National Preventive Mechanism Sixth Annual Report 2014–15 The conditions in which detainees were isolated varied considerably, as did their access to education, visits, telephone calls, and other aspects of a regime that would offset the effects of isolation. In a few places, considerable efforts were made to engage detainees or mitigate the sense of isolation, but in others facilities were only provided on request or inconsistently. While efforts have been made to strengthen the procedures and safeguards for formal isolation across many forms of detention, NPM members’ monitoring identified too many instances in which governance was poor and further efforts to avoid isolation were warranted. It was of particular concern that the governance of isolation for children was still not robust enough, and that oversight processes did not shed light on the reasons for or address any disproportionate representation of detainees from certain ‘protected characteristics’ in isolation. The role that NPM members play in scrutinising these procedures and safeguards is crucial and could be further strengthened. All NPM members found informal isolation and solitary confinement that arose from restrictive regimes or temporary measures, and the decreasing staffing levels in many places of detention contributed directly to this. The informality of isolation, with no governance processes or oversight, means that the potential for harm to detainees, including vulnerable detainees, is not fully considered and could affect their ability to reintegrate into life in the main establishment. The importance of reintegration processes was highlighted by many NPM members. Many examples from the health sector demonstrate a better understanding of approaches to integrating detainees back on 46 to normal regimes, including by preparing advance statements and holding postincident debriefs. In all instances of isolation, detainees should know what is required for isolation to end, and it was worrying to find many examples where this was not the case. Where isolation is the norm, such as in police custody, there may be instances in which it is unwarranted and potentially harmful. Further attention to mitigating the effects of isolation in these situations as well as in non-punitive settings is warranted, especially through encouraging meaningful interaction between staff and detainees. Next steps This initial review of practice will feed into future work to strengthen the consistency and rigour of the NPM’s monitoring, and into proposals for strengthening policy and practice across detention settings in the UK. Some NPM members have already set out steps for taking this work forward, including: • the NPM children and young people’s sub-group will focus during 2015–16 on its members’ findings and ways to strengthen monitoring and appropriate use of isolation; • the Care Inspectorate will report on its findings on solitary confinement and isolation in forthcoming reports on each of the five secure units for young people in Scotland; • the Children’s Commissioner for England will publish the findings from its project on isolation in 2015; • inspectorates will focus on the isolation or solitary confinement of TACT detainees in future inspection work; • HMICS will take account of isolation and solitary confinement, as well as regimes that offset their effects, during the