2.2 Young Offenders’ Institutions 2.2.1 Background details Following the comments made during the election campaigns on criminality among minors and the means of containing it, of which there was no shortage, media interest was attracted all the more to young offenders’ institutions because, on the one hand, an undertaking had been made to increase their number and, on the other, there appeared to be a consensus in favour of this measure, if not in terms of the level of funds to be allocated to it, at least with regard to its principle, since under the 2007-2012 legislature the Government had also made a similar declaration49. Following these debates, the Government that came out of the elections wanted to shed light upon the educational value of this approach to dealing with juvenile offenders. It therefore appointed a joint inspectorate (the general inspectorate of legal services and the general inspectorate of social affairs) charged with shedding light on this subject on its behalf. For its part, the French Court of Auditors (Cour des comptes) also opened an inquiry on this subject. At the time of writing these lines, neither of the two inquiries has reached its end. At the same time, the Minister of Justice announced that the best means of preventing recidivism among minors principally involves taking care of them in a so-called “open” environment. We will not here return to any possible assessment of the institutions which were created by the Act of 9th September 2002, but effectively opened in a progressive manner several years later; for the simple reason that, although an assessment of this kind is possible with regard to their operation (assessing the way in which institutions are run on a day-to-day basis), the same cannot be said as far as their results are concerned, since nobody, whether in each centre, or at any another level, is capable of establishing what has become of the children that have come out of these institutions50. It is therefore necessary to refrain from taking definitive decisions with regard to these institutions, without being in a position to assess what has become of the significant number of children dealt with under these conditions, despite the fact that, as the Contrôleur général has emphasised on several occasions, we can now consider that the provision of successful, though not yet ordinary, education to children is possible within young offenders’ institutions (CEF). 2.2.2 Which Children should be sent to young offenders’ institutions? Dealing with children within the framework of young offenders’ institutions appears to be simple: the juvenile court judge orders them to be sent there and the institution enforces the decision. A homogenous population of young people is thereby constituted within young offenders’ institutions (CEFs). The real situation is more complex and requires careful examination. One is thereby obliged to take the legislature’s intentions into consideration with regard to this point; as well as those of juvenile court judges and the managers of the institutions. At the same time the question is raised as to whether this lack of differentiation within the inmate population should be reinforced or, on the contrary, curbed, and in favour of what and whom. 49 See the parliamentary reports cited in the contrôle général ’s report for 2011, p. 37. Cf. report of the contrôle général for 2011, p. 38-41, also see below, section X concerning the detention of young people. 50 30