Section 4. Outcomes for children instigated by a manager together with a health care professional. This amounted to an unofficial punishment and appeared to have become custom and practice. 4.40 We found a number of children who had not been formally separated but were separated in practice because of the impact of other punishments for poor behaviour, which were not taken into account. We met children who attended individual outreach education rather than classes with their peers who had been placed on the lowest level of the incentives scheme and/or been given loss of daily activities (such as association or eating with others) as an adjudication punishment. The combined impact of these punishments was to keep them separated from others with an impoverished regime that was similar to that experienced by children on rule 49, but without any authorisation or governance. 4.41 There were instances of unofficial punishments used against children who were separated. Staff notes on the electronic case management system recorded the withholding of a child’s daily regime because of poor behaviour. At one YOI, several children told us that staff had turned off the electricity to their cells without explaining why; the case notes did not record that this had happened and there was an absence of oversight over these punishments. 4.42 Even where there was no intent to use separation as a form of punishment, many separated children experienced very restricted regimes that penalised many aspects of their daily life. They had minimal periods out of their cells and no interaction with their peers, apart from shouting out of windows and cell doors (see paragraphs 4.54-4.56). Regardless of published regimes, children were not getting the daily activity they were due. The result was that children, including those who had not been involved in any poor behaviour or who did not pose a risk to others, but simply felt unsafe and were reluctant to leave their cells, experienced what amounted to solitary confinement. 4. Children who are separated from others are located in a suitable environment Cells and living units 4.43 Accommodation used to separate children varied greatly between establishments. Some, such as Wetherby, Cookham Wood and Werrington, had segregation units with certified accommodation specifically for separation.21 Cookham Wood also had the Bridge unit22 where ordinary accommodation on one landing was used to separate children from others. Feltham had an enhanced support unit (ESU) designed to hold separated children and provide intensive support while working towards reintegration (see paragraph 4.48). At Feltham we saw additional calm-down cells,23 used to separate children until they were calm enough to return to their own cell. All establishments also applied prison rule 49 (see paragraph 4.11) to children who were separated from others but continued to remain in their own cells. While children separated on normal location could personalise their cells, and at Wetherby could retain the possessions consistent with their incentives level, those held on dedicated segregation units had to leave many of their possessions behind in their cell, making these cells more impersonal and austere. Getting access to their personal property was a problem for most of the children we spoke to in dedicated units. 4.44 The condition of cells used to separate children varied greatly between the sites we visited. At Feltham, most of the cells were dirty, mouldy, heavily graffitied and unwelcoming. Chairs 21 22 23 CSU cells are certified to hold children in separation conditions. Introduced to manage separated children in one place. They receive some psychological input through a short-term assessment of risk and needs (STARN). Prison cells on ordinary location left empty for use when a child needed to calm down. Separation of children in young offender institutions 29