National Preventive Mechanism 15 of the Lower Austrian Housing and Day-care Regulation (Wohn- und Tagesbetreuungsverordnung), advocacy groups “can” be created. However, a more precise statutory definition regarding the requirements, modalities and special support for such activities does not exist. Section 6 (3) of the Carinthian Nursing Homes Act (Kärntner Heimgesetz) only states that operators of homes may not presume a legally effective waiver of the right to “jointly with the other residents elect an advocate or a resident delegation to represent the interests of the residents”. It is clear that, with the exception of Upper Austria, the majority of the Laender laws do not regulate the statutory establishment of elections of workshop representatives and the necessary prerequisites and conditions. The fact that the commissions were sometimes told during their visits to workshops that workshop speakers “have too little to say” could have something to do with this. Standardisation of democratic participatory structures The AOB presumes that once the democratic participatory structures are in place, the development of all informational, decision-making and innovation processes could be more successful. A study published in 2010 by the Institute for Educational Sciences at the University of Vienna on the topic of “Workshops and the Sheltered Employment Market in Austria” clearly shows that there is a substantial amount of catching up to do with regard to participation and that Upper Austria has a pioneering role. As a result of absent or inadequate minimum statutory requirements or quality standards across all the Laender that are oriented along the lines of the UN CRPD, it is up to the institutions and/or their operators to establish self-representation and co-determination structures for residents and users. Various concepts have been developed in this regard and have also been turned over to the commissions during their visits. This alone is not sufficient to be able to orient practical action around these activities and to not keep holding on to well-trodden paths with regard to care mandates and internal organisational procedures. Access to peer-to-peer sharing between self-advocates, including beyond institutional borders, and persons with disabilities who live independently, could open up new perspectives. A welcome development is the opening of the Viennese Centre for SelfRepresentation (Wiener Selbstvertretung-Zentrum) in late 2014, which is intended to promote a sharing of content, independence vis-à-vis operator organisations, networking and joint political action by persons with learning disabilities. 130