Section 4. Outcomes for children were often missing, and we received a complaint about a sink that had been blocked for three days. At Cookham Wood, lighting in cells was poor and although there was a small air vent cells were stuffy and children reported that they were too hot in the summer. 4.45 There were very high noise levels on the Bridge unit at Cookham Wood during our visit, with children banging doors and shouting to each other between cells. This clearly hindered education sessions as well as sleep. In our survey of those living on designated units across the estate, only 30% said it was quiet enough to relax or sleep at night time. 4.46 There were considerable differences between the living conditions in designated segregation units. At Cookham Wood, the segregation cells were stark. Several cells had been destroyed, with little scope for non-essential repair work to take place in the remaining cells, and graffiti was evident on walls, windows and cell furniture. At Wetherby, accommodation on the Anson CSU was reasonably well maintained and graffiti-free but children were not permitted to have many of their personal possessions with them. The progression unit24 above Anson offered similar accommodation but children could have televisions. The telephones for children to use on Anson offered privacy, which was positive; there was also a wide selection of books, and communal areas were reasonable and provided adequate space for education. We observed the cells at Wetherby as adequately furnished and reasonably clean, as we also found on the Keppel unit.25 4.47 Feltham had recently opened the Falcon unit, which was designed to hear adjudications and deal with problematic behaviour but not to operate as a segregation unit. Managers had refurbished cells on the ground level of Falcon into calm-down cells (to eventually replace the squalid ones on the other wings). The new cells were clean and bright but very sparse and it was troubling that these were used frequently as special accommodation (see paragraph 2.5) to calm children down and to manage those who had made attempts to selfharm. 4.48 Feltham had opened its ESU around 18 months before our inspection. This was intended to provide the support needed to run an adequate regime for children who could not mix with others on normal location. The aim was to establish a community-based caring approach for children with complex needs involving input from psychology, designated staff to work with the children and an operational manager to oversee its progression. We were concerned to find that the ESU was not delivering this so long after it its establishment, and that frontline staff were frustrated by the inability to realise its initial vision. At the time of the inspection, several cells did not have an observation glass panel, and we observed one child being served his meal with a senior officer plus six prison officers in full personal protective equipment. 4.49 Werrington primarily relied on the WADE (welfare and development enhancement) segregation unit26 to locate separated children. The cells were clean although they had no electricity; there were current bids to rectify this and move forward with in-cell telephones, which was positive. 4.50 Overall, children were not consistently encouraged to keep their cells clean. When we checked the daily records for children subject to rule 49, we found that cleaning materials were not routinely offered or encouraged. These documents also recorded that the children did not have daily access to a shower. 4.51 In our survey, less than a third of children (30%) held in dedicated units reported that that the temperature of their cell was suitable, three-quarters (76%) could access a shower daily 24 25 26 30 A landing above the separation landing containing a small number of cells, designated as a step-down from separation to transition back to ordinary location. A stand-alone unit at Wetherby which is a national resource. Previously the CSU. Separation of children in young offender institutions