Visits in 2018 43 Kvammen emergency institution Child welfare Kvammen emergency institution 16–17 January 2018 Kvammen emergency institution is a state-owned institution with five places for children and adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18. Kvammen admits adolescents who are placed both voluntarily and against their will. The visit documented several serious findings. The NPM expressed serious concern about whether the Kvammen emergency institution was being run responsibly, and about its ability to operate in line with child welfare legislation and children’s rights. All children and adolescents had to endure an admission regime which entailed a stay at the admission department Kåret for up to three days and in certain cases longer. The admission section had a prison-like feel. On admission, mobile phones were routinely confiscated, and bags were searched. The residents were informed about the house rules and what was expected of them, but received very little information about their rights. The residents were also subjected to unlawful, routine coercion during the remainder of their stay at the institution. Mobile phones, tablets, and laptops were confiscated from all the residents for the length of the stay, and the residents did not have access to the internet within the institution. It also emerged that the residents could not leave the institution’s grounds without being closely followed by an adult. Findings also showed that Kvammen restricted the residents’ freedom of movement in a way that meant they were isolated from the other residents. There is no legal authority for this. There are strict conditions for using coercion pursuant to both national legislation and international conventions, and an institution cannot write house rules, procedures or similar that restrict young people’s rights. Kvammen’s routine use of force during admission and during the stay meant that the residents were subjected to unlawful use of force. The institution had in some cases used coercion on the basis of the police’s wishes and needs. The NPM underlined that the police cannot instruct a child welfare institution to exercise force in excess of the restrictions provided for in child welfare legislation. Nor should the institution follow instructions from the police that it does not consider necessary and that are not within the regulations to which the child welfare institution is subject. The NPM found several errors and short­comings in Kvammen’s administrative decisions and record ­keeping relating to the use of coercion.This