Research and analysis

Immigration detention reform programme: evaluation report

Published 16 January 2025

Foreword by Stephen Shaw

In 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018, I conducted 2 reviews into immigration detention on behalf of the Home Office. Alongside my many specific recommendations, an underlying motif of the reviews was that the detention system and process should be subject to much greater openness.

I therefore welcomed the opportunity to chair the Shaw Analytical Advisory Panel (abbreviated, perhaps unfortunately, as SAAP) that was established in 2019 by the Rt Hon Sajid Javid, then Home Secretary, to provide independent oversight of the Home Office’s own evaluation of its actions to reform immigration detention following my 2 reviews.

I referred to the second of those reviews as ‘marking the Home Office’s homework’, as the aim was to assess the progress that had been made in response to my first set of proposals for reform. To a certain extent that has also been the role of the SAAP. In consequence, my colleagues and I had the opportunity to discuss at length an earlier draft of this report. This enabled us to test rigorously the findings from the Home Office’s analysis and to challenge the team responsible to come up with stronger evidence to support their conclusions. This revised report is of course still the responsibility of the Home Office, but I was very pleased to see how many of our comments have been addressed.

I think it is also fair to say that the overall assessment presented in this report is a broadly encouraging one. There has been a much greater focus by the Home Office on vulnerability, and measures to protect those people subject to immigration enforcement have been strengthened substantially. But the report also demonstrates where further progress is required. Not least, the report frankly acknowledges that, compared to the other aims of the immigration detention reform programme, there have been only limited steps taken to improve the transparency of the system to which I referred above.

Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic led not only to a huge reduction in the number of people detained in immigration removal centres, but also severely limited the extent of research and monitoring that could take place both in IRCs and the Home Office more generally. But with formal COVID-19 restrictions now lifted, I hope that a more open approach can be established.

I would like to thank the members of the Immigration Enforcement research and analysis team for their kindness and professionalism in supporting the SAAP. I also pay tribute to my colleagues on the panel for the contributions they have made. It was a particular pleasure to work again alongside Professor Mary Bosworth, Director of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford, who made an immense contribution to my 2 reviews and to these more recent discussions.

Stephen Shaw

March 2022

About this report

This report presents findings from analysis undertaken by Immigration Enforcement’s research and analysis team in 2020 and 2021 for people detained within the immigration removal detention estate between January 2016 and June 2020. Trends reported for this period may therefore differ to other periods before or after the timeframe considered in this analysis.

For more up-to-date statistics on the number of entries and exits, length of stay, and number of people in detention, please refer to the chapter on ‘How many people are detained or returned?’ in the latest immigration system statistics quarterly release.

Executive summary

This report considers whether the changes to policy and practice made as part of the immigration detention reform programme were delivering the 4 programme aims, which were to:

• strengthen decision-making and safeguards for the vulnerable
• reduce the numbers of people entering detention and the length of time spent in detention
• improve transparency
• ensure that everyone who enters detention is treated with dignity in an estate fit for purpose

This evaluation has been undertaken through measuring progress against quantitative indicators, and evaluations of a range of measures designed to reform immigration detention. Our key findings are as follows:

Strengthen decision-making and safeguards for the vulnerable:

• Home Office staff are considering the adults at risk (AAR) policy when deciding who to recommend for detention and in the ongoing consideration of whether an individual is suitable for detention
• the high rate of acceptance into detention by the Detention Gatekeeper (DGK), and the high-rate of assurance sign-off of DGK decisions by senior civil servants (SCSs), might suggest that individuals were being referred for detention appropriately and authorised for entry in line with Home Office policy
• the AAR policy appears to be working as intended, in terms of protecting those people with the most severe vulnerabilities from long stays in detention
• there appeared to be signs that some individuals’ vulnerabilities were developing or worsening while they were detained, but also that staff became better at identifying and responding to changing vulnerabilities
• taken together, the pre-detention processes involving the DGK, and the processes for assessing vulnerability in detention, appear to suggest that the current policies are an effective way of safeguarding these vulnerable adults, particularly those people in the highest risk category (AAR level 3)

Reduce both the number of people entering detention and the length of time spent in detention:

• there has been a decline in detention entries over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020), and this was a consistent trend before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic
• almost half (44%) of all detention stays between January 2016 and June 2020 (the time period covered in the analysis) were for 2 weeks or less
• the average length of stay in detention has reduced over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020); however, there were instances of longer stays, particularly among foreign national offenders (FNOs)
• the most common reason for leaving detention, for FNOs and non-FNOs, was removal^{[footnote 1]}; other exits from detention were attributable to people being ‘released’ from detention, either as a result of immigration bail or temporary leave being granted^{[footnote 2]}, or other considerations in their cases meaning removal was not immediately possible, and this included people being released because of identified vulnerabilities
• a high proportion of eligible persons were having their detention reviewed by case progression panels (CPPs); however, there was a mixed picture regarding CPPs overall effectiveness; while a quarter of recommendations made were to release the person in detention, the quality of data on compliance with CPP recommendations is weak, so there was no clear picture of performance, which brings into question the overall impact of a panel’s recommendations
• overall, these findings reflect a more general trend of a reduction in the use of immigration removal centres (IRCs), as evidenced by the decrease in the number of people entering over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020), along with the finding that the overall length of stay has also decreased over the same period
• whilst pilots of further safeguarding and assurance for the process of assessing cases^{[footnote 3]} in immigration detention have had mixed success, they have all contributed to our understanding of the system and the people involved, and so have added value in our understanding of what works in improving immigration detention
• the introduction of independent members of CPPs appeared to improve the accountability of the CPP, and this has now become part of business as usual

Improve transparency:

• compared to the first 2 programme aims, there have been a smaller number of activities completed to ensure transparency is a key part of the detention reform programme
• the Home Office regularly publishes immigration system statistics on people entering and leaving detention (see the chapter on ‘How many people are detained or returned?’), and has added to the information publicly available by also releasing regular statistics on deaths of people held in immigration detention (see detention summary data tables)
• the independent scrutiny of immigration detention has been further extended with the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration having produced 2 annual reports on the impact and operation of the adults at risk policy
• allowing academic researchers, such as Professor Bosworth and Dr Gerlach, to access IRCs and the people within them, has meant the evidence base on detention has grown, at the same time as increasing transparency on IRC processes and practices

Ensure that everyone who enters detention is treated with dignity in an estate fit for purpose:

• the ‘Measure of the quality of life in detention’ (MQLD) research, undertaken by the Centre for Criminology at Oxford University in 2019, provides a baseline for understanding the experience of detention and has also identified questions that the Home Office plans to explore further
• smaller changes can also have a significant impact on the experience of people in detention, as demonstrated by the improvement in how those in detention rated interpretation services after the introduction of additional equipment and consideration of privacy, in response to an earlier review of the services available in IRCs

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the evaluation

Immigration detention is one part of the immigration system in the UK, and the power to detain is retained by the Home Office in the interests of maintaining effective immigration control (see guidance for Home Office staff setting out the Home Office policy on the use of immigration detention). Detention is most usually used: to effect removal from the UK; where there is reason to believe that the person will fail to comply with any conditions of immigration bail; or to establish a person’s identity or basis of claim (this final group are not included in the analysis set out in this report – see section ‘Data analysis’). However, there is a presumption in favour of immigration bail and, wherever possible, alternatives to detention are used.

In 2015, the Home Secretary commissioned Stephen Shaw to complete an independent review into the Home Office’s policies and operating procedures that have an impact on the welfare of those in immigration detention. A second review was then commissioned in September 2017 to examine the Home Office response to the first review (see Appendix A for more details).

Following the independent reviews (see Appendix A for more details), the Home Office formed the Shaw Board in mid-2016, later renamed the Immigration detention reform programme board. The board was chaired by the Director General for Immigration Enforcement and was a cross-government group (including Home Office, National Health Service (NHS) England, and the Ministry of Justice). The board set the direction for the programme of work to improve and reform immigration detention, which has as its aims to:

1. Strengthen decision-making and safeguards for the vulnerable.
2. Reduce both the numbers of people entering detention and the length of time spent in detention.
3. Improve transparency.
4. Ensure that everyone who enters detention is treated with dignity in an estate fit for purpose.

The work of the board included overseeing and driving implementation of recommendations made by the 2 reviews by Stephen Shaw, as well as other reports, including those from the Home Affairs Committee and Joint Committee on Human Rights in their reports on immigration detention (2019), and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), for example from their reports on the operation of the adults at risk policy (see ‘Immigration detention: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixteenth Report of Session 2017–19: Second Special Report of Session 2019–20’ and ‘Annual inspection of ‘Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention’ (2018–19)’).

In 2018, the Home Secretary commissioned Wendy Williams to provide an independent assessment of the events leading up to the Windrush scandal and to identify the key lessons for the Home Office. The Windrush lessons learned review (WLLR) report was published in March 2020. There are parallels between the key lessons from this review and the reviews looking at the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. Wendy Williams states that staff should “embed the idea that people will always be treated with respect and dignity”. As the recommendations from the WLLR are embedded within caseworker teams that deal with detained individuals, this is likely to also have an impact on the immigration detention reform programme.

1.2 Evaluation approach

The aims of the evaluation were to understand whether the changes to policy and practice made as part of immigration detention reform programme were having the desired effect on the 4 aims of the programme outlined above.

A number of quantitative indicators were identified as a way of measuring progress against the 4 key aims of the immigration detention reform programme, and trends have been considered between January 2016 and June 2020 (analysis was paused at this point because any impacts of the changes in policy and practice would be overshadowed by the impact of the COVID-19 virus). How these indicators map onto the 4 aims is shown in Appendix B. In addition to the key indicators, where individual evaluations and other actions (such as the publication of new figures) have taken place as part of the work programme, these have also been mapped onto the 4 detention reform aims in Appendix B.

As well as providing regular updates on performance and trends against key strategic indicators, the immigration detention reform evaluation programme includes a number of individual pieces of research and analysis to support the development and evaluation of reforms linked to Stephen Shaw’s recommendations. This approach has enabled timely delivery of research outputs to Home Office business areas and the Immigration Detention Reform Board, so they can respond to emerging findings and examine surprising or unexpected trends as they arise.

To date, research completed within the evaluation programme includes:

• evaluation of senior civil servant (SCS) assurance around detention requests
• evaluation of the automatic bail referrals at 2 months pilot
• evaluation of the incentivised returns from detention pilot
• evaluation of the impact of independent members in case progression panels
• review of translator services
• supporting the work of Professor Mary Bosworth to deliver the MQLD survey

In addition, there are research elements that are currently in progress and will continue. These are:

• 2 community engagement pilots, piloting alternatives to detention^{[footnote 4]}
• evaluation of the reasons for detention pilot (new IS91R forms)

This monitoring approach gave the research team flexibility to respond to new policy developments and create an immediate feedback loop on what was working. Therefore, the assessment of the programme is a dynamic picture of the changing estate. This will mean it is more difficult to establish causality between policy and operational changes and subsequent changes in the assessment indicators. As such, the research can identify a relationship but not whether the relationship is directly (causally) related. Time series data may also be affected by other factors that can be difficult to isolate in the analysis, such as, changing cultures in caseworking teams in response to the Windrush scandal and the Windrush lessons learned review, and the impact from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See table 1 for an immigration detention reforms timeline).

Table 1: Timeline of immigration detention reforms

Shaw review	Reforms to policy	Trials and pilots of measures
February 2016 - first Shaw report published
	June 2016 - Detention Gatekeeper introduced
	September 2016 - AAR policy introduced
	February 2017 - case progression panels introduced
July 2018 - second Shaw report published July 2018 - Home Secretary statement on immigration detention and Shaw report	August 2018 - formation of the Shaw Board (subsequently known as Immigration Detention Reform Board)	May 2018 to September 2018 - SCS assurance of detention entries
		February 2019 to July 2019 - Auto bail pilot
	September 2019 - Rule 35 team introduced	June 2019 to October 2019 - pilot of incentivised returns from immigration detention
	March 2020 - independent members become business as usual on case progression panels	November 2019 to March 2020 - trialling independent members on case progression panels
		June 2020 to June 2022 - community engagement pilot

1.3 Oversight and governance

To provide independent oversight of the evaluation, an advisory group was established in January 2020. Chaired by Stephen Shaw, the Shaw Analytical Advisory Panel (SAAP) considered the analytical approach taken to evaluate the implementation of reforms to immigration detention in the UK. The SAAP membership comprised of Stephen Shaw; an independent external academic; a non-IE Senior Civil Servant; a Government Researcher external to the evaluation; and the Head of the Home Office Race Action Programme Team. The aims of the group were to:

• provide an overall steer on the research direction
• shape future evaluation priorities
• provide guidance and advice on evaluation issues
• provide a first opportunity for the Home Office to share and scrutinise emerging findings

The panel have also engaged in observational visits of operational activity, providing feedback to the Home Office, as well as supporting the ongoing research into ‘Measuring quality of life in detention’ led by Prof. Mary Bosworth and Dr Alice Gerlach.

The overall research programme reported to the Immigration Detention Reform Board on all issues relating to the research. This included reporting emerging findings, making recommendations, and supporting the development of the future research agenda.

1.4 Presentation of the evaluation findings

The results of the analysis of key indicators and the findings from individual evaluations are presented in this report across the 4 key aims of the detention reform program (outlined in the Background to the evaluation section).

1.4.1 Data analysis

The data analysed in this report includes all people detained within the immigration removal detention estate between January 2016 and June 2020. The number of immigration removal centres (IRCs), and the total number of people detained, is set out in figure 1.

Figure 1: Number of immigration removal centres and total people detained by year¹

Notes:

1. Data is the number on 31 March of each year.

We also analysed data on foreign national offenders (FNOs) held in prisons under immigration powers (a total of 2,160 people exited detention from a prison during this period).

This review includes cases already in detention at the start of the review period, people entering and leaving detention during this time, those who entered but were still detained at the end of this period, and some individuals who entered more than once. Those people entering an immigration removal centre (IRC) for the purposes of United Kingdom Visas and Immigration (UKVI) screening to establish a person’s identity or basis of claim have been removed from the analysis (9,808 cases) as they fall outside the scope of this study, which focuses on those who are detained for the purpose of removal from the UK. This is in line with the detained casework commands that were the focus of Stephen Shaw’s review (see Appendix C).

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the research considerably after March 2020, at which point many individuals were released from immigration detention in-line with Government regulations. Data analysis continued until the end of June 2020. Future monitoring work will consider how best to reflect this period within time-series analysis.

1.4.2 Data sources

Data analysed was extracted from the Home Office internal caseworking system the ‘Case information database’ (CID). Table 2 details how the sample was designed.

Table 2: Data sampling approach for data drawn from the Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

115,479 cases between 1 Jan 2016 - 30 June 2020	9,808 cases excluded	105,671 cases remained in the final data set
This includes those who were detained before this date but not yet released, and those detained during this time and not released when the data was extracted.	These were UKVI owned ‘on exit’ who have entered for the purposes of screening and not for removal. This does not necessarily include any or all arrivals from those on small boats, which cannot be specifically identified or removed from the dataset used for this analysis	This includes repeat entries into detention, so represents 94,082 individuals.

These sample sizes are included where relevant throughout. For the purposes of AAR analysis only, all people (cases) who entered with no recorded vulnerability on entry, during detention, or on exit were excluded.

All pre-detention analysis was conducted using internal management information (MI), held centrally by the Detention Gatekeeper (DGK).

All analysis on the case progression panels is based on records centrally managed by the Detained casework oversight and improvement team (DCOIT). Analysis specific to the independent member pilot evaluation is taken from this database, and data specifically collected by the Home Office Analysis and Insight team for this evaluation purpose only.

2. Evaluation findings - Programme aim 1: Strengthen decision-making and safeguards for the vulnerable

2.1 The Detention Gatekeeper

Individuals who enter immigration detention must have their entry authorised by the Detention Gatekeeper (DGK). To assess the volume and characteristics of those being proposed, authorised, and rejected for detention, the DGK provided a record of cases proposed to them for detention between April 2017 and June 2020 (Although the DGK became operational in June 2016, the database for recording this data was not available until April 2017).

2.1.1 Number of people proposed for detention

The high rate of acceptance into detention by the Detention Gatekeeper (DGK), and the high-rate of assurance sign-off of DGK decisions by senior civil servants (SCS), might suggest that individuals were being referred for detention appropriately and authorised for entry in line with Home Office policy.

There were 71,907 referrals to the Detention Gatekeeper between April 2017 and June 2020. In all, 96% of these referrals were accepted into immigration detention, with 4% not accepted. Acceptance rates were consistent over time (April 2017 to June 2020), as shown in figure 2, fluctuating with rates of referral rather than as a result of other external factors.

Figure 2: Referrals and acceptance rates by the DGK to immigration detention (April 2017 to June 2020)

Source: Detention Gatekeeper internal management information

The high rate of acceptance into detention suggests that the cases being referred to the DGK were appropriate for immigration detention and in line with Home Office policy. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) found that frontline Home Office staff agreed that they paid greater attention to vulnerability given that they knew their decisions to detain would be scrutinised by the DGK. However, some of these staff also criticised the DGK for inconsistency in its approach and decisions (see ‘Annual inspection of ‘Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention’ (2018–19)’).

During 2018 and 2019, all decisions to detain made by the DGK were subject to an assurance review and sign-off by senior civil servants (SCS). Out of around 16,000 decisions, these reviews only overturned 44 (or 0.3%) (see section ‘Senior civil servant assurance of detention requests’).

2.1.2 Sex

There were 61,564 men, and 10,326 women referred to the DGK, with acceptance rates of 96% and 95% respectively. This high and consistent rate of acceptance indicates 2 things: the cases being referred to the DGK were those suitable for immigration detention, and that there was no gender disparity in those accepted. While the proportion of males and females accepted was about the same, there was a big difference in volumes, 86% of all cases accepted were male. See appendices table D1.

2.1.3 Age

A small proportion of cases were aged 17 or younger, or aged 65 and above, when entering detention; fewer than 1% accepted were aged 65 or over (396), and a similar proportion were aged 17 or below (420). See appendices table D2.

Individuals aged 17 or under include a combination of short-term detentions that took place at the Border while they, or their accompanying parents, were subject to examination by Border Force officers, some individuals that were detained as part of the family returns process, and some older individuals who were subject to an age assessment and detained on the basis that it was believed they were adults. As a general principle, unaccompanied children (that is persons under the age of 18) must not be detained other than in very exceptional circumstances. See ‘Guidance for Home Office staff on Home Office policy on the use of immigration detention’.

2.1.4 Adults at risk

Most cases accepted by the DGK did not have a previously identified vulnerability, and acceptance rates for those with an identified vulnerability appeared to decrease with the severity of a person’s identified vulnerability.

In all, 86% of cases accepted by the DGK were recorded with no adult at risk (AAR) flag identified (61,056).

The trend in numbers of people with an AAR flag authorised for entry into detention was relatively flat in the 2 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (see figure 3). Where fluctuations did occur, these appeared consistent across AAR categories and no one category saw a disproportionate increase in the number of cases accepted into detention, suggesting consistency in the application of the policy. There has been a yearly fall in numbers authorised for entering detention around December time, but it is not known why there should be such a drop at the end of 2017.

Figure 3: Cases authorised for entry into immigration detention with a known vulnerability, by category, over time (April 2017 to June 2020)

Source: Detention Gatekeeper internal management information

Only 126 individuals with the highest vulnerability rating (AAR level 3) were authorised for entry into immigration detention (see table 3), and even fewer entered detention (see appendices table D3). The adults at risk policy does allow for a person assessed as AAR level 3 to be detained, but only where removal is considered imminent or where there are public protection concerns (Further details are set out in the guidance for caseworkers (page 22).

Rates of acceptance for those with an identified vulnerability decreased with severity of identified vulnerability (see table 3).

Table 3: Number of individuals accepted by the DGK by AAR level (April 2017 to June 2020)

DGK decision	AAR level 1	AAR level 2	AAR level 3
Accept	4,035	4,026	126
Reject	88	541	51
Total	4,123	4,567	177

Source: Detention Gatekeeper internal management information

2.1.5 Reasons for not authorising detention

‘Identified vulnerabilities’ was the third most common reason for the DGK not authorising detention.

As noted, only 4% of cases recommended for detention were not accepted. The top reasons, over time (April 2017 to June 2020), for non-acceptance into immigration detention, provided by the DGK, were legal barriers (38%), documentation barriers (22%) and identified vulnerabilities (19%) (see figure 4). There was an increase in cases not being accepted owing to their classification as having a low risk of absconding in mid-2018, which coincides with a time where alternatives to detention were being explored. In July 2018, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, announced that the Home Office had been working with UNHCR to develop a scheme to manage vulnerable women in the community who would otherwise be detained at Yarl’s Wood IRC. This pilot, Action Access, the first in the Home Office’s Community Engagement Pilot series, took in an initial group of participants in 2019.

Figure 4: Reasons given by the DGK for non-acceptance into immigration detention (April 2017 to June 2020)

Source: Detention Gatekeeper internal management information

Vulnerability was the third most common reason for the DGK not authorising detention. In addition, rates of acceptance for those with an identified vulnerability decreased with its severity. These findings suggest there was thought given to whether more vulnerable individuals should enter detention and, where those decisions were authorised, there had been considered reasons for doing so. These might include: how quickly removal is likely to be effected; the compliance history of the individual; and any public protection concern. Dip sampling of these cases to identify the reasons has not taken place as part of this evaluation, but could be considered as part of future research.

2.1.6 Acceptance by team assigned as ‘ring fenced owner’

The number of cases accepted into detention decreased over time (April 2017 to June 2020). Teams that dealt with clandestine and irregular entries (Border Force), and with foreign national offenders (FNOs) (Criminal Casework, or since December 2020, the Foreign National Offenders Return Command), were responsible for high numbers of referrals for immigration detention.

People are referred to the DGK by different teams across the business where they identify a case that is suitable to be considered for immigration detention (see Appendix C for a description of referring teams). Once detained, the National Returns Command (NRC) were responsible for 45% of all cases that were referred and accepted. Border Force (BF) were responsible for 17% of accepted referrals, and Criminal Casework 15%. Numbers accepted showed a small but steady rate of decrease over time (April 2017 to June 2020) (see figure 5); this can be attributed to the decreasing number of people being identified and who were eligible for entry into immigration detention as an overall trend, rather than a feature of case ownership and referral mechanisms.

Where an ICE team encounters an individual, who claims asylum, screening checks are required. The Home Office can detain the individual until completed. These cases are noted to be referred by the DGK, as it is this team who refer on post checks. 

Figure 5: Cases accepted into immigration detention by the DGK by ring fenced case owner (April 2017 to June 2020)

DGK – Detention Gatekeeper, NRC – National Removals Command.

Source: Detention Gatekeeper internal management information

2.2 Entering detention

Following authorisation by the DGK, an individual will enter immigration detention (Exceptions to this would be if the individual was removed before this date). The following section analyses the numbers and characteristics of those entering detention, between January 2016 and June 2020.

2.2.1 Numbers of people entering detention

There has been a gradual decline in the number of people entering immigration detention over the period January 2016 to March 2020, illustrating that a reduction in the use of immigration removal centres, as part of the overall system of immigration controls, was a consistent trend before the COVID-19 pandemic (see figure 6).

There were 103,040 instances where someone entered immigration detention during the period of this analysis (a small number on repeated occasions). This includes a relatively small number of individuals who entered but had not yet left the immigration detention estate before January 2016 (2,631 cases). Home Office’s ‘Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2020’ show a decline in detention entries over time, which began in 2015.

Figure 6: Number of all entries into immigration detention over time (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

There were 9,818 individuals who entered immigration detention on more than one occasion during this time. This represents approximately 10% of all people entering detention during the period of this analysis (see appendices table D5). These individuals who recorded multiple entries account for 21,407 detention entries, or 20% of all detained cases during this period.

2.2.2 Foreign national offender (FNO) status

Just over a quarter of all entries into immigration detention were foreign national offenders (FNOs) (27%). The numbers of FNOs entering detention shows a slight downward trend (see figure 7), similar to the downward trend in overall numbers entering detention.

Figure 7: Number of FNOs entering immigration detention over time (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

2.3 Adults at risk

This section focuses on the safeguarding mechanisms used by the Home Office to ensure detained cases are being held appropriately. These include the vulnerability assessment known as ‘Adults at risk’ (AAR).

The adults at risk vulnerability assessment, introduced in September 2016, is a key safeguarding mechanism for those in detention. A person will be regarded as being an adult at risk either if they declare, or if there is evidence available, that they are suffering from a condition or have experienced trauma that would be likely to make them vulnerable to harm if they are placed in, or remain in, detention. On the basis of the available evidence, the Home Office will reach a view on whether a particular person should be regarded as being “at risk” in the terms of the ‘Adults at risk in immigration detention’ guidance. Once an individual has been identified as being at risk, the evidence is reviewed in order to assess the likely risk of harm to the person if detained.

The AAR assessment system places individuals with vulnerabilities at either level 1, 2 or 3, depending on the level of evidence:

• AAR level 1 covers a self-declared vulnerability (or a declaration made on behalf of an individual by a legal representative)
• AAR level 2 is professional evidence (for example from a social worker, medical practitioner or NGO) that an individual is (or may be) an adult at risk
• AAR level 3 is professional evidence stating that the individual is at risk and that a period of detention would be likely to cause harm

The adults at risk policy applies equally to all people detained under immigration powers, regardless of where that is, therefore including those in prison detained under immigration powers.

The principle of the policy is that, once the individual’s level of evidence is determined, this is then balanced against the immigration considerations for their particular case. These include: how quickly removal is likely to be effected; the compliance history of the individual, and any public protection concerns. The person is detained (or their detention continued) only when the immigration considerations are judged to outweigh the evidence of vulnerability (see Home Office guidance ‘Adults at risk in immigration detention’).

2.3.1 Safeguarding of vulnerable adults

There has been a decline in the number of people entering detention with a known vulnerability. However, there is a consistent finding of increasing vulnerabilities while in immigration detention.

There were only a relatively small number of people authorised for detention who had a known vulnerability, and the numbers of those with a known vulnerability entering detention has fallen over the period from the introduction of the policy to June 2020 (see figure 8).

Figure 8: AAR recorded on entry to immigration detention over time (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

When a person enters immigration detention, they will meet with a healthcare professional who may identify a previously unknown vulnerability and record it as an AAR rating. An individual may also develop a vulnerability while in immigration detention or may only reveal a vulnerability after some time in immigration detention. Reflecting this, the numbers leaving detention with an AAR rating were higher than those entering it (see figure 9). It is up to casework teams to ensure the data on CID accurately reflects any changes to an individual’s case, including their adults at risk level, so the figures reported are reliant on these teams accurately inputting this data.

Figure 9: AAR recorded on exit from immigration detention over time (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

This finding of increasing vulnerability is in line with other studies which find evidence of a negative impact of detention on the mental health of people held in detention, and that the negative impact of detention on mental health increases the longer detention persists (a literature review on the impact of immigration detention on mental health, undertaken in 2016 by Professor Mary Bosworth, examined relevant academic literature on immigration detention).

While the number of people leaving detention with an AAR level 1 or level 2 fell between 2017 and 2019, there was an increase in the number of individuals leaving with an AAR level 3. Training in the AAR policy was delivered to Home Office staff in 2018 and 2019, which likely helped raise awareness of AAR with staff, so this increase in people leaving detention at the highest AAR level could reflect staff becoming more familiar with their responsibilities in safeguarding vulnerabilities rather than a worsening of any of the factors that increase vulnerability whilst in detention. This view is further supported by the second ICIBI inspection of ‘Adults at risk in immigration detention’, which found in staff interviews that “the message about the importance of engaging with vulnerability was well embedded. Staff were familiar with the principles behind the policy and able to confidently articulate their roles and responsibilities within it”.

2.3.2 Characteristics of adults at risk

The proportion of those people who were identified as being adults at risk by gender, was the same as the proportion of those who were not identified as being vulnerable, 15% of those people who had an AAR level 1 to 3 on exiting detention were women, as were 15% of those who were not AAR. Men made up 85% of both of these groups. When looked at by age, the proportion of those people who were vulnerable was higher amongst older people, 18% of those who had an AAR rating on exiting detention were aged 45 or over, compared to 12% of those who were not AAR. Similarly, there were some differences in vulnerability by nationality. Amongst those who had an AAR rating on detention exit, 13% were Indian, 10% were Pakistani, and 7% were Bangladeshi. These were higher than the proportions amongst those who were not identified as vulnerable for these nationalities (8%, 7% and 4% respectively, see appendices tables D4A, D4B and D4C.

2.3.3 Time elapsed between entry and identification of new or existing vulnerabilities

The average number of days between the identification of a new or increasing vulnerability has fallen over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020), which could suggest that staff are getting better at identifying and responding to changing vulnerabilities.

Entry into, and prolonged stays in immigration detention, may mean more vulnerabilities are subsequently identified, develop, or worsen. People who are detained undergo regular checks with staff where their vulnerabilities are assessed and reassessed, and AAR levels amended accordingly. Whilst the following picture is partial and somewhat oversimplified because AAR levels can move up or down during their time in detention, the data from this study shows that AAR levels were more likely to go up than go down. Table 4 presents the average number of days recorded where an individual moved to the next vulnerability level. In reality, reflecting the complex nature of individual health and care, individuals may have their vulnerability re-assessed and increased by more than one level, or an individual may move around the AAR levels. Table 4 provides a view of one key aspect of the changing nature of vulnerability of those people in immigration detention, but this only partially reflects the experiences of individuals.

Table 4: Average days recorded where vulnerability assessments increased by one level (January 2016 to June 2020)

AAR level increase	Mean	Median	Mode	Sample size
Not AAR to AAR1	33	16	7	4,344
AAR1 to AAR2	31	18	0	2,523
AAR2 to AAR3	37	20	0	1,494

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

The average number of days recorded for identifying changes in vulnerability, where increased vulnerabilities are identified, appeared to have decreased over time, particularly so with the increase from AAR2 to AAR3 (see figure 10). This suggests that vulnerability assessments were being conducted more frequently, and that, in conjunction with the finding that more people were leaving detention with an AAR level 3 (see figure 9), staff were identifying the most severe vulnerabilities in people more quickly.

Figure 10: Recorded changes in vulnerability over time (mean average days) (July 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

2.3.4 Time taken between recording the highest level of vulnerability (AAR3) and subsequent detention closure

The AAR policy does appear to be protecting those people with the most severe vulnerabilities from long stays in detention.

It took a mean average of 7 days (median 2, mode 0 days) from when a person was first identified as AAR3 for their detention stay to be closed (n=4,516), either by being removed from the UK or more likely by being released from detention (see below section on outcomes for those leaving detention). In all, 85% of these people exited detention between 0 and 7 days of being identified as AAR3, with a half (50%) exiting within 2 days, and a quarter (25%) having their detention closed on the same day as being identified as AAR3. This would suggest that the AAR policy is being used appropriately in ensuring only those for whom immigration detention is proportionate are held, shown by the decreasing number of days between the most severe vulnerability rating and detention closure over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020). This provides assurance, alongside the safeguard that those people known to have the most severe vulnerabilities are prevented from entry into detention at the point of review by the DGK.

2.4. Senior civil servant assurance of detention requests

During 2018 and 2019, decisions to detain individuals in immigration detention were subject to an additional layer of scrutiny from senior civil servants (SCSs). As well as the Detention Gatekeeper (DGK) approving all detention requests, there was a requirement that SCSs assured those decisions, either agreeing with, or challenging, the recommendation of the DGK (this did not apply to FNOs transferring directly from Prisons to IRCs, to those where UKVI were confirming identity, to Border Force Cases, or to those transferring from one casework unit to another). This additional layer was introduced in April 2018, in the aftermath of the Windrush scandal.

An evaluation of this additional sign-off compared the acceptance and rejection rates for detention cases before and during the period of SCS sign-off, and also compared the initial 10 weeks of the pilot with the next 10 week period the evaluation found:

• after the SCS sign-off process was implemented, the overall rejection rate for proposed detentions rose by 3.5% compared with pre-SCS sign-off levels (rising from 3.8% to 7.3%)
• when comparing the initial 10-week period of SCS sign-off with the latter 10-week period, the rejection rate remained consistent (7.3%)
• of the 4,558 cases sent to SCSs during the 20-week evaluation period, the authorising SCS disagreed with the recommendation of the DGK in only 0.7% of cases (31 cases) - by the end of August 2019, around 16,000 cases had been through this process, with 44 cases rejected by the SCS (0.3%)
• the impact of SCSs sign-off declined over the period of the pilot - in the initial 10 weeks, SCSs overruling DGK decisions increased the rejection rate for detentions by 1% (26 cases), in the latter 10 weeks SCSs overruling DGK decisions increased the rejection rate for detentions by only 0.2% (5 cases)
• the consistent rejection rate during the initial 2 sign-off periods, coupled with the decrease in SCSs overruling decisions, suggested that, over the course of the pilot, DGK staff had adapted their decision making to meet with SCSs expectations
• SCSs views were that the additional sign-off process should not continue, but some acknowledged that a light touch mechanism for assurance may still be required in the long-term^{[footnote 5]}

The evaluation concluded that the introduction of SCS sign-off was successful in increasing safeguarding measures by increasing scrutiny on detention cases and providing a mechanism of feedback between SCS and DGK. However, there had been very limited need for SCS intervention during the latter part of the pilot as DGK staff had aligned their decisions to meet the expectations of SCSs. Given the cost of the operation in terms of SCSs and DGK time, and the limited impact of the additional sign-off, it was recommended that SCS sign-off of all cases was withdrawn and replaced with other assurance measures.

In light of these findings, the DGK introduced a series of new internal assurance measures, requiring manager or senior manager sign-off for decisions to detain certain groups of potentially vulnerable individuals.

3. Evaluation findings - Programme aim 2: Reduce both the numbers of people entering detention and the length of time spent in detention

3.1 Time in detention

There were a total of 103,040 entries by people into detention between January 2016 and June 2020; 2,631 individuals were already detained at the start of January 2016.

The long-term trend shows a gradual decline in the use of immigration detention:

• just under 45% (46,182) of all cases in immigration detention stayed for 14 days or less
• fewer than 1% of cases were in detention for in excess of one year (827 individuals, 0.8%), with the longest stay recorded being 1,875 nights, or just over 5 years (this individual case involved aspects of complex criminality and safeguarding concerns)

This is in line with the published immigration system statistics (chapter on ‘How many people are detained or returned?’), which show a decline in the use of immigration detention from 2015.

3.1.1 Length of detention

The average length of stay in detention has reduced over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020), and this was the case for both foreign national offenders (FNOs), who on average spent longer in detention, and for non-FNOs.

Overall, the length of stay reduced over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020), moving from a mean average of 40 nights in 2016 to 27 nights in 2019. On average, FNOs spent longer in detention (53 days) than non FNOs (30 days) (see table 5), and for part of the period covered by this analysis the average number of nights spent in detention by FNOs increased and remained at a higher level than in 2016, before coming down again in 2018 (see figure 11).

Table 5: Average nights stayed in immigration detention shown by FNO status (January 2016 to June 2020)

	Mean	Median	Mode
Overall population	36	16	1
FNO population	53	19	1
Non-FNO population	30	15	1

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

Figure 11: Average number of nights detained for FNOs and non-FNOs (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

Notes:

1. Of all people in detention included in the analysis in this report, 2,252 were recorded as having spent 0 nights in immigration detention.

3.1.2 Nationality of the detained population

The 4 largest nationality groups in the detained population were consistently Albania, India, Pakistan, and Romania. While the Albanian population grew each year, the size of the Indian and Pakistani population reduced in size (see appendices table D6). Published immigration system statistics are available on the nationality of those in detention (chapter on ‘How many people are detained or returned?’).

3.2 Case progression panels

The function of case progression panels (CPPs) is to act as an internal assurance mechanism to ensure detention remains appropriate. This is done after an individual has been detained for 3 months and soon after every 3 months of detention thereafter, although individuals can be entered into a CPP at any time if desired.

Each CPP consists of a chair, 4 CPP members, and CPP experts. As a minimum requirement for a CPP to operate, CPP members from Criminal Casework Command, National Returns Command, Returns Logistics, Litigation Operations, and where resources allow, the Detention Gatekeeper, will be required to attend every CPP. Other experts could be from the Adult at Risk Returns Assurance Team, the Operational Support and Certification Unit, the Presenting Officers Unit, and from Removals Enforcement and Detention Policy or Asylum Policy.

The CPP reviews the appropriateness of continued detention, adherence to the AAR policy, case progression actions, and provides one of 3 recommendations to the team responsible for the ownership of the cases concerned. The 3 recommendations that can be made are: release, maintain in detention, or suggest an action to progress the case (while the individual is maintained in detention). CPP make recommendations only, and responsibility for all individuals detained rests with Criminal Casework, Foreign National Offender Returns Command and the National Returns Command.

This section analyses the recommendations of the case progression panels (CPP) alongside the length of time between the panel recommendation and the person’s detention ending.

3.2.1 Case progression panels numbers and recommendations

There is a high rate of eligible persons having their case reviewed by a CPP. A quarter of the recommendations made by CPPs are to release the person in detention.

The number of people eligible for review whose case was put before a panel was high. Of those cases who entered immigration detention in 2019, a total of 1,344 people, 95% of those who had been detained for 90 days or more, were reviewed by a CPP (1,271 cases).

There were 4,407 recommendations made by CPP between April 2018 and June 2020 (see table 6). This is the number of last recorded CPP recommendations. There may have been other recommendations made on the same case at previous CPP before the last recorded recommendation.

Table 6: Case progression panel recommendation types (April 2018 to June 2020)¹

Recommendation	Number	Proportion
Maintain detention	2,072	47%
Maintain detention with mandated actions	1,257	29%
Release from detention	1,078	24%
Total	4,407	100%

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

Notes:

1. Although CPP began in 2017, available data on CID starts from April 2018.

The largest proportion of recommendations were to maintain detention (47%), with a quarter (24%) of CPP recommendations made to release the person from detention. These figures were largely consistent over time (April 2018 to June 2020) (see figure 12) once the initial backlog of cases in detention, in at the time of the introduction of case progression panels and eligible for review, had been before a panel. More than a quarter (29%) of all cases were recorded as ‘maintain with mandated actions’, which means these were referred back to caseworking teams requesting further information.

Figure 12: Number of cases seen by a CPP by recommendation made over time (April 2018 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

3.2.2 Compliance with CPP recommendations

The quality of data on compliance is weak, so there is no clear picture of performance in complying with CPP recommendations.

When a recommendation is made by the CPP, a caseworker is required to acknowledge and respond by either accepting or rejecting it, providing supporting evidence as to reasons for rejection. Compliance is measured at this stage (that is, acknowledgement of recommendation is made). Compliance is then further measured in terms of whether the recommended action is agreed with, and whether it is subsequently carried out. Measurement of compliance has varied throughout the period of this analysis, and as a result there is no clear overall picture of performance.

It is worth noting that some actions taken have no provable link to panel recommendations, and actions recorded as complying appeared to contradict some case records. Caseworkers are required to note in the file where recommendations have been received and therefore acknowledged. However, case owners do not appear to have consistently acknowledged panel recommendations; 52% of cases recorded ‘unknown’ or ‘n/a’ when noting whether a caseworker has accepted or rejected a panel’s recommendation. As part of the case progression panel independence evaluation, November 2019 to May 2020, at least 33 cases were recorded as being compliant, where the recorded action did not match the recommendation made, highlighting issues with the quality of this data in reporting compliance. In addition, there was no mandated timeframe associated with the recommendation’s acknowledgement, making meaningful, prompt-compliance difficult to understand. Some cases noted compliance when the action was carried out in an unrelated timeframe (that is, on the same day, or months after the recommendation is made).

3.2.3 Time between CPP recommendation and detention closure

There were 1,078 release recommendations made during the period April 2018 to June 2020 (24% of all recommendations made). The mean average number of days between this recommendation being made and the release being effected in these cases was 31 days, median 23 days (minimum 0 days, maximum 168 days). There was however no robust evidence that directly links the recommendation with the action. It is possible, where releases appear to have been effected quickly, that an agreement to release had already been made.

3.2.4 Independent members of case progression panels

The introduction of independent members on CPPs, while not making a significant difference in panel recommendations, appears to have improved the accountability of the CPPs through higher quality discussion of the cases.

Recommendation 32, made by Stephen Shaw in 2018, was to trial the introduction of independent oversight onto case progression panels. The recommendation made in the Shaw report, specific to this panel, was to review the panel make-up of Home Office only staff and consider the balance that might be brought to the decision-making processes by introducing independent members.

The independent member pilot started in November 2019 with 2 new members (with law enforcement backgrounds and expertise). Phase 1 of the pilot concluded in March 2020, comprising observation of CPPs, analysis of the recommendations made in panels, both with and without members, and the views of Home Office staff and independent members.

The key findings of the pilot evaluation were:

• the inclusion of independent members had no statistically significant impact on the decisions made by panels, business compliance, and number of cases discussed
• having independent members in the panels appeared to have improved the quality of discussion, evidenced through observations, interviews, and focus groups conducted as part of the pilot evaluation
• independent members appeared to take a broader view of case progression, looking beyond individual department or team responsibilities where internal panel members were less likely to do so; they moved the discussion from practical Home Office considerations and towards the overall ‘greater good’, moving discussions away from existing process and procedures for a broader, more rounded perspective on detained case progression, as reported through panel member interviews, panel observations and independent member focus groups

Phase 2 commenced in May 2020, when 3 new independent members were introduced (with backgrounds in child protection, safeguarding, and the protection of vulnerable individuals). The analysis team continued to monitor the performance as independent membership became ‘business as usual’ and concluded that new independent members had a continued and growing positive influence on panel operation and that panel quality overall was improving.

3.3 Outcomes for people leaving detention

The following section reports on the number of detention closures, the reasons given for the closures, and the rates of ‘removals’ versus ‘releases’ from detention.

3.3.1 Number of detention closures

There were 105,153 detention closures during the period of this analysis, January 2016 to June 2020, which represents 99.5% of all detained cases.

3.3.2 Reasons for closing detentions

While removals gradually declined over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020) (see figure 13), it remained the most common reason attributed to a detention closure, at 47% of closures overall, increasing to 64% when looking at the FNOs group alone. The rate of closure for reasons of immigration bail or temporary release dropped over the study’s timeframe (2016 to 2020) and may point towards the positive presence of the DGK, in that only those for whom there were no known legal obstacles were referred for consideration.

Figure 13: Reasons for detention closure over time (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

A separate research project, looked at issues raised by people in immigration detention between 2017 and 2019 and whether the person was released. This analysis looked at 8 legal avenues through which a person could seek to remain in the UK, or challenge the decision to remove or detain them, and one further issue for which there is no legal basis. Most people detained following immigration offences were recorded as having raised one or more of the issues in detention. The research also found that the combined prevalence of these issues has increased. In 2019, people raised one or more of these issues during 73% of detentions, compared to 67% in 2018 and 63% in 2017. Where none of these issues were raised, detention generally ended with the person being returned to another country (67%). Conversely, detention almost always ended in release where one or more of these issues were raised (94% released).

3.3.3 Reason for detention closure among those with identified vulnerabilities

Measures are being taken to release the most vulnerable individuals from immigration detention.

Almost two-thirds of all cases with recorded vulnerability AAR level 3 were released from immigration detention on account of their vulnerability (64% recorded during the period of this analysis, or 3,122 individuals) (see figure 14). Only 3% of those with an AAR level 3 recorded vulnerability were removed from the UK (compared with 47% of closures overall). The number of these individuals released before removal could be effected can be juxtaposed with the higher rate of removals seen amongst the general population of detained individuals.

Figure 14: Most common reasons for detention closure among those who left as AAR level 3 (January 2016 to June 2020)

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

Notes:

1. Proportion of those leaving as AAR3, n=4,409

3.3.4 Rates of removal, by detained casework owning team

National Returns Command; including Third Country Unit and Detained Asylum Casework (19,411 cases, 40% of removals), and teams owning cases involving aspects of criminal behaviour; Criminal Casework Directorate, Nexus and Non-criteria FNOs (17,863 cases, 36% of removals), had the highest number of removals. Border Force referred 24% of all cases that were removed during this time. The highest rates of removal were amongst cases referred by Border Force, where 76% of referrals were removed, and by the teams referring FNOs, Non-criteria FNO (77%), Criminal Casework Directorate (64%), and Nexus (55%) (see table 7). See Appendix C for a description of the teams.

Table 7: Rates of removal, by referral team (January 2016 to June 2020)

Referring team	Case owning team	Number of cases removed	Rate of removal
Border Force	Border Force	11,679	76%
Criminal Casework	Criminal Casework	17,040	64%
Nexus	Criminal Casework	454	55%
Non-criteria FNO	Criminal Casework	369	77%
National Returns Command	National Returns Command	16,178	35%
Third Country Unit (TCU)	TCU (NRC since March 2019)	1,209	21%
Detained Asylum Casework (DAC)	DAC (NRC since February 2019)	2,024	25%
Family Returns	Family Returns	35	18%
Special Cases Unit	Special Cases Unit	8	53%
Other (including anomalies)	Other	33	3%
Not available	Not available	17	33%
Total		49,046	46%

Source: Case information database (CID) – Home Office casework system

3.3.5 Nationalities with the highest number of removals from the UK

People of Romanian and Albanian nationality were consistently the most likely to be removed from the UK (see appendices table D7). This reflects the biggest groups of people in immigration detention, and the relative ease at which the UK can remove these nationalities.

3.4 Automatic referral for immigration bail at 2 months

The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) handles applications for immigration bail from people being held by the Home Office on immigration matters. In July 2019, the then Home Secretary announced a pilot process whereby eligible detained persons would be automatically referred to the Tribunal for a bail hearing after 2 months’ detention or last Tribunal consideration of bail. The aim was to provide a mechanism to assure that longer terms in detention were justified. This was an increased frequency to the statutory 4-month time frame.

The pilot applied to all people entering detention between 10 February and 9 March 2019.

A group of all people entering detention for 6 months (1 July to 31 December 2018) was used as a baseline comparator to the pilot cohort, to ensure sufficient data to reflect ‘typical’ outcomes before the pilot began.

The key findings of the pilot evaluation were:

• considerably more individuals in detention were referred for bail consideration under the 2-month pilot (93) than the previous model of 4 months (80 across the whole baseline period), primarily due to more people being eligible; feedback from caseworking teams was that they dealt with a higher number of bail applications during the pilot
• there was almost no difference in the proportion granted bail when comparing the baseline and pilot cohort (1% versus 2%)
• the pilot did not appear to make a difference to the average time spent in detention, 11 days was the median average for the baseline period and 10.5 the median for the pilot
• the increase in referrals at 2 months did not lead to large delays in auto bail hearings; however, fewer hearings were scheduled due to the high attrition rate
• staff interviews and interviews with people in detention reveal a lack of understanding from those in detention about the bail process as a whole

The evaluation concluded that automatic referrals at 2 months made almost no difference in the number of people granted bail when comparing the baseline and pilot cohort, and the pilot did not make a difference to the time spent in detention. As a result of the pilot findings, the Home Office decided not to introduce the 2-month bail referral (see correspondence from Chris Philp MP to Rt Hon. Yvette Cooper MP).

3.5 Incentivised returns from detention pilot

The incentivised returns from detention pilot (IRD) offered £300 to people who, within the first 5 days of their detention, committed to returning to their countries of origin, reducing to £200 from day 6 to 15. The pilot ran from 17 June 2019 for 8 weeks in Tinsley House IRC and Brook House IRC.

A total of 696 people were detained in Tinsley House and Brook House during the pilot period. Of these, 502 met the criteria to be offered the incentive to return. The acceptance rate for those people who met the criteria was just under 20% across both IRCs, or 14% of all those detained (95 people in detention out of 696). Once accepted, the withdrawal rate from the pilot was extremely low. Only 4 people withdrew from the pilot after initially accepting. The most common reason given for not joining the IRD was a fear of, or not wanting to return to the country of origin. Only one detained person (out of 388 who provided a reason for rejecting the offer) commented on the amount of money being too low as their reason for rejecting the offer.

Those people who accepted the offer spent fewer days in detention than those who did not. However, this did not impact on the median time in detention overall for the 2 pilot IRCs, when compared to historic data. This may be because the offer was being accepted by those who, it was felt by staff, would have left anyway (‘deadweight’). Despite this, interviews with staff found they felt there was a place for an incentive to encourage returns from detention.

The direct cost of running the pilot through vouchers was low, but there was little evidence of other cost savings in terms of bed nights per return, as there was no evidence that the pilot lead to decreased time in detention. In terms of a reduction in disrupted returns, the number of returns that were disrupted for administrative reasons under the pilot was similar to those reported before the pilot started.

There is evidence of a link between this pilot and the Detained Voluntary Departure Reimbursement Scheme (DVDRS) (The DVDRS enables people in detention, who are willing to return voluntarily, to purchase their own ticket. The Home Office will purchase the airline ticket on their behalf and the detained person will then be expected to reimburse the Home Office for the cost of the ticket). More people opted for voluntary departure reimbursement during the pilot period but there is no direct evidence that the IRD money was used to reimburse flight costs.

Staff also identified issues with overburdensome administrative processes and logistical difficulties.

4. Evaluation findings - Programme aim 3: Improve transparency

In contrast to the first 2 programme aims, there have been fewer activities completed to ensure transparency is a key part of the detention reform programme.

4.1  Expansion of published immigration system statistics

The Home Office routinely publishes statistics on those entering and leaving detention as part of its immigration system statistics quarterly release (see the chapter on ‘How many people are detained or returned?), and is committed to reviewing the data being published, and where appropriate, adding to the information publicly available. Data on deaths in detention was first reported within other statistics in November 2018, and was then published in separate data tables (‘Detention summary tables, year ending September 2019’; table Det_05) from November 2019. The data published in 2020, and backdated to 2017, featured a definitional change to include deaths where, if after leaving detention, the person’s death was as a result of an incident occurring while detained or where there is credible information that their death might have resulted from their period of detention and the Home Office has been informed. New data released in 2021 included revised figures for 2017 to 2019 and data for 2020, although there were no deaths in detention in 2020. This data will be updated annually in August.

4.2  Independent scrutiny of the adults at risk policy

Independent scrutiny has long been a vital part of assurance that detention facilities are safe, secure, and humane. Statutory oversight of the Home Office’s detention facilities is provided by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Independent Monitoring Boards. The aim of this independent scrutiny is to seek to ensure that people held in immigration detention are treated with expected standards of care and decency.

Independent scrutiny of immigration detention was further extended in July 2018, when the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to annually report whether and how the adults at risk policy is making a difference to people in detention. The first of these reports was published in April 2020, and the second in October 2021.

4.3  Independent research conducted in immigration removal centres

The evidence base on detention has also been widened through providing independent researchers access to IRCs. Published research on the quality of life in detention, undertaken by Professor Bosworth and Dr Gerlach in 2019 (see section ‘Measuring the quality of life in immigration detention: A new report’ below), was conducted with Home Office approval, with the researchers being given access to people detained in IRCs.

5. Evaluation findings - Programme aim 4: Ensure that everyone who enters detention is treated with dignity in an estate fit for purpose

In order to understand the experiences of those in detention, we drew upon small projects, completed to assess this topic.

5.1 Measuring the quality of life in immigration detention: A new report

In March 2020, the Centre for Criminology at Oxford University published a report by Professor Mary Bosworth and Dr Alice Gerlach on the results from the measure of the quality of life in detention (MQLD) questionnaire, given to people in detention across all 7 immigration removal centres (IRCs), between July and September 2019. The survey was completed by 459 adult men and women, representing 33% of the detained population at the time. Ninety-two of the surveys (20%) were submitted in a language other than English, using one of the 8 language translations available. The data provides a baseline for understanding the experience of detention, whilst noting some methodological limitations, the self-selected sample and the use of self-report measures raising questions relating to representativeness and accuracy, which should be borne in mind when reviewing the findings.

Some of the key findings were:

• most respondents exhibited high levels of vulnerability and distress
• respondents were more distressed the longer they stayed in detention
• wellbeing scores differed across the estate; smaller IRCs tended to have lower distress scores than larger IRCs; there were also notable differences between Harmondsworth and Colnbrook (the 2 Heathrow IRCs)
• respondents’ views of onsite Home Office staff were generally positive, largely perceiving the onsite immigration officers to be clear, fair, and respectful; views of caseworkers (who respondents tend not to meet and who make decisions about maintaining detention) were much less so
• most people would report concerning behaviour of others or low mood in themselves to IRC staff
• respondents were generally positive about their ability to contact and understand their lawyer; however, there were high levels of uncertainty about what could happen next in their case

Professor Bosworth is an expert member of the Shaw Analytical Advisory Panel and as such has participated in discussions on where it would be valuable for the Home Office to further explore these research findings. Areas that have been prioritised are:

• further investigation of the differences seen in performance scores across Colnbrook and Harmondsworth IRC
• identification of good practice in how onsite Home Office staff work with the people detained there

The qualitative elements of this follow-up research have been paused due to COVID-19 related restrictions.

5.2 Populations of Colnbrook IRC and Harmondsworth IRC

One area of the MQLD survey findings that the report authors suggested invites further investigation, is the notable difference in the results between Colnbrook IRC and the adjacent Harmondsworth IRC. Both establishments are run by the same senior management team, yet whilst individual perceptions of life within Colnbrook were broadly similar to views from across the whole IRC estate, the results from Harmondsworth were noticeably more negative on almost all quality of life dimensions explored in the research.

The MQLD report authors recommended qualitative analysis to further explore these distinctions between establishments, suggesting differences in the physical design of the buildings may be salient, as well as local practices.

Before undertaking such qualitative research, the Home Office analysed the characteristics of the population detained in the 2 IRCs during the survey fieldwork period, to understand whether any differences in the 2 populations may offer an explanation for the differences in reported experience between Colnbrook and Harmondsworth.

The most notable difference between the 2 establishments was that Harmondsworth, despite having a lower occupancy rate than Colnbrook, still had around twice the number of detained people as Colnbrook.

The differences between the 2 populations threw little light on why perceptions were more negative for those people detained in Harmondsworth. It was therefore agreed that, as suggested by the MQLD authors, qualitative research should be undertaken with staff at the 2 IRCs to further explore the factors impacting on the perceptions of quality of life of the people detained there.

This further research has been on hold due to the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.3 Language interpretation services in IRCs

People detained in immigration removal centres (IRCs) have varying levels of English language proficiency, thus IRCs use interpretation services to provide information in foreign languages. In his 2018 follow-up review, Stephen Shaw recommended that “The Home Office and Ministry of Justice should conduct a review of the quality of interpreter services in IRCs.” (Recommendation 19). He noted particular concern about the quality of telephone interpretation services at healthcare appointments and wanted this explored in more detail.

As a result, from April to August 2019, Detention and Escorting Services (DES) reviewed interpretation services in immigration detention, including in the Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) run Morton Hall IRC. The review covered the quality of telephone interpretation services, usage, English fluency assessments, equipment, and how demand for translation varied by language and nationality.

The review found that:

• overall usage of interpreter services was good across IRCs, but there was evidence of lower use at the more populous IRCs and at reception across IRCs
• data suggested IRC staff sometimes failed to properly assess the English fluency of new individuals in immigration detention and offer interpreting services at reception
• some of the telephone equipment in IRCs was not conducive to good use of interpreter services, specifically, single-handset telephones were detrimental to call clarity and confidentiality and should be replaced with dual-handsets or conference phones
• Chinese, Brazilian, and Albanian individuals had a greater need for interpreting than other nationalities - the provision of interpreting services should be planned accordingly
• on average, the quality of approximately 80% of calls was satisfactory, but, the 20% of calls where quality was not satisfactory was seen as significant, given the gravity of conversation staff have with individuals in detention

The Home Office undertook 3 pilots to evaluate the success of using technology to improve interpreting services, 2 of the pilots introduced new hand-held interpreting devices and the third tested new dual-handset equipment to provide better quality telephone interpreting services.

Following the successful pilot of dual-handset phones, their use has now been rolled out across the estate. In addition, the hand-held interpreting device has also been rolled out to all sites following a positive trial. These devices are used for more informal and general communication to supplement the more trusted, professional interpreter phone service, which will continue for formal and “official” communication.

In August and September 2020, DES worked with the Detention Engagement Teams (DET), service providers (including interpreters), and people in detention to roll out satisfaction surveys across the estate to measure the impact of the enhancements made since the 2019 review. In total, nearly 200 surveys were returned, with 83% of those residents asked to complete a survey happy to give their views.

This survey’s results appeared to show improvements on previous surveys undertaken. People held in immigration detention appeared happier with the translation services on offer across the estate, with the additional tools in place to aid effective communication, and with how their privacy was considered.

The view of interpreters was also positive, with the majority being satisfied with the quality of the phone lines used, volume levels, and the level of background noise. The DET and service providers noted that all communication devices were easy to use and worked as expected at the start of the call most (93%) of the time, and for the remainder of the call. There were no technical issues reported with the equipment throughout the 6-week period; however, there were a few instances of interpreters not being available or there being a lengthy wait to connect to one. Once interpreters joined the call, all parties seemed content with the service they were able to provide.

Dual-handsets were the most commonly used communication tool, reflecting that previous concerns about the confidentiality of residents had been taken on board.

The 2020 review also found an assessment was made regarding the individual’s level of English ahead of the call or upon their arrival at the centre or facility in all but 6 occasions recorded in this exercise, further suggesting that this was something taken seriously by detention estate staff.

Appendix A – Shaw reviews

On 9th February 2015, the then Home Secretary, the Right Honourable Theresa May, commissioned Stephen Shaw to complete an ‘independent review into the Home Office’s policies and operating procedures that have an impact on the welfare of individuals in immigration detention. Stephen Shaw’s ‘Review into in detention of vulnerable persons. A report to the Home Office by Stephen Shaw’ was published in January 2016 and made 64 recommendations.

A second review was then commissioned by the Right Honourable Amber Rudd in September 2017 to examine the Home Office response to the first review. This remit was further extended in November 2017 to include:

• staff culture
• recruitment and training
• the sufficiency of the complaints’ mechanisms
• the effectiveness of whistle-blowing procedures

Stephen Shaw published his second review ‘Assessment of government progress in implementing the report on the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons. A follow-up report to the Home Office by Stephen Shaw’ was published in July 2018 and made a further 44 recommendations.

Following the publication of the report, the Home Secretary (The Right Honourable Sajid Javid), on 24 July 2018, made a number of commitments that he said ‘ensure that our immigration system, including our approach to immigration detention, is fair and is humane. This is rightly what the public rightly expects. They want rules which are firmly enforced. But in a way which treats people with the dignity that they deserve’.

Appendix B - Evaluation indicators and activity by the 4 key aims of the programme

Table B: Evaluation indicators and activities

Programme aim	Quantitative measures	Individual evaluations and projects	New published data
Aim 1: Strengthen decision-making and safeguards for the vulnerable	- Detention Gatekeeper data (acceptance rates, reasons for rejection) - Number of people entering detention (including vulnerability and FNOs) - Level of vulnerability throughout detention	- Senior civil servant (SCS) sign-off of detention requests
Aim 2: Reduce both the numbers of people entering detention and the length of time spent in detention	- Average time spent in detention - Case progression panels (number of case progression panels, recommendations and compliance, eligibility, and time from recommendation to action) - Outcomes of those people leaving detention (for example, returns, released)	- Independence in case progression panels - Automatic referral for immigration bail at 2 months - Incentivised returns from detention pilot
Aim 3: Improve transparency		- Quality of life work from Mary Bosworth and Alice Gerlach	- Publication of deaths in detention and the nationality of those in detention
Aim 4: Ensure that everyone who enters detention is treated with dignity in an estate fit for purpose		- Quality of life work from Mary Bosworth and Alice Gerlach - Improvement of interpreter services - Harmondsworth and Colnbrook comparison

Appendix C – Referring teams and detained casework commands

Within the Borders and Migration system, there are those who encounter a migrant, consider the individual circumstances and refer the individual to the Detention Gatekeeper for detention; and those who manage the individuals when detained. In this report those teams are named as ‘referring teams’ and ‘detained casework commands’.

Referring teams include:

Border Force (BF), who would encounter a migrant either at the Primary Control Point at a UK port, or, in some cases, within a maritime port as a clandestine entrant. Border Force refer individuals for detention and manage their ongoing detention for 7 days, when management transfers to the National Returns Command.

Criminal Casework (CC) / FNO Returns Command (FNORC) manage FNOs in prison and seek to return them at the end of their custodial sentence. If this is not possible then they would refer the individual to immigration detention and manage their ongoing detention.

Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE), encounter migrants through intelligence led operations or through police call-outs. Migrants are referred to detention and then managed by CC / FNORC if they are an FNO, or by the National Returns Command if they are not.

Reporting and Offender Management (ROM) are responsible for the contact management of those who are liable to be returned to their country of origin. Migrants are referred for detention and then managed by CC / FNORC if they are an FNO, or by the National Returns Command if they are not.

The Detention Gatekeeper are recorded as a referring team when they consider the individuals detained by ICE Teams require additional asylum screening and checks, and when those detained by the National Asylum Intake Unit (which includes the Midlands Intake Unit and Kent Intake Unit) are considered as suitable for consideration within Detained Asylum Casework (DAC). The ongoing detention of migrants who have claimed asylum and are not FNOs, is managed by the National Returns Command.

Detained casework commands manage the detention of different cohorts of individuals in detention. These commands also describe what are known as ring fence owners (RFOs). Stephen Shaw’s 2018 report (section 4.1) describes the detained casework commands looked at in his review as follows:

• Border Force (BF) is a Home Office directorate and as an operational command manages people in detention for a short period from arrival; the detention period is from day one
• Criminal Casework (CC) / FNO Returns Command (FNORC) is part of Home Office Immigration Enforcement and, as an operational command, manages foreign national offenders through the deportation and removal process; the detention period is from day one and can follow custodial detention
• Operation Nexus (no longer active) was a specialist team within Criminal Casework; the team managed high harm foreign national offenders referred predominantly from the police; referrals also come from ICE teams; the detention period is from day one and can follow custodial detention
• The National Returns Command (NRC) is part of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement directorate and as an operational command manages immigration offenders through the removal process; the detention period can be from day one or can follow a period of detention with Border Force

Appendix D - Characteristics of people in detention

The data presented includes all cases detained within the immigration removal detention estate between January 2016 and June 2020. This may include cases already in detention at the start of the review period, cases entering and leaving detention during this time, and those who entered but were still detained at the end of this period, and some individuals who entered more than once.

Table D1: Sex of people accepted into immigration detention ¹

Year	Female Number	Female %	Male Number	Male %	Total
2016	4,094	15%	24,828	85%	28,922
2017	4,181	15%	23,903	85%	28,084
2018	3,639	15%	21,106	85%	24,745
2019	3,365	14%	21,104	86%	24,469
2020 2	640	11%	5,981	89%	6,621
Total	15,919	15%	96,922	85%	112,841

Notes:

1. This is data recorded on entry into detention, taken from CID, not DGK recorded data. It excludes the cases already in detention at the start of the period.
2. Data includes quarter 1 and quarter 2, 2020 only.
3. In tables D1, D2, and D3, % figure is % of the annual total.

Table D2: Age of people accepted into immigration detention ¹

Age	2016 Number	2016 %	2017 Number	2017 %	2018 Number	2018 %	2019 Number	2019 %	20202 Number	2020 %	Total Number	Total %
0 to 17	121	0%	86	0%	104	0%	101	0%	8	0%	420	0%
18 to 24	7,665	27%	6,931	25%	6,469	26%	6,725	27%	2,029	31%	29,819	26%
25 to 34	11,297	39%	11,020	39%	9,527	39%	9,267	38%	2,482	37%	43,593	39%
35 to 44	6,128	21%	6,314	22%	5,567	22%	5,399	22%	1,395	21%	24,803	22%
45 to 54	2,752	10%	2,720	10%	2,419	10%	2,333	10%	559	8%	10,783	10%
55 to 64	846	3%	865	3%	603	2%	584	2%	129	2%	3,027	3%
65 to 74	113	0%	148	1%	56	0%	60	0%	19	0%	396	0%
Total	28,922		28,084		24,745		24,469		6,621		112,841

Notes:

1. This is data recorded on entry into detention, taken from CID, not DGK recorded data. It excludes the cases already in detention at the start of the period.
2. Data includes quarter 1 and quarter 2, 2020 only.

Table D3: Known vulnerability of those people entering detention¹

Year	AAR level 1 Number	AAR level 1 %	AAR level 2 Number	AAR level 2 %	AAR level 3 Number	AAR level 3 %	Not AAR Number	Not AAR %	Total
2016	645	2%	397	1%	13	0%	27,867	96%	28,922
2017	2,185	8%	1,872	7%	28	0%	23,999	85%	28,084
2018	2,146	9%	1,620	7%	36	0%	20,943	85%	24,745
2019	1,571	6%	1,140	5%	22	0%	21,736	89%	24,469
20202	337	28%	260	21%	13	1%	610	50%	1,220

Notes:

1. This data is that which is recorded on entry into detention, taken from CID, not DGK recorded data.
2. Data includes quarter 1 and quarter 2, 2020 only.

Table D4A: Characteristics of adults at risk – Sex¹

Sex	AAR level 1 to 3 Number	AAR level 1 to 3 % of total	Not AAR Number	Not AAR % of total
Female	3,644	15%	11,828	15%
Male	20,661	85%	69,538	85%
Total	24,305	100%	81,366	100%

Notes:

1. AAR level on detention exit, taken from CID.

Table D4B: Characteristics of adults at risk – Age¹

Age	AAR level 1 to 3 Number	AAR level 1 to 3 % of total	Not AAR Number	Not AAR % of total
0 to 17	11	0%	305	0%
18 to 24	4,641	19%	20,947	26%
25 to 34	9,146	38%	31,703	39%
35 to 44	6,111	25%	18,410	23%
45 to 54	3,186	13%	7,739	10%
55 to 64	1,049	4%	2,027	2%
65 to 74	161	1%	235	0%
Total	24,305	100%	81,366	100%

Notes:

1. AAR level on detention exit, taken from CID.

Table D4C: Characteristics of adults at risk – Nationality (largest 10 nationality groups)¹

Country	AAR level 1 to 3 Number	AAR level 1 to 3 % of total	Not AAR Number	Not AAR % of total
Albania	2,920	12%	8,730	11%
India	3,072	13%	6,173	8%
Pakistan	2,494	10%	5,895	7%
Romania	600	2%	6,269	8%
Bangladesh	1,743	7%	3,247	4%
Nigeria	1,412	6%	3,323	4%
China	1,102	5%	3,579	4%
Poland	754	3%	3,687	5%
Brazil	341	1%	3,470	4%
Iran	728	3%	2,328	3%
Total (of all nationalities)	24,305		81,366

Notes:

1. AAR level on detention exit, taken from CID.

Table D5: Number of entries of people into detention

Number of entries by an individual	Frequency	% of total
1	92,564	80%
2	9.093	8%
3	1,177	1%
4	202	Less than 0.5%
5	45	Less than 0.5%
6	17	Less than 0.5%
7	5	Less than 0.5%
8	0	Less than 0.5%
9	2	Less than 0.5%
10	1	Less than 0.5%

Table D6: Largest 4 nationality groups of people in detention

Country	2016 Number	2016 %	2017 Number	2017 %	2018 Number	2018 %	2019 Number	2019 %
Albania	2,196	6%	2,295	7%	2,685	10%	3,482	13%
India	2,766	8%	2,189	7%	1,860	7%	1,742	7%
Pakistan	2,561	8%	2,445	8%	1,811	7%	1,154	4%
Iran	1,531	5%	927	3%	757	3%	1,756	7%
Other	24,872	73%	23,912	75%	19,973	74%	18,446	69%
Total	33,926		31,768		27,086		26,580

Notes:

1. % figure is % of the annual total

Table D7: Nationalities of people with the highest number of removals from the UK, January 2016 to June 2020

Country	Number of removals	% of all removals
Romania	6,393	13%
Albania	6,192	13%
Brazil	3,447	7%
Poland	3,421	7%
Pakistan	2,254	5%
India	2,246	5%
Latvia	2,068	4%
China	1,496	3%
USA	1,389	3%
Nigeria	1,3661	3%
Other (186 nationalities)	18,797	38%

Glossary of terminology

Adults at risk (AAR)
The Home Office policy that sets out a number of conditions or experiences and assesses whether an individual would be deemed to be “particularly vulnerable to harm in detention”. The risk categories go from AA1 level 1 to AAR level 3 (with 3 being the highest risk category).

Alternatives to detention
Refers to any practise that ensures individuals are not detained for reasons relating to their immigration status. Immigration detention must be used sparingly and as a last resort under international law and therefore alternatives to detention must be explored which allow people at risk of immigration detention to live in non-custodial, community-based settings while their immigration status is being resolved.

Border Force (BF)
A Home Office directorate, and as an operational command manages people in detention for a short period from arrival.

Case information database (CID)
The official internal Home Office caseworking system.

Case progression panels (CPP)
A panel of individuals who provide additional assurance and safeguards on the progress of cases of individuals in detention and are responsible for reviewing the continuing appropriateness of detention and adherence to detention policies, including the AAR policy.

Criminal Casework (CC)
Part of Home Office Immigration Enforcement, and as an operational command manages foreign national offenders through the deportation and removal process. The detention period is from day one and can follow custodial detention.

Detained Voluntary Departure Reimbursement Scheme (DVDRS)
The DVDRS enables people in detention, who are willing to return voluntarily, to purchase their own ticket. The Home Office will purchase the airline ticket on their behalf and the detained person will then be expected to reimburse the Home Office for the cost of the ticket.

Detention Engagement Team (DET) A Home Office team who are present in all immigration removal centres. They engage with people who are detained to help them understand their cases and deal with any issues or queries regarding their immigration case.

Detention and Escorting Service (DES)
A Home Office team who operates in immigration removal centres and are responsible for all on-site and contract monitoring work.

Detention Gatekeeper (DGK)
A Home Office team who reviews and authorises the suitability of individuals for immigration detention.

Foreign National Offender (FNO)
Any person who does not have absolute legal right to remain in the country and is remanded or convicted on criminal charges.

Immigration bail
A legal procedure which is available to any individual who has been detained by the Home Office once they have been in the UK for 7 days. A person may either be released on bail by Secretary of State Bail or bail from First-tier Tribunal bail.

Immigration detention
The Home Office practise of holding people for the purposes of immigration control. There are a number of reasons why a person may be detained. Typically, a person may be detained if they do not have immigration status, their visa has expired, or they have overstayed or breached the terms of their visa. Asylum seekers who either have a claim refused or in process may also be detained.

Immigration removal centre (IRC)
A centre where individuals are detained, other than a prison, for the processing of their application to remain in the UK, or prior to their removal from the UK.

National Returns Command (NRC)
Part of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement directorate and as an operational command manages immigration offenders through the removal process. The detention period can be from day one or can follow a period of detention with Border Force.

Ring Fenced Owner (RFO)
Teams who are responsible for managing the detention of different cohorts of individuals in immigration detention.

Tribunal
A court of justice or body which is established to settle or determine claims or disputes. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) handles applications for immigration bail from people being held by the Home Office on immigration matters.

UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI)
Part of the Home Office and is responsible for decisions every year about who has the right to visit or stay in the country, emphasising the importance of national security and embedding a culture of customer satisfaction for people who come here legally.

Acknowledgements

We would like thank Stephen Shaw and the members of the Shaw Analytical Advisory Panel (SAAP) for their advice on the direction of the evaluation and for their comments on an early draft of this report.

Thanks to Home Office colleagues within Immigration Enforcement, specifically the Immigration Detention Reform Board, Detention and Escorting Services, Detention Gatekeeper, Detained casework oversight and improvement team, and National Returns Command, for their help with the research and provision of information and data.

1. Where removal is referred to in this report, this means removal from the UK, and the term has been used for the enforced return from the UK for people subject to administrative removal, for the deportation of foreign national offenders, and for those people returned after being detained at a port. ↩

2. Data includes cases that were granted temporary admission or temporary release (18,029 cases), granted immigration bail (7,358), bailed (6,966), court order (82) and granted Secretary of State bail (17). ↩

3. For the purpose of this report, ‘cases’ is used when referring to instances of individuals who have had repeat entries into immigration detention. While distinctions between cases and individuals in immigration detention is sometimes necessary for understanding the data presented in the report, it is important to ensure that, where possible, the person behind the case is not dehumanised. ↩

4. The Home Office is working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on these pilots, and they have appointed the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to independently evaluate this work. These evaluations will be published by UNHCR. The evaluation report for the first pilot is available here. ↩

5. Findings from an online questionnaire with a mix of closed and open questions sent in April 2019 to 11 SCS involved in signing-off detention decisions. Seven SCS responded to the survey. None of the 7 thought there was value in SCS sign-off continuing, 6 were against maintaining it and there was one non-response. It should be noted the views reflect those of the survey respondents and may not be the views of all SCS involved in signing-off decisions. ↩