However, these difficulties can still be overcome. This was displayed by an even more fragile example. The institution had been subject to an administrative closure due to an overall deteriorated situation, which resulted from frequent changes in the management team and a lack of consistency in the teachers’ responses to misbehaviour among the minors. Verbal and physical violence among the minors frequently forced them to return to detention centres after the failure to have them fostered. The situation six months after the reopening was still precarious, but was guided by the territorial department of the judicial youth protection service (PJJ). A credible service project was formulated, but the team’s dedication to this project was not consistent; this required significant investment from the territorial department. In June 2015, an inter-ministerial mission on the apparatus of juvenile detention centres was subject to general visits by the judicial and social affairs departments, assisted by the visit of the judicial youth protection service conducted by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Affairs, Health and Women’s Rights. It was meant to evaluate the degree of implementation of the recommendations made in 2013 by an earlier mission on this theme, and to update them with those issued later by the French Court of Accounts (Cour des comptes), the Contrôleur général of places of deprivation of liberty and the visit of the judicial youth protection service (IPJJ). The mission observed that the direction of the youth protection service had implemented the recommendations of the inter-ministerial report of January 2013, and that three-thirds of them had been completely or partially executed. Their recent or ongoing implementation has not yet produced measurable effects. In particular, it highlighted that a voluntarist action was executed to improve the CEF apparatus, especially by a legal consolidation that is still underway, and by a territorial adjustment. Moreover, it highlighted “an approach focused towards the better governance of the CEF apparatus” resulting from a better structured oversight and the implementation of a monitoring and evaluation process. Finally, it noted the strengthening of the educational and healthcare workforce and a support plan for public sector staff that is still being formalised. The mission also suggested actions to be taken to “eliminate the structural difficulties of CEF and reduce the risks of the apparatus”. These recommendations are in line with those of the CGLPL, especially: - professionalise and consolidate the CEF teams to take better care of minors; - make the qualification of professionals mandatory and continue to strengthen the workforce; - recruit staff according to a required level of qualification and a suitable profile; - implement specific training courses; - optimise education during fostering; - strengthen support for minors for outings; - anticipate crises and functional problems; - intensify and clarify the oversight of the apparatus. Since the diagnosis on the situation of CEF has been established, since reforms have been started by the administration, and since the prospects have been established in a pertinent manner by an inter-ministerial report of general visits, the CGLPL would be quite justified in evaluating the implementation of these encouraging intentions into the daily life of minors deprived of liberty. 35