Child and youth welfare facilities protect the affected child and other children. A few months later, a pedagogue in the same shared accommodation caught another adolescent when sexually abusing his younger brother. Both boys stated that there had been several similar incidents. The technical supervision was informed by the facility about the incidents. Nonetheless, a spatial separation of victims and perpetrators inside the shared accommodation was only ordered after receiving a letter from the AOB that had been informed about the incidents through an anonymous complaint. In addition, double staffing was prescribed for night shifts. Insufficient measures to protect children On an unannounced visit three months later, the commission found an atmosphere of fear. The younger children claimed that they were afraid of the older adolescents and wanted to move out of the shared accommodation. The molesting adolescents had not been moved to a different facility but were still living in the shared accommodation. There were no written concepts or considerations in place regarding how unsupervised contact between the molesting adolescents and the other children can be prevented either. The double-staffed night shifts had already stopped after two weeks due to staff shortages. There was also criticism of the fact that a young mother with her new-born baby, who needed a lot of support from the staff in caring for the baby, were living in the shared accommodation. The Land had authorised the placement of mother and child in the facility even though the shared accommodation was in a crisis due to the incidents, and urgently needed all of the available human resources to implement effective measures to prevent further assaults. The NPM observed a large number of deficiencies and effected the transfer of seven children to other facilities. Inadequate consequences The protection of the children living in a shared accommodation in Vienna was also neglected after a 13-year-old had molested younger children there. A few months later, it was noticed that he had secretly met a 7-year-old girl in the night. Some time after that, the girl was seriously sexually abused by the then 14-year-old at such nocturnal meetings in the bathroom. The boy was suspended and moved to another shared accommodation located, however, in the same building complex. As there was visual contact from the rooms of the shared accommodation to other shared accommodations and it thus cannot be prevented that the two minors constantly run into each other, Commission 5 considered this measure to be completely inadequate to prevent further assaults. No sex education concepts Effective prevention requires that minors are instructed about the different types of boundary violation and encouraged to seek help. They need to be advised on their rights to physical and sexual self-determination, and learn to question gender stereotypes. Often the underlying structural conditions are in effect conducive to the occurrence of sexual violence. Structural conditions in facilities and a too low staffing ratio can mean that boundary violations are easily missed by the staff. Many employees are aware of the problem but there are no clearly defined strategies and responsibilities to prevent sexual assaults. 66