preparing for the introduction of the EU Directive. Scrutinising a sample of “victim journeys” is intended to help identify and analyse any existing, or emerging, trends or patterns that require attention in order to improve victim experience.

  1. Methodology

Two elements were included in the process. Durham Constabulary examined the recorded crimes over the sample period including those referred to Victim Support and those that weren’t. This component was intended to establish what the “victim’s journey” looked like from the point of reporting by gathering evidence of compliance with requirements (e.g. Victims’ Code) and that a quality investigation had been undertaken in each case. The areas scrutinised included:

  • Compliance with National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) which in simple terms requires the recording of crime as soon as practicable but not later than 72 hours after report is made;
  • That “vulnerable” victims were identified and enhanced service given e.g. for victims of domestic violence, victims under 18 years, victims of sexual offences;
  • The quality of each investigation and that at the end the outcome was correct and appropriate;
  • That Victim Contracts i.e. how police promise to update victims are agreed in a timely manner and complied with;
  • That Restorative Approaches (RA) are used appropriately;
  • That Victim Personal Statements(VPS) are considered along with Victim Impact Statements (VIS).

The second element included scrutiny of the 85 victims reporting a crime to the police, and subsequently referred to Victim Support (VS) via automated data transfer (ADT) during a three day period covering 14th-16th April 2014. The sample selected was intended to reflect a mix of crime type, geography and demographics to ensure a representative sample. This sample was then subjected to scrutiny in the following areas:

  • The number of crimes reported compared to the number referred to VS by ADT or to another support agency by another means;
  • 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.

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.

  1. Results

3.1 Police Response

In general terms the three day sample period appeared fairly typical although the numbers of crimes recorded was slightly higher than “normal” owing to at least twoidentified crime “spikes” e.g. one case where over 20 offences of vehicle crime were attributed to one offender. Of the 299 crimes that were recorded during the three day sample period 85 were highlighted for Victim Support and details passed via Automated Data Transfer.

In the cases scrutinised there were no examples of failure in NCRS with the correct crime being recorded within the 72 hours allowed. In the vast majority of cases vulnerable victims were identified. Although the agreement of Victim Contracts was not always evident it was clear from the victim management system (Vicman) that in the vast majority of cases victims were regularly updated at the appropriate times e.g. when an arrest was made, when a suspect was charged, when an investigation was being closed.

Similarly, no evidence was found to suggest deficiencies in the service provided to victims with examples of restorative approaches being used appropriately(e.g. where an offender met his victim to discuss consequences due to minor damage by arson after carelessly disposing of a cigarette which set alight to a skip). In addition, there was evidence in many cases where VPS or VIS were taken or were offered and declined by the victim.

Durham Constabulary also scrutinised a sample of the crimes recorded during the relevant three days but which were not passed to Victim Support. This was to establish whether opportunities were missed for referral or whether some months on the victim felt they may have benefitted from it. Of the 299 crimes many were either Regina crimes i.e. crimes where there is no identified victim such as public order and additionally there were many minor crimes such as shoplifting (approximately 70). In total 10 victims were contacted to ask about their experience. All except one could recall being asked by the officer dealing with their case whether they would like Victim Support and had declined it. In hindsight, none of these felt they should have accepted and reported they were coping well. In one case an elderly female couldn’t recall if she had been offered Victim Support but when asked again she accepted and a referral was made. Interestingly, when the new referral was made it was automatically rejected by Victim Support but subsequently supported after further discussion when it was clear that the victim needed and would benefit from assistance.

3.2 Victim Support

Referrals from police forces across the country are received at a central VS repository and then passed on to the appropriate regional VS Victim Care Unit (VCU). Durham Constabulary 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.

On average VS receives 20 referrals per day from Durham Police. Over the three day sample period a total of 85 referrals were made to VS via ADT. This represents just under a third of the crimes reported to Durham police over the same period. The crimes experienced by victims referred over the sample period were as follows:

  • Actual bodily harm14
  • Aggravated burglary2
  • Aggravated vehicle taking1
  • Assault without injury9
  • Arson not endangering2
  • Burglary in a building other than a dwelling2
  • Burglary in a dwelling7
  • Child abduction1
  • Common assault5
  • Criminal damage to dwelling15
  • Criminal damage to vehicle13
  • Domestic abuse (non crime)2
  • Harassment1
  • Inflicting GBH1
  • Other theft or unauthorised taking4
  • Rape (associated with domestic abuse)1
  • Theft in a dwelling2
  • Theft from a person3

Of these referrals:

  • 14 victims fell within a category that is not currently supported by MOJ funding (vehicle damage for example) subsequently no contact was made and no further action taken;
  • One referral was rejected because no contact details were provided (classified as child abduction). In these cases, the referral is passed back to the police with a request for further details;
  • Fourfemale victims of domestic abuse were referred back to the police 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 66 remaining referrals, all were contacted, or attempts made to contact, within 24 hours.

3.3 Method of contact

The method in which victims are contacted and services delivered are governed by Victim Supports’ 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 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.

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. If the details indicate that telephone contact can be attempted, any instructions about making safe contact are followed and clearly recorded.

There is a standard SMS Text messagethat 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 . 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.