Child and youth welfare facilities criticised in this facility. There were also no concepts on how to deal with clients with mental disorders. Fortunately, there was an immediate reaction to the criticism from the NPM, and the regulatory requirements were tightened significantly. Commission 5 visited a recently opened facility in Lower Austria in which adolescents with particularly challenging behaviour were supposed to find a home. Since conciliar-psychiatric support was not in place despite the corresponding diagnoses of some residents, power struggles and altercations happened as anticipated. Repeated self-harm including an attempted suicide were met with interventions that are completely incompatible with pedagogic standards and in some cases could be classified as degrading treatment. The shared accommodation was closed down shortly after the visit by the commission, and the adolescents moved to another facility. The regional government of Lower Austria informed the NPM that special concepts are being considered for the support of unaccompanied minor refugees with similar needs, whereby “special care places” in existing facilities with additional staff and increased financing are planned. The most frequent reactions to traumatic experiences in connection with exposure to violence and migration are symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The NPM holds the view that pedagogic staff must be vigilant regarding children and adolescents suffering from repeated sleeping disorders and nightmares or lack of concentration, or displaying aggressive or pessimistic and passive behaviour with a tendency to withdrawal. Care should be taken to involve native-speaking therapists during crisis de-escalation and to place these children and adolescents in a residential group that is relatively homogeneous with regard to the age structure and ethnic background in accordance with the “quality for kids standards“. Insufficient support for traumatisation Several facilities that provide reception conditions under the Basic Provision Agreement, which were visited by the commissions, were impersonal, bare or confined. In some cases, shared rooms were so small that it was not possible to be alone or receive visits and the environment was not conducive to learning. Broken or badly worn furniture, the lack of the simplest “study area” with desks, and the smell of faeces in the sanitary area were criticised on-site by Commission 1. These deficiencies were taken by the operator as an opportunity to initiate extensive refurbishment measures. The unaccompanied minor refugees welcomed the additional space created by converting four-bed rooms into double rooms as recommended by the NPM. In more extreme cases, not only was the accommodation inacceptable, but minors were sometimes even found in a neglected condition. At times, the unaccompanied minor refugees complained about restrictions (locked fridges, no WLAN, mobile phone bans and curfews etc.) or collective punishment. As follow-up visits showed, many of the deficiencies were rectified after the intervention from the NPM. 81