Vienna "Time-Out Shared Flat" in Simmering: Experts level serious criticism at the concept

At its core, the plan involves a residential group in which young offenders are to be temporarily housed. According to the available reports, Pollak and Frottier view the model as a de facto closed facility. This massively restricts the freedom of movement of those affected, without the legal prerequisites for doing so being in place.

Phone surrender and control: a sensitive point

The phone policy is also contested. The first resident of the house in Vienna-Simmering had to surrender his phone upon moving in and was instead given a mobile phone with the numbers of his parents as well as that of the Children's and Youth Ombudsman's Office. Critics see this as an inappropriate restriction on the communication of young people who are already in a stressful phase of life.

Another point concerns the staff. According to the proposal, the staff receive regular training in self-defense and restraining techniques. For the experts, this is an indication that coercion and physical restraint could regularly occur in the facility. This stands in contradiction to a modern approach to care that relies on voluntariness and the therapeutic relationship.

Staff and coercion: the experts' criticism

The selection of the target group and the admission procedure are also under criticism. There is a lack of clear criteria as to which young people are to be admitted to the Time-Out Shared Flat and what therapeutic services are available to them. Without these prerequisites, the hoped-for positive effect on youth recidivism rates cannot be expected, the experts warn.

The City of Vienna has launched the project as a pilot scheme aimed at catching young offenders and reducing delinquency. Supporters see the Time-Out Shared Flat as an opportunity to take young people out of unfavorable environments and offer them structure. Critics such as the SPEVO representatives counter that well-developed, outpatient and open support services would be the better solution.

Legal and political dimension

The debate comes at a time when youth crime in Vienna is being closely followed politically. The APA summarizes the experts' statement as a fundamental questioning of the concept. A decision on the continued operation or a revision of the model is pending.

Regardless of the outcome, the case raises fundamental questions: How far may the state intervene in the rights of young people who have committed offenses? And under what conditions is closed placement permissible at all? The Children's and Youth Ombudsman's Office and the expert-level bodies mentioned in the reports will continue to play a role in this debate.

Power dynamics and therapeutic standards

The critics see power dynamics within a facility in which staff are trained in restraining techniques as an additional risk. Young people at a vulnerable age could thus once again have negative relational experiences. The Academy for Child and Youth Psychiatry therefore advocates a clear legal framework, regular external oversight, and a binding therapeutic offering.

Should the City of Vienna stick with the concept, the legal and professional dispute is likely to continue. Until then, the Time-Out Shared Flat in Vienna-Simmering remains a pilot project around which the debate on contemporary youth welfare—between security and voluntariness—is being decided.