Section 4. Outcomes for children governors did not always complete the appropriate paperwork, and they did not include children separated on normal location. Communication with the child 4.34 Children were not always informed of the reasons for separation; we found no evidence that they were in 15 of the 57 cases we reviewed. On the other occasions it consisted of either a written form, generally with a superficial reason, or a verbal explanation as part of the 72hour review. 4.35 There was little opportunity for children, their families or advocates to challenge the decision to separate them. At Werrington, children were issued with a form to challenge the decision but this was not considered until their next review, which could be seven days later. Where children at Werrington had made representations to challenge the decision to separate, there was no evidence of managers considering or rejecting them. In all the cases we reviewed in which a child had made representations, the separation had gone ahead. There was little evidence across the children’s estate that managers had considered any form of internal or external advocacy at any stage of the process. 3. Separation is not used as a punishment 28 4.36 Most managers and staff who we interviewed were clear that separation should not, and in their view, was not, used as a punishment. They described separation as used to protect staff and other children, to give children the time out they needed from residential units, and to reduce the risk children posed to themselves and others. One interviewee at Feltham told us that separation had previously been used as a punishment but not since the YOI’s segregation unit was closed. This showed a lack of appreciation that the impact of being kept apart from ongoing interaction with peers and staff did not depend on the existence of a specific location. A few interviewees thought differently. One manager told us that it was difficult to describe separation as anything other than a punishment, and other staff who worked with children saw separation as such. 4.37 Separation, and its consequences for regime access, was seen as punishment by some of the children interviewed. One described how it felt like he was being punished when he was separated after someone else made threats against him. Another child who was meant to be taking his GCSEs and could not mix with others for education said: ‘they are basically setting you up to fail. I don’t know why they use education as a punishment. It shouldn’t be’. 4.38 In the YOIs with dedicated care and separation units (CSUs), children who were involved in assaults on staff were usually moved there for at least the early part of their period of separation. While the decision to do this was usually based on the risk they posed to others, the fact remained that those children completed their separation in far more stark surroundings than children who were separated on residential units and so in reality the separation amounted to a form of punishment. However, regime provision was more consistent on the CSU than for children separated elsewhere in those YOIs. When multiple officer unlock procedures were necessary, this could add to the impression that there was a punitive element to the separation, even if it was not the case, as well as further reducing the regime, opportunities for relationship building or proactive work by agencies to address risk and need. 4.39 We had concerns about the use of separation for children under YOI rule 58 waiting to attend adjudications for alleged breaches of YOI rules. Governance of rule 58 separation was weak across the estate. At Feltham A, all children who received notification of adjudication were automatically placed on rule 58 by residential staff, even though it should only be Separation of children in young offender institutions