Section 4. Outcomes for children professionals were turned away or had to wait before a child was brought to their appointment. We saw a teacher being turned away from a unit because a child was on a seven-minute telephone call. This meant that children on this unit lost three hours of education time. More frequently, time was wasted waiting for children to be unlocked. We observed teaching staff waiting for 75 minutes to deliver a session for a child who was separated. This delay then compromised the education schedule, and access to education was significantly reduced for all separated children. At another establishment, a consultant psychiatrist was prevented from seeing a child due to a lack of staff; he told us that he had been attempting to see this child for two weeks. Child J, 17-years old Separated under rule 49 for 23 days on normal location due to self-isolation and experiences of bullying. He was too scared to come out of his cell for fear of a group assault. During the 23 days of separation, this child received time in the fresh air on six days and education for a total of 70 minutes. On some days he was forced to decide between time in the fresh air and education, as the regime did not allow him to access both. There were no records for five days of this child’s separation period, so it was unclear whether he had any time out of his cell or meaningful contact during that time. He had requested a transfer to another establishment simply so he could access a regime and talk to others. The reality of his daily existence was that he was behind his door all day with no meaningful human interaction. When asked his views on separation this child commented: ‘When I’m separated it’s like I’m suddenly invisible.’ Children can shower and use the telephone daily 4.72 In our survey, 76% of children who were separated on designated units said they could shower every day and 81% that they were able to use a telephone every day. Of the 57 cases we looked at in detail, including children on designated units and normal location, only 18 recorded that children received a daily shower and 19 that the child received a daily telephone call. With the exception of Parc, where practice was better, these children were more likely to receive a daily shower and telephone call if they were separated on a designated unit. We also found evidence of children being refused daily access to showers or telephone calls due to poor behaviour, such as the following case. Child K, 17-years old Separated under rule 49 for 12 days on normal location due to being unable to mix with other children on his wing. During the 12 days of separation, this child had exercise time recorded on only two days, and a shower and telephone call recorded on just five days. In 12 days of separation this totalled only two hours 20 mins out of his cell. This child received no education outreach or activity pack while separated on the wing. Sometimes, his access to showers and telephone was refused as a punishment. This child wished to attend his rule 49 review. This was not facilitated and instead he received an update at his door. When asked his views on separation this child commented: ‘I’m getting less than 20 minutes out of my cell a day. I have to remind them to unlock me or I am just banged up all day long.’ Separation of children in young offender institutions 35