and the rules concerning disciplinary measures, use of force and admissible methods of restraint. What is more, sources have not been used - especially the OPCAT. 4. Juvenile detention centres in 2017 Juvenile detention centres (CEF) are public or private institutions offering an alternative to imprisonment for child repeat offenders or defendants brought before a magistrate, following offences or crimes. Placement can last up to six months and be renewed once in the context of legal supervision, a suspended sentence or parole. A minor placed in a CEF is obliged to stay there under the ongoing surveillance of adults and to abide by the conditions of placement. Each CEF can accommodate twelve minors and has a workforce of 27 professionals in principle. In 2017, the CGLPL visited five juvenile detention centres (CEF)16 three of which were struggling to put recent and severe crises behind them; it even had to cancel two scheduled inspections owing to the administrative closure of the institutions concerned17 on grounds which, in both cases, had given rise to a criminal investigation. These inspections, and especially the cancelled inspections, show that CEFs are extremely fragile structures which has nothing to do with their public or private status. The CGLPL has encountered commendable and shocking situations alike. Such situations can very quickly swing one way or the other, not least in the wake of an incident or a change in management. Extremes are entirely possible: in one place discipline may be at staff's discretion and of considerable firmness, while in another peace can be bought through lax treatment - opening up the risk of violence against youth workers. The weaknesses of CEFs are well known: inadequacy of educational plans, no control over discipline - which can degenerate towards excessive tolerance, excessive restriction or violence, insufficient involvement of families or youth workers trained in working with young offenders in home environments. The causes of these problems are often the instability of teams, insufficiently strong management and the young age and inexperience of staff. Two interministerial reports 18 have reached a fully shared assessment and listed the measures to be taken. Monitoring of the CGLPL's recommendations implemented in 2016 shows that the Judicial Youth Protection Service Directorate has made significant regulatory efforts. Juvenile detention centres and their applicable rules are therefore now clear to all. And yet, the visits carried out by the CGLPL in 2017 do not demonstrate any marked improvement in the situation of CEFs, management of which remains woefully inadequate. Situations of violence, abusive disciplinary practices, fractured teams and inadequate educational provision have been observed. The Judicial Youth Protection Service Directorate was even sent urgent notification of the CGLPL's findings in one instance. Efforts to rectify the situation in CEFs must be taken urgently. The necessary regulatory work has been accomplished, and no inspections reveal any budgetary shortfalls. Efforts must therefore bear exclusively on staff skills and practices. Four series of measures are necessary: - introduction of staff regulations enabling a stable workforce to be recruited: it is unreasonable to entrust struggling juveniles to youth workers who are barely older 16 The full list of facilities inspected in 2017 is given in Appendix 2 hereto. Sainte-Eulalie (Gironde) and Brignoles (Var). 18 IGSJ/IGAS/IPJJ, "Mission d’évaluation des centres éducatifs fermés dans le dispositif de prise en charge des mineurs délinquants", January 2013 and IGSJ/IGAS, "Rapport sur le dispositif des centres éducatifs fermés (CEF)", July 2015. 17 30