Child and youth welfare facilities 2.3.9 Group size affects quality of pedagogic work Section 12 of the Federal Children’s and Youth Service Act stipulates how child and adolescent welfare is to be organised by normalising standards recognised by experts and using the current status of science as a benchmark. The implementation laws adopted this regulation without subsequently creating harmonised care standards in the Laender. There are thus considerable differences in the maximum number of children cared for per group throughout Austria. In addition, group dynamic processes, which occur more frequently in large groups, increase the risk potential even if the staffing ratio is higher. The risk of sexual assault among the minors not being seen by the staff is higher in larger groups. Group size too high in three Laender In Vienna and Salzburg, a maximum of 8 minors live in one shared accommodation; in Upper Austria, Vorarlberg and Tyrol, the number is 9 minors; in Lower Austria, 10. Carinthia with 12 and Styria with 13 minors per group are far above these standards. Burgenland, where there are even 16 minors per group, is the “leader”. The NPM, with the support of the Human Rights Advisory Council, took the opportunity to address the regional government of Burgenland with the recommendation of limiting the permissible group size to a maximum of 10 minors. The possibility to temporarily inflate the prescribed group size, as is possible in Tyrol and Lower Austria with the approval of the supervisory authority, should also be urgently reconsidered. Home structures impede pedagogic work Large homes with several groups are also not compatible with modern social education standards. Similar to large groups, the negative effects of group dynamics in large facilities are much stronger and impede development opportunities. The staff in particular would like large facilities to be broken down into smaller socio-pedagogical and socio-therapeutic shared accommodations, as individual needs can be better catered to in smaller facilities. This was clearly evident from the interviews with the commissions. Several Laender have thus started to separate individual groups from large facilities. There are now no more large facilities in Vienna, Vorarlberg, Salzburg and Styria. The other Laender should follow this example. The private owners and/or operators should also be integrated in this separation process and requested to present restructuring plans. 76