One Stop Centres and Referral Coordination for Women Affected by Violence
CASE STUDY 58
From first contact to medical, legal, shelter and psychosocial support
Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 30 October 2026
1. Abstract / Executive Summary
Examines the referral role of One Stop Centres and continuity across medical, legal, police, shelter and psychosocial services. It draws on official scheme descriptions and UNFPA’s assessment of selected centres.
2. Keywords
One Stop Centres; referral coordination; survivor support; case management; India
3. Introduction and Research Question
How can multi-agency support be easier to navigate while protecting survivor choice, privacy and continuity?
4. Methods and Evidence Selection
Secondary review of official Ministry scheme information and UNFPA’s assessment publication page. No centre inspection or interviews were conducted.
5. Case / Research Context
A person affected by violence may need several services under time pressure. Referral coordination can reduce navigation burden, but broad sharing of sensitive information can compromise safety.
6. Findings and Evidence
- The OSC model is designed to link women affected by violence with multiple forms of assistance, including medical, legal, police, counselling and shelter-related support as applicable.
- UNFPA reports that its assessment covered 56 OSCs across 16 states and two Union Territories.
- A referral pathway does not prove that every referral is available, completed or timely in every location.
- A digital directory can aid service discovery but cannot replace trained staff, safe facilities or a confirmed receiving service.
7. Discussion and Interpretation
Referral systems should clarify who owns the next step and what information is transferred. Repeatedly recounting an incident can be distressing, while broad data sharing can also compromise safety.
8. Legal / Policy Context
Maintain current referral directories, accessible complaint mechanisms, appropriate staffing and consent-based information exchange. Monitor service quality while protecting identities.
9. Implications for VETRIPEN
Design hypotheses: opt-in service discovery; directory timestamps; user-held referral checklist; optional preparation notes stored locally; and explicit confirmation before sharing data. Do not claim a centre is available without current verification.
10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics
Measure directory accuracy, broken contacts, successful access to official information, accessibility and referral completion where legitimately measured.
11. Limitations
This relies on official scheme information and a summary of a selected-centre assessment. It does not verify current capacity, hours, referrals or outcomes at individual centres.
Implementation safeguards: informed consent; minimum necessary data; clear sharing status; accessible flows; no unapproved emergency-service integration; secure handling of sensitive information; and documented review of failures.
12. Conclusion
The evidence supports a cautious, user-centred approach: preserve user choice, make support pathways understandable, and evaluate outcomes rather than assuming that technology or a service framework guarantees safety.
13. References and Source Notes
These source records were consulted for this secondary synthesis. A link does not imply independent verification of every underlying statistic or full-text detail.
- Ministry of Women and Child Development — One Stop Centre Scheme
- UNFPA India — Assessment of the Functioning of One Stop Centres in India
14. Declarations
Research status: secondary-source synthesis; not a new field study. No external research funding or formal peer review is represented. VETRIPEN recommendations are product-design hypotheses, not validated outcomes.
15. Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. 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. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document 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. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. 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 cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.