National Preventive Mechanism Sixth Annual Report 2014–15 segregation facilities, NPM members were concerned by the absence of formal procedures or oversight. In one STC, some staff saw ‘time out’ as a form of punishment, rather than a procedure young people could elect to follow when they wanted some private time on their own. Over a quarter of boys in YOIs surveyed by one NPM member had spent a night in segregation. Reintegration In some SCHs, NPM members noted phased reintegration from isolation, using the living area outside bedrooms for this purpose. In another, a ‘restorative approach’ was used, with all children completing a report after isolation to look at what happened and the impact on themselves and others. An NPM member found that in several SCHs, some children did not know how to return to a normal location or regime. In one YOI, boys completing their time in a segregation unit were either returned to a normal wing or transferred out of the prison. In some instances, boys might be released from custody directly from a segregation unit. Planning for reintegration was judged to be ad hoc and without formal policies. Good practice in SCHs included effective debriefing and reflection for staff and children. This, alongside an increased emphasis on de-escalation, led to a reduction in the frequency of incidents and improved behaviour of young people. Conclusion This review demonstrates that there is still more to be done to avoid the use of isolation. Although NPM members identified appropriate use of short periods of formal isolation in some SCHs and STCs, and authorised and justified use of formal 34 isolation in the one YOI reviewed, evidence also shows a worrying number of instances where isolation is not subject to formal governance. In some instances, children are held for long periods in conditions that amount to solitary confinement. There is a wide variation in the conditions and regime for children who are subject to isolation across different types of detention facilities, which may lead to children with similar needs and behaviours being treated in very different ways. As children have not fully developed cognitively, mentally or emotionally, the possibility that isolation or solitary confinement could cause lasting harm cannot be dismissed. This provides a rationale for rigorous scrutiny of practices that amount to isolation and solitary confinement by NPM members. Children should not be isolated as a punishment, and should never be held in conditions that amount to solitary confinement. This review identified appropriate use of short periods of isolation in some SCHs and STCs and appropriate governance of formal segregation in some YOIs, but also some unacceptable informal practices that isolate and, in many cases, lead to solitary confinement. Oversight and scrutiny of children in detention has multiple layers. NPM members (including IMBs) play a role, but there are other reporting requirements for the authorities that detain children (to the Youth Justice Board in England and Wales, through YJB monitors for example) that should ensure that all isolation practices are monitored, and inappropriate or informal practices are stopped. It is not clear whether critical incident procedures would be invoked by lengthy periods of isolation. Local Safeguarding Children Boards could provide