The prison administration and

judicial youth protection

Executive summary

2022 Annual Public Report

2

Like other administrations, the prison administration department (DAP) and the

directorate for judicial youth protection (DPJJ) were ill-prepared to manage a crisis of the

magnitude of the covid 19 epidemic. However, they managed to maintain continuity of service,

albeit in a degraded form.

The establishment of business continuity plans for the services under their jurisdiction

had generally not been completed at the beginning of 2020. The organisation of crisis

management also suffered from the weakness of the Ministry's General Secretariat in the face

of the "business" departments and their unequal involvement in the monitoring and anticipation

unit. In the field, the representatives of the defence zone courts of appeal encountered

difficulties in coordinating all of the Ministry's services. These organisational weaknesses

resulted in high coordination costs for the services, which in particular had to provide often

redundant information for different levels of decision-making.

In this context, service continuity was ensured at the cost of adapting

operating methods in closed environments and sharply reducing

activities in open environments.

In closed environments, the prison administration accelerated the release of prisoners

with light sentences and those with the best chances of reintegration. With the decrease in the

activity of the courts, this policy helped reduce the prison population by 17 % between January

and July 2020. The occupancy rate of penal institutions thus fell from 116 % before the crisis

to 97 % on 1 July 2020, which facilitated the implementation of health measures.

Interactions with the outside world were also limited. In open environments, the Prison

Rehabilitation and Probation Services prioritised the monitoring of those persons considered

to be the most dangerous or the most vulnerable. In addition, the DPJJ's activities involving

educational follow-up, integration and the investigation and decision-making work of judges

were greatly reduced.

These measures, which were comparable to those implemented in neighbouring

European countries, helped protect the health and safety of officers and offenders alike. They

were carried out without any budgetary slippage.

However, the crisis brought to light several shortcomings which the

Ministry of Justice must address.

The Ministry’s internal organisation showed some limitations. These resulted in particular

in DPJJ educators having difficulty accessing the minors’ wings of penal institutions; they also

led to poor coordination between the services responsible for judicial extractions and the

courts. These difficulties highlight the need to set up local crisis units to improve coordination

between the courts and the decentralised services of the Ministry of Justice.

Partnerships also need to be strengthened. Indeed, the DPJJ's services suffered from

the cessation of the activities offered in their facilities by National Education during the first

lockdown. They also suffered from the sharp decline in the activity of vocational training bodies,

whose participation in the reintegration of young people is essential.

Lastly, health prevention efforts proved to be insufficient. The preventive medicine

network provided little support to facility managers. At their request, health measures for staff

were put in place by internal health units, attached to hospitals, whose mission is to monitor

detainees, not the officers of the administration.