Child and youth welfare facilities crisis centres would be to expand non-residential risk assessments as well as increasing programmes in the area of non-residential support, as these are also not always directly available when needed and children sometimes have to stay longer in the crisis centre than is necessary for assessment. The NPM has also already recommended the provision of a crisis centre for minors with psychiatric diagnoses. Anticipated relief did not materialise Municipal department MA 11 anticipated an improvement of this situation that has been criticised by the NPM for years through regionalisation within the framework of the structural reform. In cooperation with private owners and operators, 70 new follow-up care places with different focuses were created in the past two years, and the non-residential support programme was also expanded. However, these measures are still insufficient. The situation is strained, in particular, in districts where more residential space has been created in recent years. The City of Vienna also announced the expansion of crisis de-escalation places, socio-therapeutic and socio-psychiatric care units as well as non-residential programmes in 2020. These projects should be implemented as quickly as possible in order to finally effect sustained relief of the crisis centres. Staff turnover due to high stress levels Commission 5 identified another problem, notably that predominantly job starters work in the crisis centre who only stay a few years due to the high workload. The increased workload is compensated with an allowance that is, however, very low and bears no relation to the challenges faced by the social pedagogues. An increase in the allowance could reduce the staff turnover. Crisis placeson the ground of a large facility In Burgenland, the new regulation enabled the opportunity for setting up new crisis centres. To date, however, only six crisis de-escalation places have been established in a residential group on the grounds of a large facility and the appointment of crisis foster parents announced. The NPM is critical of crisis deescalation places on the grounds of a large facility for several reasons. During the crisis assessment, children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable and open to negative influences from peers. The group dynamics in large facilities exacerbate the problem of children in a crisis whereby both the children undergoing assessment and the other children and adolescents are at risk. The staff does not have a sufficient relationship with the children in a crisis to be able to counter these dynamics. This is the reason why Vienna started moving crisis places from existing facilities and creating crisis centres 25 years ago. Dedicated crisis centre required for Burgenland The NPM thus urgently recommended Burgenland to set up a crisis centre at a dedicated location too. The NPM also criticises that in Burgenland currently it is only possible to accept children and adolescents in crisis places if measures are taken to avert imminent danger. If there is no imminent danger or the legal guardians consent to out-of-home care, the children and adolescents are placed in the care facility without assessment and diagnosis. This also explains the very low demand for crisis places compared to the rest of Austria. Such an interpretation of the regulation does not comply with the legislator’s 77