Child and youth welfare facilities Small children unprotected among traumatised adolescents Sometimes commissions encounter minors in facilities who are too young for the pedagogical concepts of the shared accommodation and whose care is thus inadequate. The admission of a considerably younger child is a burden for the child, the group and the staff, because this consequently means, that there is less time available to take care of all of the children. The children’s right to extensive care and protection is thus violated. In Upper Austria, Commission 2 encountered a four-year old girl in a residential group for minors from the age of six. Even though this child required more care than older boys and girls, the staffing level was not increased. The situation was stressful for both the four-year old and the other children. Some of the children told Commission 2 that the caregivers were not interested in them anymore since they had to look after the little girl. The interviewed staff also had reservations as to whether the shared accommodation is suitable for the girl, as she needed more intensive care. The existing human resources, however, were only sufficient to maintain the daily structure. The team had little say in the matter when the girl was admitted. Commission 2 criticised that physical attacks by the older children could not be prevented with the existing human resources. In another facility in Upper Austria, both adolescents and staff reported that there were regular violent excesses and even assaults on the care team. Commission 2 had the impression that violence-based power structures – driven by a few severely traumatised adolescents – could be established at the facility. The committed team was unable to cope with these challenges. The police had to be alarmed repeatedly. Introverted minors locked themselves in their rooms out of fear. A six-year old girl was to be admitted to a place that had become available in this shared accommodation. The NPM took a justified stand on this matter because there would have been an acute risk to this considerably younger child. The regional government of Upper Austria arranged a monitoring visit by the supervisory authority. A different care alternative was found for the six-year old. It is clear that a setting with intensive support which fosters development must be developed for this shared accommodation. High care levels bind resources 73 Not only younger children but also children and adolescents who need a different care setting due to their diagnoses or impairments bind many human resources. In a shared accommodation in Vienna, great dedication on the part of the staff in dealing with the cared for children was observed, but the employees seemed to be stretched to their limits. They were left alone with the challenging behaviour and illnesses of the children. Six out of eight children had a medical-psychiatric diagnosis; a four-year old girl had a psychological diagnosis. 1:1 care was necessary for three of these minors in the view of Commission 4. Additional staff would be required for this. However, the existing positions were not even filled due to resignations and sick leave. Socio-pedagogical and psychiatric care was thus not possible. One child with an attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder did not receive a special therapy