The CGLPL, who is still conducting his investigations, will send a report on this theme to the Government in 2016. 5. In juvenile detention centres, well-identified difficulties persist, but the Government appears to be willing to take care of them in a suitable manner Ever since its creation, the CGLPL has visited at least once, and mostly twice, the forty-nine juvenile detention centres (CEF) of the territory. The main risks that these institutions face are well known: - the fragility of the management teams; - the insufficient qualification and instability of the staff; - the resulting lack of quality of service projects and educational programmes; - idleness or an inconsistent succession of activities, which mitigates the weakness of the educational projects; - the inconsistency between the declared discipline and what was observed in reality. The tasks conducted in 2015 show proof of an actual improvement in certain situations. In one case that had been subjected to harsh criticisms in the past, the CGLPL observed a fixed, precise framework, which also had a certain degree of flexibility. The minors were taken care of intelligently, and benefit from very timely moments of inactivity. In another place, a solid educational project was set up. In yet another place, a recently updated team was being built with a focus on consistency, pertinence and trust, with a supervisory team that appeared to be solid and which promoted the professional commitment of each person. It offered the youth several personalised projects in an inclusive and helpful environment that they could lean on to progress. On the other hand, certain other centres showed that progress is still necessary. Thus, in one CEF, an insufficiently qualified team had difficulties in implementing an educational project and resorted to using complicated punishments and reward methods in a very security-focused treatment. In another CEF, the difficulties observed in 2009 became worse. Poorly maintained rooms, deplorable hygiene, extreme confusion in the management of rewards and punishments, all resulting from the team’s inability to properly take care of minors. Most of the educators are contract agents, recruited for periods of four months and not trained properly. Since 2009, the institution has experienced three shut-downs, without these periods having improved the operation of the institution. In another case, an institution was asked, in 2013, to set up an identifiable educational project controlled by the competent territorial services, to appoint a teacher and to set up an educational help desk. After shutting down for more than six month, the CEF reopened without any of its difficulties being solved. The team, essentially being composed of people with insufficient qualifications and an inexperienced supervisory staff in restricted boarding school structures, experienced severe problems in cohesion. The contract teacher resigned after one month in the structure, and no replacement was found. 34