One Stop Centres in India: Service Quality, Accessibility and Survivor-Centred Care
CASE STUDY 51
National functioning assessment of selected centres, 2023–2024
Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 29 October 2026
1. Abstract / Executive Summary
This case study reviews UNFPA’s assessment of the functioning of One Stop Centres (OSCs), published in July 2026 at the request of the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The assessment covered 56 centres across 16 states and two Union Territories and considered accessibility, infrastructure, staffing, survivor-centred care, case management, referrals, coordination, data management and monitoring. The publisher summary notes good practices as well as persistent challenges. This report uses the publication description and official scheme pages; it does not claim to have independently audited all 69 pages or any individual centre.
2. Keywords
One Stop Centres; survivor support; referral; counselling; legal aid; accessibility; India
3. Introduction and Research Question
What service-delivery dimensions matter when women affected by violence need multiple kinds of assistance, and how could digital tools support continuity without replacing human services?
4. Methods and Evidence Selection
Secondary review of UNFPA’s publication page and the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s official OSC scheme description. No centre visits, survivor interviews or new assessment were conducted for this report.
5. Case / Research Context
The OSC scheme is intended to provide integrated assistance to women affected by violence, including medical support, legal aid and advice, temporary shelter, police assistance, psychosocial counselling and referrals. Service availability and quality depend on local staffing, infrastructure, coordination and accessibility.
6. Findings and Evidence
- UNFPA reports that the assessment covered 56 OSCs across 16 states and two Union Territories.
- The assessment examined service delivery, accessibility, infrastructure, staffing, survivor-centred care, case management, referral coordination, data management and monitoring.
- The publisher summary describes both good practices and persistent challenges, including staffing and infrastructure gaps and the need for disability-inclusive approaches.
- The Ministry describes OSCs as an integrated service point for women affected by violence in private and public settings.
7. Discussion and Interpretation
A centre count or cumulative number of people assisted does not by itself establish whether services were timely, accessible, confidential or effective. The user journey may involve multiple agencies and repeat explanations. Survivor-centred quality requires choice, privacy, respectful treatment, accessible facilities and clear referral responsibility.
8. Legal / Policy Context
Administrators should monitor service quality as well as coverage: staffing continuity, accessible facilities, referral completion, confidentiality, complaint mechanisms and survivor feedback gathered safely. Service dashboards should avoid exposing identifiable case details.
9. Implications for VETRIPEN
Design hypotheses: a verified directory with last-checked dates; optional referral preparation checklist; user-selected contact and location sharing; accessible information about available services; and clear statements that VETRIPEN is not itself an OSC or emergency dispatch service unless formally established.
10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics
Track directory accuracy, referral information freshness, successful navigation to official services, accessibility tests, broken contact links, and user comprehension. If referral outcomes are collected, obtain consent and minimise personal data.
11. Limitations
The source page summarises a selected-centre assessment and does not provide all detailed results in the page description. Findings from 56 centres should not be assumed to describe every OSC. This report does not validate current operating hours, staffing or contact details for 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 a documented process for reviewing failures.
12. Conclusion
The evidence reviewed supports a cautious, user-centred approach: preserve user choice, make support pathways understandable, and evaluate outcomes rather than assuming that technology or a policy framework guarantees safety. Findings must remain tied to the populations, definitions and methods of the cited sources.
13. References and Source Notes
These are the source records consulted for this secondary synthesis. Inclusion of a link does not imply independent verification of every underlying statistic or full-text detail.
- UNFPA India — Assessment of the Functioning of One Stop Centres in India (2023–2024)
- Ministry of Women and Child Development — One Stop Centre Scheme
- Ministry of Women and Child Development — OSC Dashboard
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 intervention 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.