< Previous | Contents | Next >

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS FOR SCOTLAND

REPORT ON HM PRISON : CASTLE HUNTLY 2002

ANNEX TWO : HMP CASTLE HUNTLY RESULTS OF THE VISITORS' SURVEY OCTOBER 2001

Introduction

The Visits Centre at Castle Huntly was opened in January 2001, various facilities were provided for prisoners' visitors and their families.

In order to evaluate these facilities a survey was carried out over a two-week period between Saturday 20 October and Friday 2 November 2001 (inclusive).

This survey was based on the format of the survey carried out by SPS Research Branch in October 1996, with some of the questions amended to reflect current circumstances.

1996 survey responses are shown in (Italics) where available.

A total of 165 visits took place during the survey period, visits staff offered questionnaires to visitors who arrived. 53 questionnaires were issued and 37 returned. Visits staff reported that many visitors were returning for a second or third visit during the survey period and had already completed a questionnaire.

Not every respondent answered all of the questions, results are given in percentages of the number of responses to each question. The number of responses to each question in this survey is noted at the end of each result.

Which visit session

The visitors were asked which visit session they attended. The options were evening (Mon – Fri, 1845 – 2030 hours) or weekend (1230 – 1630 hours). The split was relatively even with 59% attending at weekend sessions and 41% in the evenings.

Number of visitors

The visitors were asked how many adults and children were attending the visit. The total number of adults was 70, there were 10 children of pre-school age, 10 of primary school age and 8 of secondary school age.

Travel to Castle Huntly

Visitors were asked how they travelled to Castle Huntly. The majority 95%, (93%) used private transport, while the remaining 5% (7%) used public transport. SACRO transport was not used during the period of the survey. (37 responses)

It is interesting to note that, one visitor who travelled by private transport found the bus service very poor, another who travelled by public transport found the parking facilities poor, whilst one visitor who travelled by public transport found the parking facilities very good.

Distance Travelled

Visitors were asked how far they had travelled to Castle Huntly. Just over half, 54%, (50%) travelled between 51 and 100 miles, while only 11% (23%) had travelled more than 100 miles. Only 1 visitor, 2%, (10%) travelled less than 5 miles and a further 14% (10%) travelled between 6 and 20 miles. The remaining 19% (7%) had travelled between 21 and 50 miles to visit. (37 responses)

General Facilities

In this section, visitors were asked if they had been provided with sufficient information about Castle Huntly prior to their first visit, and if they thought that a 'first time' guide would be useful.

The majority, 62%, (57%) felt that they had been provided with sufficient information before their first visit, and more than three-quarters, 81% (71%) thought that a first time guide would have been useful.

Visitors were then asked to rate, on a scale from very good to very poor, a number of facilities within the Visits Centre.

Parking

36% (48%) of the visitors thought the parking facilities were very good with a further 42% (45%) rating the facilities as good. 14% rated the facilities as okay, with a very small number, 8%, (7%) rating them as poor. (36 responses)

Bus service

Of the few visitors who used the bus service, 50% (36%) found the service poor with a further 1 visitor, 16% (25%) rating the service as very poor. Only 1 visitor rated the service as okay and another felt it was good. (6 responses)

Initial reception

Visitors were asked to rate the length of time it took, after arrival, for visits staff to deal with them. 43% (52%) rated the time as very good, and the same number rating the time as good, with 8% (21%) rating the time as okay. Very few, 6% (3%) thought the service to be poor or very poor.

Waiting time for visit

Visitors were asked to rate the time it took, after initial reception for their visit to take place. 29% (46%) thought the waiting time for their visit was very good, with 43% (27%) finding the time good and 20% (27%) felt the time taken was okay. The remaining 8% thought the time taken was poor or very poor. (35 responses)

Courtesy and attention of visits staff

Just under half of the visitors, 46% (58%) rated the courtesy and attention of staff as very good, with 38% (23%) rating staff as good. The remaining 16% (19%) rated the courtesy and attention of visits staff as okay. (37 responses)

Access to FCDO

18% of visitors rated the levels of access to Family Contact Development Officers (FCDOs) as very good, with the same number rating access as good. A further 28% felt access was okay, with the remaining 36% split evenly regarding access to FCDOs as poor or very poor. (11 responses)

Obtrusiveness of staff

The visitors were asked whether they felt the staff were unobtrusive during visits. Slightly less than half, 47% (42%) rated the staff as very good, with 34% (29%) rating them as good. A further 16% (26%) thought the staff were okay with only 3% (3%) finding the staff very poor. (32 responses)

Toilet facilities

Under half, 46% (42%) of visitors rated the toilet facilities as very good, with 37% (29%) rating the facilities as good. The remaining 17% (26%) felt the facilities were okay. (35 responses)

Privacy

Less than a third of visitors, 31% thought the arrangements for privacy were very good with a further 19% rating them as good. Just over a third, 36% felt the arrangements were okay, whilst a few 11% felt the arrangements were poor and 3% felt they were very poor. (36 responses)

Non-smokers

The arrangements for non-smokers were rated as very good by over half, 61% (52%) of visitors and as good by 22% (42%). The remaining 17% (3%) felt that the arrangements were okay. (36 responses)

Smokers

The arrangements for smokers received a relatively even spread of ratings from respondents, with 23% (38%) rating them as very good, 17% (42%) as good, 20% (17%) as okay, 17% (7%) as poor and the remaining 23% rated the arrangements as very poor. (30 responses)

Baby changing

Just under half, 44% (33%) rated the baby changing facilities as very good, with less than one third, 28% (29%) rating them as good. Under a quarter, 22% (25%) thought the facilities as okay with only 6% rating them as very poor. (18 responses)

Play Facilities

Provision of play facilities for children was rated as very good by over a third, 36%, (18%) of visitors, and as good by 29% (25%). A further 19% (28%) felt the facilities were okay, with only 13% (18%) rating them as poor and 3% (11%) as very poor (31 responses)

Disabled visitors

Facilities for disabled visitors were rated as very good by one quarter of visitors, 25% (13%) with 15% (17%) rating them as good and 30% (13%) as okay. One quarter of visitors, 25% (9%) felt the facilities were poor and a further 5% (48%) rated them as very poor. (20 responses)

Information leaflets

Visitors were asked to comment on the standard of the various information leaflets available in the visits centre. Under a quarter of visitors, 22% felt that the standard was very good, with around a third, 31% rating them as good. Less than half, 41% felt that the standard was okay with only 6% rating it as poor. (32 responses)

Canteen facilities

Visitors were asked their views on several aspects of the canteen facilities provided by the contractor. The results are as follows. (37 responses)

Canteen stock

The majority of visitors 84% (57%) felt that the canteen was well stocked.

Service from contractor

Nearly all of the visitors, 97% (100%) felt that the contractor provided a good service to visitors and prisoners alike.

Weekend snacks

Every visitor, 100% (100%) thought that being able to purchase snacks at weekends was a good idea.

Short home leave

Visitors were asked whether they thought that short home leaves were a good way of maintaining family relationships. All visitors, 100% (100%) answered that they thought they were conducive to maintaining family relationships. (33 responses)

Picnic area

Visitors were asked whether they thought that having a summer picnic area for use during visit sessions was a good idea. All visitors, 100% (100%) agreed that this provision was a good idea.

Visitors were then asked if they thought that being able to stroll around certain areas of the grounds was a more relaxing way to spend their visit. All visitors, 100% (100%) agreed that freedom to do so was a good idea and helped to make the visit more relaxed. (37 responses)

< Previous | Contents | Next >