Victim Notification Scheme (VNS): independent review

Section 14: What the support agencies told us

The published papers from the Victims Taskforce outlined the raising of concerns by the support organisations in that forum and the proposal that an independent review of the VNS take place. Individual interviews were conducted with the larger support organisations, as well as a joint meeting with the Victims Organisations Collaborative Forum Scotland. These organisations represented a wide range of victim experience.

The main issues put forward to us by the support organisations were:

• The fundamental purpose of the Scheme was not clear
• Safety should be paramount
• Simple notification of information was not enough, it needs support alongside
• The current system is too complicated, confusing and bureaucratic
• Receipt of letters can be traumatising
• The process is generally not trauma-informed
• The timing of registration can be problematic and some victims were unaware of the Scheme
• There could be long periods of no communication from officials
• Scheme eligibility constraints led to problems with the Scheme and in the case of a death, did not recognise less formal family relationships and (arbitrarily) limits the number of family members who can be registered.
• There was a lack of understanding by victims around entitlement to information
• There was a lack of understanding by victims around sentencing
• There was confusion by victims around license conditions and who monitors them
• It can be unclear to victims who is undertaking safety planning and what information they should receive
• The Scheme's performance reporting was not outcome-focussed and there are no shared objectives or outcomes
• Agencies administering the system did not seem joined-up enough
• Communications can fall down, especially over long periods
• Treating a child over 12 as a registrant in their own right can be problematic
• Complaints and feedback procedures were unsatisfactory
• Victims felt a lack of control

A number of improvement suggestions were made. These will be considered later in this report.

• There should be a single point of contact for victims
• Referral should be automatic, allowing for a period of reflection and easy ways to change one's choice
• Communications should offer a menu of methods, to be chosen by the user
• An online portal would be desirable for those who can use it
• Consideration should be given to the establishment of a multi-agency team, suitably skilled, to manage contact
• Regular updates should be provided as routine, even if nothing has changed
• There should be adequate notice of impending release to allow for effective safety planning
• No assumptions should be made about how victims behave or their needs
• The VNS Scheme needs a consistent human interface, understanding their trauma and offering a choice of means of communication, with regular updates, not linked to anniversaries of their case or the imminence of a significant event
• Post sentencing, VNS enrolment should be thoughtfully and sensitively timed
• Most, but not all, respondents suggested that an 'opt out' process, rather than the onus of an 'opt in', would work better and increase Scheme take up. This should also be concomitant with an easy ongoing opt-out/opt-in process, possibly doable online
• Communications should be sensitive and informative, avoiding euphemisms as well as bluntness
• There should be ready access to support for persons affected