Child and youth welfare facilities had decided to mentally break a new younger boy. They hit him, held his mouth closed, hid him under a cover and forbade him to cry. In addition, they forced him to convince the staff that he enjoyed visits from the other children in his room. What was really going on therefore only became noticeable after some time. Since daily physical and mental violence was part of everyday life at the shared accommodation and the staff did not view it so negatively anymore, Commission 2 considered that the development of the minors cared for seriously at risk. The objective of being a safe shelter for the children formulated in the concept could not be guaranteed, which is why measures to prevent violence and alter the prevailing power structures were urgently recommended. The NPM also insisted that until the situation has stabilised any vacant places should not be occupied. The technical supervision of the Land visited the facility three times because of the many deficits observed by Commission 2 and drew similar conclusions. Several regulations were imposed on the facility. The operator has drafted a new violence prevention concept, deployed a new group leader and made changes to the staff. Violence part of everyday life at shared accommodation Increased potential for violence among the adolescents was observed at another facility in Upper Austria due the high personnel turnover and changes in the group. Commission 2 considered it urgently necessary to counter the sense of powerlessness experienced by the staff by organising training programmes on violence prevention and de-escalation. Individual crisis plans were also recommended for adolescents prone to outbreaks of aggression and a loss of control as well as team development measures. Increased potential for violence with adolescents There were massive problems with a nine-year old boy with extreme behavioural disorders in a facility in Burgenland. The management reported that the team had to develop their own instructions for dealing with him in order to be able to have a de-escalating effect on the impulsive outbursts of the child. The staff had not received dedicated training in dealing with the child’s special situation. Commission 6 criticised that the staff was not supported through the involvement of experts, and the technical supervision had not prescribed any measures. The reporting of incidents to the Land or the district administrative authority per telephone only was also criticised. Lack of expert support for the staff A nine-year old boy was mobbed and bullied by older boys in a shared accommodation in Lower Austria. On recommendation of the NPM, the technical supervision visited the shared accommodation several times, and observed similar deficits. The shared accommodation was then closed down. In another shared accommodation, one of the boys displayed conspicuous behaviour for several years. He was suspected of exercising sexualised violence on a six-year old girl and physical violence against other children. Commission 5 identified a too lenient treatment of the adolescent and insufficient protection of the other children and adolescents living in the shared accommodation. No steps were taken to move the adolescent to different accommodation after Insufficient protection of other children 68