Institutions for persons with disabilities opened in an unstructured manner. In any case, it is clear that many persons with disabilities had to stay at home or in their residential facility for too long. One day-care centre was praised for setting up an isolation station. In this way, operation could be taken up again while minimising risk at the same time. It was not understandable for many of those affected that they had to continue paying fees during the lockdown and only a credit was announced. Commissions reported very positively that day-care centres continued to pay pocket money during the closure, so that there was no drawback for the clients at least in this respect. The imminent loss of his place in a day-care centre for a young man evoked complete consternation. His day-care centre had been closed during the first lockdown and after the gradual re-opening the centre advised him not to return, as members of his family are in a risk group. The day-care centre informed his parents in autumn 2020 that in accordance with the guidelines of the Land he is not allowed to return, as he had lost his entitlement to care. This was justified with the argument that the care expires automatically according to the statutory provisions if it – for whatever reason – is not availed of for more than six months. That this should also apply to the situation in which the centre was closed due to the coronavirus pandemic and was not visited for safety reasons on the recommendation of the facility was fully incomprehensible for the affected family and the NPM. The Land announced that it would endeavour to get the man his place back in the day-care centre when it is possible for him to visit it again. However, this uncertainty is unacceptable for those affected. Imminent loss of place in day-care centre Although the day-care centres were open during the lockdown in autumn 2020 – unlike in the spring – several relatives raised complaints. They reported that they or the clients had been requested to voluntarily forego the care programme until the rate of infection eases. In particular, elderly parents of persons with disabilities but also larger families thus felt they were under pressure and subjected to overloading their resources. On the other hand, day-care centres showed flexibility when planning their programmes in the face of an increasing risk of infection. For example, morning and afternoon groups were formed in a facility in Burgenland in order to reduce the number of persons present simultaneously and thus the risk of contagion. In other facilities in Burgenland, groups were divided up and thus had the opportunity to maintain the existing daily structure on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays or on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The days were then alternated the following week. 92