Visit Someone in Prison
MOJ's Visit Someone in Prison alpha service assessment report
Service Standard assessment report
Visit Someone in Prison
| From: | Central Digital & Data Office (CDDO) |
| Assessment date: | 11/11/2021 |
| Stage: | Alpha |
| Result: | Met |
| Service provider: | MOJ |
Service description
This service allows social visitors to prisons (friends and family of prisoners) to book a visit to see their loved ones face to face in prison.
The service will provide instant confirmation to the friend or family member of their visit and will provide the appropriate information about visits to prison staff.
For those who are unable to book online, there will be a phone service available and a staff-facing service to allow staff members to book visits on behalf of a visitor.
Service users
- social visitors to prisons
- visit booking clerks/admin (based both in prisons and in a call centre in Birmingham that arranges visits for 22 prisons across the estate)
- prison staff (given various role titles in prisons but roles will include security, wing officers and the custodial management team that run visits)
- prisoners (this is not a direct user group in terms of interaction with the service but they are vital to the service)
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service met point 1 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team showed their Discovery findings, which were split into three themes: information, automation and security/ID. These findings were contextualised with quotes, and the product manager was able to confidently explain users’ pain points and the importance of the user needs, as well as how these have fed into the creation of a service vision.
- the team showed that user research is tackled as a team sport, by explaining how they started Alpha by outlining their riskiest assumptions and then choosing research methods to support the validation/invalidation of their assumptions. The panel was pleased with this approach, as well as the team’s transparency around their assumptions and risks.
- the Product Manager and Service Manager both understood the user research in-depth, and it was clear that user needs were the central focus of decision making. The panel were particularly impressed with the overall team’s engagement with and understanding of the research outputs, with both the interaction and service designers also taking some ownership of the user research and using this to shape the user experience.
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
-
revisit their user needs; the user needs were somewhat solution-driven, for example ‘I need to print out a visit sheet’ and ‘I need to book a prison visit’. The team articulated some key behavioural insights about their users’ concerns and what drives them to need to book a prison visit - it would be great to see the team iterate their user needs with these insights in mind, to meet the test of a good user need, in particular:
-
“focus on the user’s problem rather than possible solutions (for example, needing a reminder rather than needing an email or letter)” - GOV.UK
- conduct more research with users with assisted digital and access needs. The team had not been able to conduct enough research with users with access needs or low digital skills, with only one user in this phase having an access need. It is crucial that the team seek out opportunities to test their service with those with access needs and low digital skills moving forwards, as well as testing the accessibility of their telephone service to ensure that every one that is eligible to visit someone in prison, can book a visit if they wish to.
- the team should also consider the offline service offering. The telephone lines are currently open Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm; this could cause issues for users that can’t access the digital service, but aren’t available when the phone lines are open (for example, due to work).
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service met point 2 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team has been proactive in finding solutions to a whole problem for their users. On identifying an unmet need for visitors to understand what happens at a visit and how to prepare, the team have conducted a content audit of the existing guidance on prison visits as well as research to understand these needs in more depth. The team are now exploring ways to fit guidance and support into an appropriate part of the booking journey. This is an excellent example of solving a whole problem for users and finding ways to support users emotionally through a typically transactional journey.
- the team identified a critical design assumption (that an online service will meet user needs better than a booking helpline, given the users’ likely emotional and functional needs) and specifically tested this assumption at alpha
- the team has articulated key problem statements (eg ‘how do we check if there are restrictions on prisoners and/or visitors that need to be taken into account when booking a visit?’) and focused design work on solving these problems
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- Keep sight of the security checks aspect of the wider Visit Someone in Prison journey. The team explained that this is too high a risk for this team to own and therefore out of scope. Although that rationale makes sense, it would be good for the team to continue to keep in mind how they stitch these two aspects of one journey together, so that the booking a visit and attending a visiting service offerings aren’t drastically different from one another.
- Similarly, consider bringing the initial paper visit authorisation form into scope - the team’s research suggested that problems with matching/checking visitor names can lead to cancelled or missed visits, even including people being turned away on the day of a visit. Data quality in NOMIS was also identified as an issue - staff do not feel they can trust the data is accurate. Bringing the initial ‘authorise a visit’ task into the whole user journey could help the team surface and resolve some of these issues.
- Do more contextual research to identify where an automated booking is possible and where it isn’t either possible or desirable because consideration input is needed from a booking agent. There may be some circumstances where a visit is not possible, or where a date can’t be met (due to a court appearance or because special conditions needed to avoid difficult situations can’t be met on the day). The team identified that a significant number of bookings are rejected or cancelled for these reasons. Users should not be able to book visits where this is not possible - otherwise, the team’s research suggested that people may book time off work and arrange childcare only to find that a requested visit time and date isn’t possible.
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service met point 3 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team brought front-line staff in prisons into the design process and conducted research on visit days to gain a better understanding of the context for the service
- the team understands the expectations its users have and have compared the different user experiences across digital (the existing service) and telephone booking, including digital uptake and typical waiting times
- the team correctly identified that common, accurate, up-to-date information is essential to ensure user experiences are consistent across channels
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- ensure that plans to move to a digital by default service do not make it harder for users who face barriers to digital to book prison visits via offline channels
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service met point 4 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team showed examples of how research has been used to iterate specific features in the design, for example when users select a date to visit and need to filter to their personal criteria, eg non-working days, childcare etc
- the panel were particularly impressed that the team had used analytics and user research to gain knowledge of their users’ devices (the majority of end-users were accessing the service via mobile), reviewed usability of the existing ‘date picker’ pattern in the existing service, explored and tested different approaches to a calendar and then drawn upon successful mobile-friendly NHS designs and emerging GDS patterns to create an inclusive, easy to use on-the-go service.
- the team is feeding back to the cross-government design community on its use of these emerging patterns
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- test the accordion-style date picker with people who use assistive technology and/or have low IT literacy
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service did not meet point 5 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team recognises the need to support users who face barriers to digital services
- the team has done a lot of work on the content in their service, and in feeding findings to linked services to make the overall visit experience better for both prisoners, friends and family and prison staff.
What the team needs to explore
For re-assessment, the team needs to:
- test their prototypes and concepts on their users’ devices to make sure that their service works with the technology available to their users, particularly those working in call centres. Technical constraints have previously made this kind of testing difficult, but the team will be unable to assess whether everyone can use the service until they have seen users trying it out in their day-to-day contexts.
- do more work to prove their riskiest assumption - that digital by default service is better for people trying to visit someone in prison than a booking helpline - by showing research that validates the assumption by suggesting what the benefits are (cheaper, quicker, more reliable?)
- be clear about how people will be supported to transact digitally - if this is by a call centre as per the MVP, ensure that call centre advisers understand how the digital service works, have appropriate scripts/process flows and are trained to differentiate between a technical support request and the user who has low IT literacy and therefore needs support to transact online
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service met point 6 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- there is a full team in place and clear evidence of a strong team ethic and understanding of the subject matter. Whilst there is no permanent service designer the team are able to access this expertise, which is a positive
- the team was open about turnover of staff in the UR role, and whilst this isn’t ideal, the continuity in other roles means that there is consistency in approach and a good understanding of the research in discovery and alpha, and the decisions that have been made
- there is a welcome pack for new starters, and the team are careful with their documentation to ensure that things can be handed over as needed.
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- given the recommendations on user needs above, the team should consider a permanent UR resource, recruitment permitting.
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service met point 7 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team worked using scrum practices and agile techniques and were very much considering their riskiest assumption first and building their roadmap out from this.
- the panel were impressed with the decision to move the “heavy” discussions face to face, acting on feedback from the team
- the team treats user research very much as a team sport, and also that they have dedicated “share time” to work together on tricky problems.
- the team have good relationships with key stakeholders and are involving them in the show and tells regularly
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- implement the sprint reviews that they described
- consider including stakeholders or operational staff in their user research sessions to build empathy and awareness.
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service met point 8 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team was able to evidence the development of their work based on user research and to tell the story of how this developed through rounds of testing
- the team has flexed to deal with a change in their scope, and are ensuring that they consider the designs for their different user groups separately, testing and validating any assumptions before making a component common
- the team have reused existing patterns and are testing them to ensure that they meet the needs of their service users.
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- conduct more research to ensure that the service is usable, and continue to iterate based on that feedback.
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service met point 9 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- using proven authentication mechanisms for HMPPS architecture
- data at rest and transit is secured to a high standard following HMPPS best practices
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the user and data journeys are complex so we have a number of recommendations for the private beta to help mitigate risk:
- extensive testing including negative testing ‘break the system should be performed’
- given the data quality in their legacy system, they should test with data from the legacy system as often as possible. They should be transparent with any manipulation data.
- engage with their data projection office and conduct a data protection impact assessment as part of private beta
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
Decision
The service met point 10 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team has a structured approach to performance data and have grouped their metrics into four groups - compliance; success; service health; resilience and change. This is a useful framework
- the team has a plan to develop their benchmarks and targets for their metrics, and have thought about where their data could come from
- the team are aware of the link of their service to the strategy and policy around reoffending, but are not attempting to draw a direct line to it - this seems very sensible.
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- the team relies on a number of other services and systems, some of the legacy. Ideally, as part of private beta, they should monitor and track data quality on an ongoing basis to ensure that this is robust enough
- consider what both good and bad looks like for users of their service, and consider how this data can be used to change the wider landscape - for example, was the first choice of visit able to be booked - as well as considering how they can track attendance rates
- consider how they can measure and monitor failure demand in the whole process as part of their business case for wider transformation.
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service met point 11 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
-
they are using standard products and tools that are widely used at MOJ & HMPPS.
- they are aligning with HMPPS future state architecture. It moves away from using monolithic applications towards a microservice orientated approach hosted on MOJ’s strategic Cloud Platform
- they considered and assessed a variety of approaches as part of discovery including commercial booking platforms.
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- they require significant updates to a number of other services. Ideally, as part of private beta, the risk of changes and updates to these other services will be a shared risk with those teams. They will provide input for the testing scenarios and receive confirmation of the change and that appropriate testing has been carried out.
- given change is required to a large number of systems, end to end testing using real data should be performed as early as possible. Any issues in performing end to end tests without real data should be raised in future assessments
- they are mastering areas of data that were previously mastered in legacy applications. They need to ensure that data can effectively be pushed into the backend systems from data they are now mastering. They should have a picture of the reliance of other applications on the data they are mastering.
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service met point 12 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- where possible they are making source code available on GitHub
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- continue to ensure where possible content is made public. There may be areas that cannot be made public given the nature of this application.
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service met point 13 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- they are making recommendations around how the data quality of underlying applications could be improved.
- they are inputting into the next iteration of the core platforms
- reusing services that already exist for example the prison registry
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- keep a track of where data quality could be improved in the HMPPS architecture and the risk of any workarounds.
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service met point 14 of the Standard.
What the team has done well
The panel was impressed that:
- the team is using the strategic MOJ platform
- the team is aligning with existing HMPPS offline processes
- the team is focused on a telephony service for their MVP. They have considered contingency plans for if the service goes down, based on the current prison arrangements of using paper, and will ensure this is considered for their online service. There is a wider consideration on the reliance on paper in prisons, but this is outside of scope.
What the team needs to explore
Before their next assessment, the team needs to:
- as part of private beta ensure penetration testing has been conducted
- in private beta begin performance testing the platform
- ensure that they have considered the difference in service between phone and online customers once their digital service starts to roll out.
Updates to this page
Published 30 April 2026