practices of this kind in no way helps judges to determine the greater suitability of one centre as compared with another, for young persons of any particular character. 2.2.2.3 Should children be admitted according to selective criteria? The idea of criteria that are too highly selective should be approached with caution, since it would result in strong differentiation between CEFs, thereby creating an explicit or implicit hierarchy between them, of which the children would inevitably be aware, which would almost certainly lead to their adopting the attitudes associated with these differences. Moreover, one would legitimately expect all young offenders’ institutions to provide the services rendered necessary by the nature of their inmates. It is not desirable for certain institutions to be “specialised” in admitting children with problems of mental health, or addictions, or educational underachievement; in view of the fact that one should then expect to encounter difficulties of this nature among the young people admitted, and would therefore have to be ready to deal with them. Accordingly, in its reports, the Contrôleur général has noted shortcomings with regard to the relations between the institutions and the mental health services in their surrounding areas. Except, therefore, for a few exceptions 63, it is necessary to avoid the establishment of CEFS “specialised” in inmates of a particular type. On the other hand, distinguishing between CEFs by means of their respective established educational projects does not create any disadvantages when their differences arise from their methods, since projects of this kind do not result in the formation of special types of inmate populations (for example a project focused on the treatment of addictions would have the detrimental effect of gathering young “heavy” drug users together). The resourcefulness of certain associations and departments of the PJJ (Judicial youth protection service) has made it possible to implement original and coherent programmes in certain CEFs. When sending children to young offenders’ institutions, judges still need to be informed about these programmes, in order to be able to make choices that are based upon matching the child to the selected CEF, and not purely on the criteria of available places and geographical choice. It would be surprising were it possible to use one single method in dealing with young people in need of stability and guidance. Declared projects would also have the advantage of helping children to find their bearings after a stay inside an institution, whilst consolidating the consistency of a stage in their life path that often lasts for several years. The wealth of experience acquired by the young offenders’ institutions since the Act of 9th September 2002 should now make it possible to reinforce the demands imposed upon managers in the elaboration of their educational programmes. Of course, assessments, both internal and external, should make it possible to distinguish rapidly between good and poor projects: fragile children are not a field for experimentation. 2.2.3 Other observations and recommendations with regard to young offenders’ institutions In particular, the existence or absence of established and implemented educational projects now constitutes one of the major elements of differentiation between CEFs. 63 The exclusive admittance of girls (in view of the difficulties of managing the mixing of sexes in CEFs) certainly constitutes one such exception, and possibly the only one: it is therefore appropriate to offset the associated disadvantages (here the absence of families has been emphasised in particular) by means of special measures. 35