social welfare – children within the field of institutional foster care. Nearly all institutions have had problems in communicating their decisions to children. There is also a lack of awareness of the difference between restrictive measures and acceptable childrearing methods. Restrictions may be imposed on the children as part of their normal upbringing, but most such restrictions require an administrative decision. During visits, it has been noted that arrangements for the psychiatric care of a child and collaboration between the institution, social services and health care are not always made in a manner that would be in the best interests of the child. Attention is also paid to the children’s school attendance and the interest taken by local authorities in the tuition provided at the institution. All the NPM visit reports are sent to the visited unit and the local Regional State Administrative Agency (AVI), which is responsible for the regional guidance and supervision of social services. The report is also occasionally sent to the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira), which is responsible for the national guidance and supervision of social services. A copy is always sent to the local authorities in the municipality responsible for the placement of the child. The Deputy-Ombudsman had also found it necessary to inform the social workers in charge of the placed children of the observations and recommendations made as a result of the visit. In addition, the Deputy-Ombudsman has required that social workers discuss the content of the report with the placed child. The institutions tend to have a constructive attitude to the Deputy-Ombudsman’s opinions and comply with the recommendations given. In most cases, they react to the observations and recommendations promptly, either while the visit is ongoing or upon receiving a draft copy of the inspection report. One example of this is an institution where the documentation of restrictive measures was incomplete or nonexistent. The director of the unit reported that documentation and its importance had been discussed with the staff immediately after the visit and the making of administrative decisions on restriction had been practiced. Staff will receive regular training in the future, to ensure that similar shortcomings in documentation can be avoided. The NPM made 12 visits to child welfare units in 2017. In the case of one of the institutions, the initial visit was followed by a repeat visit after a couple months. All of the visits were made unannounced. The follow-up visit was pre-announced. Owing to the nature of the institutions, visits were also made outside office hours, for example on a Sunday. An external expert (a specialist in adolescent psychiatry) participated in one of the visits, which was made to a child welfare unit for children and adolescents suffering from neuropsychiatric disorders. In addition, one of the visits to a youth home for residents with special needs was attended by an expert by experience. Children's and youth home Kimppa in Paltamo has a hobby space for a wide range of activities and some of the residents also attend hobbies outside the home. 57