In some of the institutions the CGLPL visited over the year, particularly in the Parisian region, this rate exceeded 200%. In such conditions, the actual, tangible consequences of overcrowding coupled with the lack of warders which the CGLPL had already criticised in its 2015 annual report, are considerable. 1.1.1 Assessing the limits of creating new places The Minister of Justice's aforementioned report, En finir avec la surpopulation carcérale, shows that the Government has taken on board the quantitative aspects of this phenomenon and acted accordingly in terms of scaling up the number of prison places. The CGLPL would like to underscore the fact that creating new places is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of prison overcrowding. The Minister of Justice also rightly highlights that the leading causes of this overcrowding are tougher criminal legislation, the harder line taken by courts and the growing disinclination to adjust sentences. All of the prison places created in France over the past thirty years have not been enough to resolve the problem thus far, and there is nothing to suggest they will manage to reverse this trend in the future without any reform to prison policy. As pointed out in the Minister of Justice's report, since 1998 the number of places in French prisons has risen by around 20%, and yet, over the same period, the prison occupancy rate has grown from 112 to 118% - with a dip to 100% in 2001 and a peak at 125% in 2008. Suffice to say that the efforts undertaken have not had the desired outcome. Concerning the problem of overcrowding, and its consequences in terms of individual cell allocation, the CGLPL is of the opinion that developing real estate projects alone cannot represent an effective solution. Indeed, through its missions it has pinpointed two other options that the Government would be advised to pursue: alternatives to prison and sentence adjustments on the one hand, and calling the logic behind some sentences into question on the other. 1.1.2 Developing sentence adjustments and alternatives to prison in a context of prison regulation Regarding sentence adjustments and alternatives to prison, we can hardly praise the mixed results of the measures adopted in the Act of 15 August 2014 on sentencing according to individual offender requirements and improving the effectiveness of criminal sanctions, chief among which is the introduction of the non-custodial sentence. In two years, fewer than 2,300 of these sentences have been passed – the justice seemingly having trouble incorporating them in their repertoire; just twenty-four criminal courts imposed half of these sentences. Compare this figure to the 8,000 to 20,000 non-custodial sentences that the impact study for the Act had forecast. During its visits, the CGLPL also observed at multiple intervals an impression that the conditions for adjusting sentences were becoming tougher – felt by the prisoners and confirmed by the institution managements. The former saw this as reason to despair, the latter as a factor in worsening overcrowding and worsening relations between prisoners – at times even leading to violence. The CGLPL reiterates its recommendation to establish a more dynamic policy bearing on sentence adjustments and alternatives to prison, so as to help reverse the trend of prison overcrowding and encourage rehabilitation – a key factor in preventing recidivism. During its visits, the CGLPL sometimes observed informal local regulation mechanisms for controlling prison overcrowding effectively and flexibly. What is required is dialogue between the prison administration and the judiciary, so as to coordinate the flow of imprisonments and that of sentence enforcement. In this way it is possible to slightly push back the enforcement of a sentence or bring forward a release date, always in keeping with the law, but with account taken of prisons' 16