PRESS RELEASE
4 March 2025
Public thematic report
EVALUATION OF TWO ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES
TO IMPRISONMENT
Community service (TIG) and electronically supervised home detention (DDSE) are two
emblematic measures of the policy launched over twenty years ago to promote alternatives
to imprisonment. At the beginning of April 2024, just over 22,000 people were being
monitored under the TIG scheme and 18,000 under the DDSE scheme, a number equivalent
to almost half the prison population. These two alternative sentences are at the heart of the
reforms introduced starting in 2019 to ensure that detention ceases to be the central
response of the law enforcement system. The place of community service and electronically
supervised home detention on the sentencing scale has been raised and specific resources
have been allocated to promote them. However, despite its stated ambitions, this policy has
had no effect on the increase in the number of people incarcerated, which reached a record
level of 80,792 in December 2024. The Court of Accounts has therefore decided to carry out
an evaluation of the implementation of these two measures.
Two measures that are slow to become effective sanctions
Community service (TIG) and electronically supervised home detention (DDSE) depend on the
fact that they are ordered by the courts and the conditions under which they are carried out.
Since peaking in 2015, the number of TIG sentences has fallen in favour of DDSE sentences.
These are increasing, not as a stand-alone penalty but as an alternative to prison sentences,
and are thus asserting themselves as a tool for managing prison overcrowding.
There are two
reasons for the limited use of TIG and DDSE as stand-alone penalties: the reduction in the
traditional targets for TIG, first-time offenders, which are systematically given alternatives to
prosecution to speed up criminal response times, and the lack of tools to evaluate the social
and criminal situation of offenders. The credibility of TIG and DDSE depends on effective
implementation and monitoring, to ensure that they represent retribution. Although convicted
offenders are generally placed in a DDSE scheme quickly, for an average of 4.5 months, the
enforcement time of TIG is still too long, averaging over 16 months. The Ministry of Justice must
reduce these times. It should also improve monitoring of the implementation of the two
measures. TIG monitoring, which is carried out by the guardians over a short period of time,
and DDSE monitoring, which is essentially administrative and procedural, remains insufficient
to guarantee effective support.
Two measures that contribute too little to the objective of integration
TIG and DDSE schemes involve individuals facing significant social difficulties, particularly in
terms of housing, health and employment, even if these difficulties remain poorly understood
and assessed. In France, unlike in other countries, those sentenced to an alternative measure
to imprisonment are expected to have access to mainstream integration schemes. In reality,
access is made difficult by the saturation of these schemes or insufficient funding. As a result,
the period spent in TIG or DDSE rarely leads to the initiation of a path towards integration or
reintegration. The support provided by the Ministry of Justice to people under TIG or DDSE
remains inadequate, with appointments held at very long intervals (on average, one every
six
months for TIG), and only 33% of people under TIG and 27% of people under DDSE are
referred to social inclusion agencies, with limited impact on employment.
Inconclusive results on recidivism for TIG but more positive for DDSE
The policy of developing alternatives to imprisonment has often been justified by their
presumed impact on preventing recidivism. But the few studies available in France are mainly
based on a fragile methodology and old data. The Court's assessment shows that the recidivism
rate five years after TIG is close to 60%, a figure comparable to that observed for custodial
sentences, even after neutralising the effect of the "risk profile" of the offenders, who are often
young and in social and professional difficulty. On the other hand, the results are more
favourable for DDSE, with a recidivism rate after three years, measured after neutralising socio-
economic differences that is 13.5 percentage points lower for those who received a DDSE
sentence instead of prison and 8 percentage points lower for those whose DDSE arrangement
was obtained during detention. However, these results must be interpreted with caution, as the
study concerns the 2016-2017 cohort, before the mass introduction of DDSE, which could affect
the profiling of convicts and their follow-up.
Two measures that must become more effective and be mobilised to combat prison
overcrowding
The Court's assessment of the deployment of the TIG and the DDSE shows that the results of
this public policy are insufficient. The situation in prisons means that it must be made more
effective. With a record prison overcrowding rate of 130% in December 2024, prisons are facing
a major deterioration: overcrowding, inactivity, increased violence and undermined safety for
prisoners and staff. Imprisonment is no longer able to fulfil its objectives of rehabilitation and
preventing repeat offending. Forced releases are used as a flow management tool due to a lack
of available places. Building new facilities will not provide solutions in the short term because
of the time and cost involved. The prison service is also experiencing recruitment difficulties,
which is complicating the management of its establishments. This context makes it essential to
deploy the TIG and the DDSE as genuine sentences capable of providing effective and less costly
alternatives to imprisonment (€1,862 for TIG and €2,788 for DDSE). To increase their
effectiveness and give them their rightful place in the criminal justice response, it is necessary
to reduce the time taken to implement them after sentencing, particularly for TIG; strengthen
controls by making them more coercive and punitive where necessary; and intensify monitoring
by the prison integration and probation services by taking greater account of the social
difficulties of convicted offenders in order to initiate reintegration programmes.
Read the report
PRESS CONTACT
Julie Poissier
■
Communications Director
■
T
+33 (0)6 87 36 52 21
■
julie.poissier@ccomptes.fr