processing of problems, because “more of change” does not necessarily make the conditions of their care better. In order to stabilise them, these minors need specific assistance services that are custom-tailored for them and that they can accept. But even so-called “system busters”, who defy institutional help again and again, need not remain hopeless cases if one knows their needs, interests and traits and does not attach help to rules that are too rigid. The expectation (which is often created by the media) that negative paths of minors being cared for by child and youth welfare organisations can be averted by “solutions” that range from more rigid measures to restriction of freedom is illusory. The NPM’s critical eye must be maintained when tougher crackdowns and force towards “the most difficult” children and adolescents is being demanded, instead of discussing the risks of societal disintegration processes and the gaps in the available assistance for minors. The fate of former residents of child and youth facilities and their experiences with being brought up in such facilities after 1945, which have been documented by victim protection commissions in all the Laender, have shown the lifelong psychological wounds that the consequences of institutional coercion together with abuse of power can leave behind. In order to understand, which form of help can (still) reach adolescents, the professionals must understand what inner voice is driving their behaviour and must adjust the services they are offering accordingly. There are no simple solutions for the most difficult problem situations in facilities operated by child and youth welfare organisations. Providers involved in this topic need support in planning and coordination. Such projects require scientifically-based work on the fundamentals and resources to encompass assistance processes from different perspectives. Furthermore, it is problematic that (the most) difficult adolescents have to “shuttle” back and forth between child and adolescent psychiatry and residential child and youth welfare assistance only because the transitions at the interfaces are challenging. It would be especially important to place the focus on the rights and needs of the affected minors and to adjust the assistance provided for their full residential care accordingly. The commissions also observed that time spent in crisis centres or in psychiatric wards for children and adolescents after the actual crisis diagnosis has been completed, is much longer than absolutely necessary because suitable places for after-care for this group are not available. The findings of the NPM about care deficits at socio-therapeutic residential facilities are substantiated by a study published by the Federal Ministry of Health about the outpatient psycho-social care of children and adolescents. According to this study, 585 sociotherapeutic and 5,701 socio-pedagogical residential spots existed in Austria in 2013. As far as the actually required number of socio54 There are no simple solutions