National Preventive Mechanism regional government emphasised vis-à-vis the NPM that they planned to take this criticism as an opportunity to develop standards for the individual areas (residential issues, board, cleaning, day-care, psychological support and deployment of qualified professionals, expansion of psychotherapy), which would then become a component of performance agreements. Too few occupational possibilities; too little psychological support The occupational possibilities were also shown to be inadequate. The commissions observed that while, for example, German classes were offered in facilities, four class hours per week is inadequate. Some of the adolescents played in football clubs. There were no other occupational or recreational opportunities. This problem was amplified by the fact that there were no adequate possibilities for psychological support for these minors, who are often traumatised. An expansion of such offerings and learning aids should be given high priority. Unacceptable conditions In a facility in Styria for 40 unaccompanied male adolescents, Commission 3 found unacceptable hygienic conditions (stoves full of soot, dirty refrigerators, broken kitchen cabinets, filthy, sometimes damaged toilets and bathrooms). This suggests that the facility operator is not taking care of basic cleaning and repairs and that monitoring of these facilities is being carried out inadequately. Per diem rates under reception conditions are discriminatory In this context, the NPM would like to emphasise that the possibilities available to these facilities are limited by the budget resources paid out by the Federal Government from funds provided under the reception conditions. Due to the significantly poorer funding, staff, staff training, continuing education, psychological supervision and pedagogical concepts do not meet the standards of other child and youth welfare facilities. This results in de facto discrimination of children and adolescents solely due to their origin, although the Laender – as providers of assistance to children and adolescents – are responsible for unaccompanied minors. Cost reimbursements from funds provided under the reception conditions by the Federal Government are far below the per diem rates of child and youth welfare organisations; as a result, an unequal level of care is the logical consequence. This is clearly evident from the fact that pedagogical concepts are largely lacking. Despite the repeated recommendations made by the NPM, there are no Austria-wide, uniform minimum standards for this type of facility, because the Federal Government and the Laender have not been able to agree on this. In the NPM’s point of view, a differentiation between children and adolescents under full residential care both under and outside of reception conditions, which results in poorer care and/or treatment, clearly contradicts the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and must therefore be rejected. The NPM will increase its efforts in 2015 to effect a change and therefore recommended that the AOB initiates an ex-officio investigative proceeding in this matter. 112