CEF placements are subject to a strict series of rules imposed upon minors and tutors, who are bound to implement an educational project within a specific framework, fixed by law and the court (A). This project is intended for vulnerable inmates where strict control measures will not be enough to make them into autonomous citizens (B). 2.1.1 A Legal Framework giving Priority to Security without Denying the Educational Dimension The Act of 9th September 2002 and its circulars of application incorporate CEFs within a double legal framework: on the one hand, a penal legal framework – the statutory instrument (ordonnance) of 2nd February 1945 – on the other hand, the Act of 2nd January 2002 reforming social and medico-social initiatives. A certain number of restrictive consequences result from the legal framework: - minors, placed in CEFs within the framework of judicial supervision, probation orders, or reduced sentencing measures, have to comply with a certain number of obligations fixed by the judge, the first of which, inherent to the measure, is compliance with the placement, both in principle and in the practical details thereof; - failure to comply with the obligations may lead to revocation of the measure and imprisonment; - the judge is kept informed of the minor’s behaviour and, more particularly, any incident liable to lead to revocation of the measure; - in practice, most minors placed in CEFs have other criminal proceedings in progress and are well aware that their behaviour may have heavy consequences upon the way they are dealt with. The penal framework therefore weighs upon the placement in a crucial manner; the fear or threat of revocation is constantly present and undeniably gives a dimension of constraint to the placement. The judge has nevertheless chosen a CEF rather than imprisonment. The latter knows that the bars can easily be crossed and that, after an initial reception phase, the young person will be entitled to go out in a more or less supervised manner and allowed a few timeslots of liberty, if only at the time of visits to their family and professional training. When judges give grounds for rulings (which is not always the case), in general they condemn the parents’ inability to fix a stable educational framework for the minor as well as the young person’s difficulty in complying with the rules fixed; they often point out the need to put the minor back on an educational or professional path. It is therefore a question of supporting the minor towards sensible and legally acceptable plans for their life. Whatever the objectives fixed by the judge, the required conditions oblige CEFs to put in place an “intensive and structured educational project”, aimed at “preventing the continuation and repeat of criminal behaviours” by means of “the social integration of the minor through activities including work-based initial vocational training in basic knowledge and training in professional acts, as well as educational work concerning health and the body on the basis of sports activities etc.”. These required conditions specify that: “the objective of the placement is to work upon the minor’s personality and personal development, both at the psychological and family and social levels; it will therefore be aimed at developing the minor’s potential with regard to knowledge, the ability to establish relations with others based upon the notion of respect and the capacity to position themselves with a view to personal plans for integration into society”. 107