they functioned in a normalised situation. Children in the Secure Care Unit in Epuni Care and Protection Residence remained outside of their seclusion room between 8:00-20:00 every day, during which they were expected to follow a daily timetable which included educational, recreational, and house-keeping activities as well as time on the yard or engagement with staff. Where possible, women at the At Risk unit at Auckland Women’s could associate with others (of the same legal status) in the Day Room which was brightly painted and equipped with a television, books and a selection of board games. Progression out of segregated environments is supported by multidisciplinary work and family involvement There was a degree of multidisciplinary work in most of the prisons visited, especially in reviewing the segregation of At Risk prisoners. These reviews typically involved custodial staff, health and mental health staff, occupational therapists and representatives from the community mental health facility. For example, weekly meetings were held to discuss prisoners with complex needs at Auckland Men’s, which included mental health, education and custodial staff, as well as representatives from the Mason Clinic. Similarly, weekly High Risk Assessment Team (HRAT) meetings which included Mason Clinic staff, psychology, site nurses, site doctors, social worker and unit staff meet once a to discuss all the women at the At Risk unit in Auckland Women’s prison. Christchurch Men’s also had good multidisciplinary work with monthly Complex Case Meetings to discuss all ARU residents and long-term segregated prisoners. All the women at the At Risk unit in Christchurch Women’s prison were assessed daily by a multidisciplinary team which included nursing staff, senior custodial staff, unit staff and the prisoner herself. Segregation review hearings in Auckland South prison similarly included the prisoner himself as well as a cultural representative, mental health practitioner and custodial staff. In one Health and Disability Unit (Haumietiketike) family members were invited to participate in six monthly reviews, which also included the patient’s care team, occupational therapist, psychology and psychiatry. This, and in particular the involvement of the patient’s family, was excellent practice. Staff know the individuals in their care With one notable exception, staff in all the facilities we visited demonstrated good knowledge of the individuals in their care, though, as noted earlier, staffdetainee relationships appeared to be distant. Segregation and seclusion units in most of the prisons and health and disability facilities had display boards listing all the individuals who were in the unit at the time, with varying degrees of detail. In most cases, boards were appropriately displayed out of general view 53