Child and youth welfare facilities and explained the legal framework. In addition to the administration of psychotropic sedative medication, net beds, restraint with straps, holding down and forced placement in time-out rooms, locked areas can also constitute impermissible measures that restrict freedom insofar as they are not the least severe measure to avert danger. The Nursing and Residential Homes Residence Act does not forbid the restriction of freedom per se but regulates the conditions under which it is permissible. It stipulates documentation and justification of such measures and requires those implementing them to consider with the gentlest possible approach. The Nursing and Residential Homes Residence Act is thus an important guarantee for the right to freedom of minors; this is particularly the case in view of the ratification of international conventions such as the UNCRC. Restrictions of freedom and coercive measures are, however, not covered by the scope of the Nursing and Residential Homes Residence Act if such measures are justified for the care of the child within the custody framework. Uncertainty among staff The commissions observed on many visits that there is uncertainty among the socio-pedagogical staff regarding the legal regulations. For example, Commission 1 learned in a shared accommodation in Vorarlberg that almost all of the reports to the residents’ representatives did not include the less severe measures that had been undertaken prior to measures that restrict freedom. This was, however, very well documented in the internal reporting. A change in the medication for a resident was reported to the residents’ representatives; however, that she was also administered PRN medication was not reported. The relevant prescription was not included either. The commission recommended updating the reports to the residents’ representatives. Staffing levels too low In a facility in Vienna, a group had to be temporarily closed. All of the children from the shared accommodation were placed in other facilities or sent home. The reason was a court-appointed expert opinion to examine the permissibility of restricting the freedom of a resident. It was determined that less severe measures could have been applied. However, the expert was of the opinion that the staffing level at the shared accommodation was far too low for this in view of the number of residents. The shared accommodation has been undergoing restructuring measures since then. The staff at another facility in Vienna reported to the commission that no measures that restrict freedom were applied. However, in the interviews with the staff, clear knowledge deficits concerning measures that restrict freedom and how to handle the same were evident. The commission thus expressed doubt as to whether measures that restrict freedom in the sense of the law are even recognised as such. Initial success of the amendment 83 All legally enforced changes that influence the organisational process need time and may cause uncertainty at first. An initial success of the amendment is however that routines are being questioned and the restriction of freedom is