Most questionnaires were administered in English. One was administered in Turkish, two in Tigre (to Eritrean nationals, one in Arabic with the help of one of the other detainees. Three were administered in Albanian by one of the researchers. Though it was translated into Mandarin, Mandarin speakers chose to complete it in English. Different strategies of recruitment were used in the three centres: in IRC Yarl’s Wood and IRC Tinsley House the questionnaire was administered as part of an ethnographic study, meaning that participants were only approached after relationships of trust with the researchers had already been established. The researchers had free access in these two centres to all parts of the building, carrying keys in Yarl’s Wood and a security pass in Tinsley House. In contrast, in IRC Brook House the majority of the participants were selected at random by UKBA staff from each housing unit and called to the legal corridor for interview. The researchers did not draw keys and spent only a relatively short period of time on one residential unit. This strategy yielded a small proportion of recruits with most who were called simply failing to show up. Main findings . . . many others found being in detention very difficult and could not take part in any of the activities on offer. Some found support in each other while others felt isolated and rarely left their rooms. The men and women in detention who completed the questionnaire came from a variety of countries and presented with a range of family, legal and medical histories. Some of them participated in activities in the centre, but many others found being in detention very difficult and could not take part in any of the activities on offer. Some found support in each other while others felt isolated and rarely left their rooms. The level of distress among the survey population was very high with four-fifths of the respondents, 82.9 per cent (n=131), classified in the abbreviated form of the HSCL-D with depression. This result reflects similar findings in other jurisdictions, for example with detainees in Norway8 and with former detainees in Australia.9 Those who were more depressed were more likely to have been in detention longer, to have applied for asylum, to have refused food in protest, to be out of contact with their family and to report health problems. 8. 9. 12 There were no significant differences between the overall scores (means) of depression among the removal centres. Notwithstanding such high rates of depression on the HSCL-D scale, the current ACDT plan did not extend to all participants who reported thinking about suicide quite a bit or extremely. This gap could reflect communication barriers between staff and detainees or it could signal a lack of trust and willingness on the side of detainees in reporting this information to centre staff. In the second part of the survey most detainees perceived custodial staff members to be honest and kind, could understand what staff told them and could communicate with them easily. They also felt that detainees in that particular removal centre trusted and respected each other, that there were good relations between custodial staff members and detainees, and that there were no drug problems. On the other hand, most participants did not trust immigration staff and they also did not feel that the removal centre cared for the vulnerable (including those who could not speak English, or who were victims of torture or domestic violence). The survey suggests that there are five key dimensions to detainee perceptions of the quality of life in detention relating to depression, distress, isolation and quality of relationships. Those five dimensions were: humane treatment, staff decency, immigration trust, immigration procedural fairness and healthcare. In other words, those who (a) believed they were treated more humanely, (b) believed staff were honest, fair and treated them with respect, (c) trusted immigration, (d) felt they knew what was happening with their immigration case and that immigration staff explained their case to them (e) believed that they had better healthcare, were less depressed (HSCL-D), distressed, isolated and had better relationships (with officers and other detainees). There were some differences among the centres for certain dimensions. Overall, for example, residents in IRC Brook House felt they were treated less humanely than residents in either Yarl’s Wood or Tinsley House. They also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction with the healthcare than did residents in Tinsley House or Coffey, G.J., Kaplan, I., Sampson, R. C., Montagna-Tucci, M. (2010). The meaning and mental health consequences of long-term immigration detention for people seeking asylum. Social Science and Medicine. 70: 2070-2079. Steel, Z, Momartin, S., Silove, D., Coello, M., Aroche, J., Wei Tay, K. (2011). ‘Two year psychosocial and mental health outcomes for refugees subjected to restrictive or supportive immigration policies. Social Science & Medicine. 72: 1149 – 1156. Prison Service Journal Issue 205