One Stop Centres in India: Access, Coordination and Survivor-Centred Support

CASE STUDY 15 / 200

India — emergency response, reporting and support access

Independent desk-research draft; not peer reviewed

Abstract

This case study examines India’s One Stop Centre (OSC) scheme as a coordinated support pathway for women affected by violence. Government descriptions identify medical assistance, police facilitation, legal aid, psychosocial counselling and temporary shelter among the intended services. Official dashboards provide operational and service-use information, while a 2026 UNFPA assessment describes a multi-state review of accessibility, staffing, infrastructure, survivor-centred practice and referral coordination. The key product-design question is how a digital service can help a person reach appropriate support without implying that an app replaces trained responders or guarantees service availability.

Keywords

One Stop Centre; Mission Shakti; survivor-centred services; referrals; women’s safety; VETRIPEN

1. Introduction and Research Question

How can digital safety tools improve discoverability and continuity of referrals to established support services while preserving survivor choice and privacy?

2. Methodology and Evidence Selection

Desk review of Ministry of Women and Child Development scheme information and dashboard material, plus the UNFPA assessment page published in July 2026. This is not a primary evaluation. No interviews, field observations or independent audits were conducted for this document. Dashboard figures are administrative service-use data and should not be interpreted as prevalence or proof of outcomes.

3. Case and Context

The OSC scheme is intended to provide integrated support to women affected by violence in public or private settings. The Ministry describes services including medical aid, legal assistance/advice, temporary shelter, police assistance and psychosocial counselling. The Ministry’s dashboard displays state-level operational status and counts of women assisted over specified periods. A UNFPA publication dated 9 July 2026 describes an assessment commissioned by the Ministry covering 56 centres in 16 states and two Union Territories, examining access, infrastructure, staffing, survivor-centred care, case management, referrals, coordination, data management and monitoring.

4. Evidence-Based Findings

• Official scheme descriptions establish the intended service bundle and the role of coordination across services; they do not establish that every centre provides every service at all times or with uniform capacity.
• The official dashboard is useful for operational monitoring, but counts of women assisted do not reveal unique individual experiences, unmet need, safety outcomes, repeat contacts, service quality or the proportion of eligible women who could not access support.
• The 2026 UNFPA assessment’s stated scope signals that accessibility, staffing, infrastructure, disability inclusion, survivor-centred care and referral coordination are important implementation dimensions. Detailed findings should be checked in the full report before quoting specific results.
• Digital tools can reduce information friction, but a referral directory becomes unsafe if its contact details are stale, exposes a survivor’s search history, or promises help that is unavailable.

5. Discussion

The design challenge is not to digitise crisis support as if it were a simple directory. The service should support user choice, discreet navigation and clear handoff, while allowing a person to contact official services directly. The app should clearly distinguish verified service information from user-generated information and should not collect a detailed abuse narrative unless necessary and consented to.

6. Legal and Policy Context

The OSC scheme operates under the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s Mission Shakti framework. This section is descriptive, not legal advice. Eligibility, procedures and local implementation should be checked against current official guidance and the relevant state administration.

7. Potential VETRIPEN Design Implications

The following are product-design hypotheses for evaluation, not proven interventions:

• Provide a clearly labelled ‘Get support’ directory with official helpline and centre contacts, source and last-verified date.
• Offer a call-first route to Women Helpline 181 and emergency services; do not interpose an app account or lengthy form during an urgent situation.
• Let users choose whether to share a location or notify a trusted contact; make the recipient, data shared and timing explicit.
• Use accessible language, low-bandwidth screens and a discreet exit/navigation option, with an explanation that device-level traces may remain.
• Design referral handoff so the user can see what will happen next and can decline non-essential data sharing.

8. Suggested Evaluation Metrics

• Percentage of listed contacts re-verified on schedule; failed or unanswered contact rate where measurable and ethically collected.
• Task completion rate for locating and initiating a chosen referral in usability testing.
• User-reported clarity, autonomy and perceived privacy; disaggregate accessibility testing without collecting unnecessary sensitive data.
• Referral completion only where partners can lawfully and safely share aggregate, consented information.

9. Limitations and Verification Status

This is a desk-based synthesis, not an audit of individual centres. Administrative counts do not establish population prevalence or causal impact. The UNFPA landing page describes the assessment scope, but detailed findings must be checked in the complete report before publication. Availability, operating procedures and contact information can change.

10. Conclusion

VETRIPEN should function as a careful access and navigation layer around established services, not as a substitute for them. Reliability, consent, accessibility and honest communication about service limits are central design requirements.

11. References and Source Notes

Sources were identified through desk research. Their presence below does not imply that every claim has been independently audited. Review the original documents and record access dates before external publication.

1. Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. One Stop Centre Scheme. https://wcd.gov.in/offerings/one-stop-centre-scheme
2. Ministry of Women and Child Development. One Stop Centre dashboard (state-wise status and women assisted; dashboard date shown on page). https://www.wcd.gov.in/osc-dashboard
3. UNFPA India. Assessment of the Functioning of One Stop Centres in India (2023–2024). Published 9 July 2026; consult full report for detailed findings. https://india.unfpa.org/en/publications/assessment-functioning-one-stop-centres-india-2entity23%E2%80%932entity24
4. Ministry of Women and Child Development. Women Helpline 181. https://wcd.gov.in/women/help

12. Declarations

Research type: secondary desk research. No new human-participant data were collected for this report.

Peer review: not peer reviewed.

Conflicts/funding: prepared as part of Digital Catalyzt’s independent research and product-design programme; no external funding is declared in this draft.

AI assistance: AI tools assisted with drafting and organisation. Human source verification and editorial review are required before publication.

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. This document has been prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. It is provided for research, education, discussion and preliminary product-planning purposes only. Unless expressly stated and documented, it has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Allegations must not be presented as established findings unless an authoritative process has established them. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice; verify current rules with qualified professionals or responsible authorities. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess the cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research