One Stop Centres in India: Findings from the 2023–2024 National Functioning Assessment

CASE STUDY 42 / 200

Research area: India — integrated support services for women affected by violence

Research status: Independent desk-research draft based on the UNFPA assessment published 9 July 2026

Abstract / Executive Summary

One Stop Centres (OSCs) aim to connect women affected by violence with medical assistance, psychosocial counselling, legal aid, police facilitation, temporary shelter and referral support. In a national assessment commissioned by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, UNFPA examined 56 centres across 16 states and two Union Territories. The publisher summary identifies accessibility, infrastructure, staffing, survivor-centred care, case management, referral coordination, data management and monitoring as areas of examination. This case study focuses on service quality and continuity rather than simply counting centres.

Keywords

One Stop Centres; UNFPA; service quality; case management; accessibility; survivor-centred care

1. Introduction and Research Question

What dimensions should be examined when assessing whether a One Stop Centre is accessible, coordinated and survivor-centred in practice?

2. Methods and Evidence Selection

Desk review of the UNFPA publication page for Assessment of the Functioning of One Stop Centres in India (2023–2024), published 9 July 2026. The page describes an assessment covering 56 OSCs across 16 states and two Union Territories, using interviews, facility observations and document reviews. This report relies on the public summary; it does not reproduce the full report’s detailed findings or reanalyse its data.

3. Case Context

An integrated service model can reduce the burden of navigating separate institutions, but coordination depends on staff capacity, referral protocols, safe facilities, privacy, accessible infrastructure and follow-up. A centre may be formally listed yet still have practical barriers for a person with a disability, limited transport, language needs, urgent medical requirements or concerns about confidentiality.

4. Findings from Reviewed Evidence

• UNFPA reports that the assessment covered 56 One Stop Centres across 16 states and two Union Territories.
• The assessment examined accessibility, infrastructure, staffing, survivor-centred care, case management, referral mechanisms, cross-sector coordination, data management and monitoring.
• The UNFPA summary says the report identified good practices and persistent challenges affecting service quality and accessibility, and recommends strengthening institutional capacity, disability-inclusive approaches, coordination, staffing and infrastructure.
• The public summary does not provide enough detail to quote centre-level scores or claim that a specific practice is common across all centres. Those claims require consultation of the full report.

5. Discussion and Interpretation

The existence of an integrated-service policy does not ensure a seamless survivor experience. A referral should be considered complete only when the receiving service acknowledges it and the user’s next step is clear—not merely when a phone number is displayed. At the same time, follow-up must not become intrusive or expose the survivor to additional risk.

6. Legal and Policy Context

This report is not a scheme eligibility determination or legal advice. Service scope, hours, shelter availability and referral procedures should be verified with the relevant centre or state authority.

7. Potential VETRIPEN Design Implications

The following are design hypotheses for research and testing, not claims that VETRIPEN currently provides these capabilities or has demonstrated effectiveness.

• List verified OSC contacts with accessibility information, service scope and last-verified date.
• Use user-controlled referral notes and distinguish ‘contact details shown’, ‘call initiated’ and ‘service confirmed’.
• Do not claim a shelter bed or counsellor is available unless the centre has confirmed it through a reliable channel.
• Design for disability inclusion, language needs, low bandwidth and safe use on shared devices.

8. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics

• Read the full UNFPA report before using detailed findings or statistics in public-facing materials.
• Evaluate the entire referral pathway, including waiting, accessibility, staff continuity and whether users understand next steps.
• Create a responsible process for updating contact details and documenting failed referrals.
• Use survivor feedback ethically and confidentially; do not publish small-cell details that could identify individuals.

Possible pilot measures, where appropriate: referral information accuracy; user comprehension of service scope; successful access to verified contact details; consent comprehension; accessibility task success; unsafe notification incidents; failed handoffs; privacy complaints; and user-reported sense of control. Define metrics and methods before any pilot.

9. Limitations

The report uses the UNFPA publication summary, not the full assessment text or raw data. It does not independently verify service quality at any centre or generalise the 56-centre assessment to every OSC.

10. Conclusion

Support systems and digital tools should be evaluated by whether they help people access appropriate, trustworthy assistance while preserving autonomy and privacy. Service availability must be verified, limitations communicated plainly, and technology treated as one part of a wider response.

11. References and Source Notes

1. UNFPA India — Assessment of the Functioning of One Stop Centres in India (2023–2024), published 9 July 2026. Open source
2. Ministry of Women and Child Development — One Stop Centre Scheme. Open source

12. Research and Ethics Declaration

No original interviews, surveys, participant recruitment or field observations were conducted for this report. No participant quotations have been invented. The report is limited to the listed sources and their stated scope. Verify current official materials, local procedures and legal requirements before external publication or implementation.

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.

← Back to all research