Introduction Introduction This inspection investigated outcomes for children separated from their peers in the five young offender institutions (YOIs) in England and Wales. There are a variety of words used to describe situations where children are unable to mix with their peers or attend activities in the normal way. For the sake of clarity, we have used the term ‘separation’ to cover all of these throughout the report. We understand that there are occasions when it is in a child’s best interests to be separated from others either because they pose a risk to their peers or need protecting from them. In these cases, we expect managers to place separated children in a unit where they can gain access to the equivalent daily activity, including education, as the children they are separated from. We also expect staff to work with children to address the reasons for their separation and plan for their return to a normal regime. During the course of this inspection we carried out 85 interviews with separated children and the staff responsible for their care. We also looked in detail at the cases of 57 separated children. The findings are a cause for significant concern. We found that children’s experience of separation differed dramatically depending on the establishment they were held in and even between different units in the same YOI. In such a small estate holding just 606 children, it was inexplicable that there were so many different models of separation. The regime that was offered to most separated children was inadequate. While it tended to be better on designated segregation units, nearly all separated children spent long periods of time in their cell without any meaningful human interaction. We found children who were unable to access the very basics of everyday life, including a daily shower and telephone call. In the worst cases children left their cells for just 15 minutes a day. We found significant failures of oversight both locally and nationally. This meant that leaders and managers did not have the basic information needed to identify these problems and address them. The current system of daily checks by managers, nurses and chaplains gave an illusion of oversight. However, these checks were cursory, often took place though a locked door and sometimes did not happen at all. This was compounded by weak or non-existent reintegration planning which meant that some children were separated for far too long. This report does identify some areas of better practice, particularly at HMYOI Parc, where reintegration planning took place swiftly and children were separated for shorter periods of time. However, we have found multiple and widespread failings. As a consequence of these failings most separated children experienced a regime that amounted to the widely accepted definition of solitary confinement (see paragraph 2.6). For some of these children, their solitary confinement was prolonged in nature. The weaknesses of current practice and oversight are of such a magnitude that we recommend an entirely new approach, and that current practice be replaced. A new model of separation should be implemented that enables managers to use separation to protect children from harm and prevents separated children being subjected to impoverished regimes. Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Separation of children in young offender institutions October 2019 5