ready to return, the majority of those we interviewed were also not happy to be deported or removed. Such people are hardly likely to be satisfied with their experiences. Similarly, given their range of language, culture, ties to the UK, and pathways to detention, they present a diversity that is unmatched in other analogous institutions. It is, in short, hard and probably foolish, to generalise. It is here that a survey tool like the MQLD can be useful, canvassing views from a range of people and identifying patterns. Surveys instruments, however, are best used in conjunction without other qualitative methods like interviews and observation. The MQLD can ‘take the temperature’ of an institution, identifying potential areas of strength and concern, helping centre managers be more proactive in running their institutions. However, what to make of the data in the MQLD and, ideally, how to resolve any concerns the survey may reveal, requires deeper analysis. To illustrate by example, the MQLD revealed a startlingly high level of depression. While it also suggested some aspects of detention connected to this distress and certain subsections of the population who were more vulnerable to it, alone it could not fully explain the phenomenon. To achieve greater understanding of this important issue requires careful interaction and observation. What are some of the triggers? What is the effect of depression? Who is better insulated against it and why? In the qualitative part of the project, we sought to go deeper into the causes of people’s distress and their experiences. In this part of the project a common theme emerged, from staff as well as detainees, concerning the open-ended nature of detention and the bureaucratic nature of the immigration decision-making process. Though in legal terms, foreigners should only be detained pending ‘imminent’ removal or deportation, in practice many are held well beyond an immediate time frame. Sometimes their period in detention is a result of their refusal to engage in the process while other times it is a result of difficulties associated with their Embassy or High Commission. Delays are also caused by problems on the UKBA end. Without getting into the broader questions surrounding deportation or immigration decision- making, it is apparent that the lack of clarity over the duration of a period of detention has an immediate and deleterious impact on the experience of custody. As one man in Brook House put it rather poetically, in this place, there’s not an end game. There’s no cut off point. There’s just a continuous thing. You’re on a treadmill and you just jogging and jogging in place. [But] you’re not losing weight. The lack of clarity over duration did not just affect detainees. It was also a cause for concern for many staff members, who recognised the difficulties many of the individuals in their care were facing. Often the prison served as a comparison, as this female DCO in Tinsley House observed: People in here, you know, if you were in prison, you know that that’s your sentence and at the end of that sentence, I’m outta here. Whereas here they’re not, they’re in limbo. They’ve got no idea what’s happening and I just think that it’s an awful thing for them to mull over all the time. . . . given their range of language, culture, ties to the UK, and pathways to detention, they present a diversity that is unmatched in other analogous institutions. 11. 14 Purely pragmatically, the lack of clarity of the duration of detention has a direct impact on the regime provision since without knowing how long the population will be present, centre managers reported that it was financially illogical and impractical to create courses and paid work for a transient population. Attempts to build detainee support groups likewise suffered from the same problem. Thus, for example, in Colnbrook, a detention custody manager complained that it was difficult to develop a ‘buddy scheme’ based on the Listeners programme in prison, since as soon I as I train them up, they go. In the survey and in follow-up interviews, detainees spoke of the importance of interpersonal relationships both with other detainees and with custodial staff. Those who felt they had good relationships with centre staff and other detainees found the experience of detention easier to deal with. In contrast, those who were isolated and rarely left their rooms were struggling to cope. As prisons research has found individual actions that made a difference could be small.11 Staff who made a difference, one Sri Lankan woman explained, were patient, compassionate and friendly. Liebling, A. (2004). Prisons and their Moral Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prison Service Journal Issue 205