Purple Visits... Could do better. Natasha Rhoden

 "This article was first published in the August 2021 issue of Inside Time, the UK's National Newspaper for Prisoners and Detainees"

Since the start of the pandemic, purple visits has operated the video calling service at prisons in England and Wales - but in the summer it was announced that a different provider, Phonehub will take over. Here, Natasha Rhoden describes some of the problems users had with the purple visits service.

This past year of Covid-19 lockdowns has spawned new ways to stay in touch with loved ones across the country. It is possible that video calls for prisoners and families introduced in response to the lockdowns may be here to stay. However, to ensure that video calling meets the needs of prisoners and their families, their views on the service will be crucial.

I wanted to understand more about how prisoners and their families experienced this change from face-to-face visits to video calls, and how this experience might be improved. My end goal was to start conversations around how technology for prisoners in England and Wales might help them to build, or maintain, social ties with the people they care about.

Here are the key points I found about video calls:

· Prisoners’ family members noted that the security within the video calls often interrupted and disconnected their video calls to prisoners.

· Family members felt that slight movements at their end of the video call usually led to the call being disconnected, and believed this was a security measure.

· People from organisations and charities which support prisoners suggested that prisoners will want any kind of technology which helps them to have private conversations with their family.

Some families who had used video calls to stay in touch with loved ones in prison were using social media like Twitter to ask questions of the prison service and share their own thoughts about video calls.

I searched the comments sent by people in prisons to Inside Time newspaper, and found further comments online including on Twitter and YouTube. I read reports on the Internet which outlined the views of politicians, prison governors, prison-focussed charities and research studies on technology for prisoners. I used this information to find out what people were saying about their experience of using mobile phones and tablets to facilitate video calls from prisons, and the most effective ways for prisoners to keep in touch with their families. I also spoke with people in leadership roles at charities which support prisoners and prisoners’ families, journalists reporting in the interests of prisoners and organisations supplying the software and online services for prisons, to gain as many different perspectives from those involved in technology for prisoners as possible.

The research narrowed in on a few key questions about technology for prisoners:

· How did the Covid-19 lockdowns change the ways that prisoners and their families experienced technology?

· What was the feedback on the Internet and in prisoner’s letters to Inside Time about having the use of technology to communicate with family?

· What had prisoners and their families discovered about the best ways to use technology to stay in contact with each other?

The comments and criticisms included in this research referred specifically to video calls to prisons in England and Wales and the Purple Visits service between April and July 2020.

Overall, family members who discussed this issue online seemed to feel that the security used as part of prison video calls could be disruptive at times. For example, comments suggested that the security technology within the video calls frequently disrupted their video calls with prisoners by disconnecting the call. Feedback from families implied that the security of video calls worked by repeatedly comparing the live picture of the prison ‘visitor’ (which was being generated by the camera on their phone or tablet during the video call), against the photo ID the ‘visitor’ would have registered to get permission to use the video call service. Feedback from family members online suggested that the security technology used within the video calls appeared to automatically disconnect video calls whenever family members shifted or moved during the video calls. It was felt that this movement might have prevented the security technology within video calls from repeatedly checking that the ‘visitor’s’ live face image was the same as their photo ID image.

Calls dropped because of people moving around meant that it was often not possible to complete meaningful conversations within the prearranged time slots. The video calls were described as “unusable” and “bungled” by some users, because the security of the video call service was so sensitive that even the slightest movements on camera could trigger their call to a prisoner being dropped.

Dropped calls may have been especially distressing for prisoner’s children, because family members would have to repeatedly try to re-connect calls within the time limit for their arranged call session. One parent left feedback on the Google Play review website about the video call service being “overbearing” and preventing a prisoner’s three-year old daughter from seeing her father on camera: “The face recognition is so sensitive the slightest movement… re-authorities (sic) your picture so spend best part of the 14 mins… doing this [...] Considering this is recorded and monitored by the prison [why] does it need to be so over bearing (sic)… If it wasn't for the fact I had a 3 yr-old wanting to see her dad I wouldn't bother...”

In addition, families suggested that the repeated disconnections of video calls also prevented them from having private conversations with their loved ones.

Another review on the Google Play store said: “…too invasive and couldn't get verified but also now will not remove my information for 6 years… I'd rather not try an[d] see my friend in prison than be made to feel like a prisoner myself.”

A key concern noted in government reports and from the perspective of companies supplying technology for prisons in England and Wales was that non-authorised individuals may attempt to use the video calls system to contact prisoners. Those who were interviewed as part of this research felt that this might be the motivation behind the stringent security used as part of the video calls. However, most of the charity executives and academics who were interviewed felt that communication with families was the main benefit which was driving the demand for technology within prisons. It was suggested that any form of technology which gave prisoners a chance to speak freely about their experiences with family members, or have meaningful catch-up time with children, would be sought after and welcomed by prisoners and their family.

I will be continuing this research by discussing these problems with families and the charities that support prisoners and families. I would like to ask readers with thoughts on this topic to please write to Inside Time and share your stories and thoughts on technology for prisoners, and how technology might be adapted to improve the experience of video calls between prisoners and families.