by the courts of general criminal jurisdiction in the 30 jurisdictions that furnished information to the Bureau of the Census in 1936. From this table it appears that probation or suspended sentence is granted to approximately one-third of the major offenders finally disposed of in these States.

TABLE IV.-Defendants found guilty and sentenced, by sentence or treatment, in 30 States: 1936

However, the States show wide variation in the use of probation or suspended sentence. This fact is brought out by table V. The variation ranges from 11.6 percent in North Dakota to 65.8 percent in Rhode Island.101 The percentage distribution for any particular State is not necessarily representative of the frequency of the use of probation throughout the State. It must be remembered that the statistics cover only courts of general criminal jurisdiction and are limited to the major offense groups. If minor courts and all other offenders were included in the figures, the percentages might be altered. Moreover, the statistics lump probation and suspended sentence together, with the result that it is not possible to determine the number of offenders who are under the supervision of probation officers, 102

101 These two tables appear as tables 22 and 24, respectively, in Judicial Criminal Statistics, 1936 (U. S. Department of Commerce, 1938).

102 As reported to the Bureau of the Census, the data differentiated between probation and suspended sentence and whether either type of disposition was with or without supervision. But information was not given as to whether or not the defendant was actually supervised, and hence it is invalid to reproduce the differentiation here.

TABLE V.-Defendants placed on probation or given suspended sentence, by States: 1936

In contrast to the incomplete state of statistics revealing the extent of probation in the States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons collects complete information on the relative use of probation in the Federal district courts. For the fiscal year 1936-37, the Federal courts in the continental United States disposed of a total of 35,690 defendants by commitment or probation. Of these, 12,489, or 35.0 percent, were placed on probation.103

The use of probation in the Federal courts has gradually increased in recent years. Thus the percentage which probationers formed of the total committed to imprisonment plus those placed on probation was 19.3 percent in 1930-31,

103 Federal Offenders: 1936-37 (U. S. Department of Justice, 1938) 165 et acq.

23.4 percent in 1931-32, 28.7 percent in 1932-33, 30.2 percent in 1933-34, 27.1 percent in 1934-35, and 34.4 percent in 1935-36.

The relative use of probation in the Federal judicial districts varies in the extreme. "In Kansas, 86.3 percent of the total were placed on probation. In three other districts, namely, middle Pennsylvania, western Kentucky, and Massachusetts, over 60 percent were placed on probation. At the other extreme was western Texas, with only 5.8 percent placed on probation. Eleven other districts had less than 20 percent placed on probation." 104 The extent to which probation is used in any given judicial district must be viewed in light of the local situation, the policy of the courts and the number of officers available for the supervision of probationers.

On the average, then, it seems that about one-third of the offenders found guilty and sentenced by the State and Federal courts of general jurisdiction are placed on probation or given suspended sentences. The comparative use of either device varies from State to State and from one judicial district to another. Although progress has been made in the collection of judicial criminal statistics since the Wickersham Commission surveyed the field in 1931, the data available for the country as a whole are still incomplete. The development of more uniform, accurate, and inclusive probation statistics is a primary need.

104 Id. at 165.

CHAPTER II

ORGANIZATION OF PROBATION DEPARTMENTS

INTRODUCTION

It is the purpose of this chapter to describe the facilities and general characteristics of the agencies charged with the important duty of aiding the courts in the selection, supervision, and rehabilitation of probationers.

The administration of adult probation is still primarily a local responsibility. Although a number of States have established State-wide systems that permit centralized financing, control, and supervision of probation service in the courts of the State, the extent of State participation is far from general.

Aside from the States which have assumed definite control of probation, there exists in other States central agencies which exercise various degrees of supervision over probation work. Generally, an unpaid commission, the department of public welfare, or some other State agency is vested with limited powers over the many and varied probation organizations in the State.

In California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia the State public welfare departments have power to investigate probation work and make general recommendations, require reports from officers and in some cases prescribe the type of record forms to be used. In Ohio the department has power to set the qualifications for probation officers, and the Virginia department may recommend persons for appointment as probation officers after examination under rules established by the department.

The Connecticut Prison Association, which is primarily a private organization, is authorized by law to require reports from officers and make recommendations to the Governor. In Oregon an unpaid commission is charged with the duty

of securing the effective application of the probation system, but no funds are available.

The Indiana probation department is empowered to conduct examinations for candidates seeking appointment as probation officers, and only those whom it certifies are eligible for appointment. The department may also prescribe record forms and establish general rules for procedure which have the effect of law.

In Massachusetts the board of probation may require reports from officers and trial justices and it may also submit recommendations in regard to the conduct of probation work in the State. Under the power to require reports, the board has established a central record bureau which functions as a clearing house for criminal court records.

The probation division of the New York Department of Correction has general supervision over probation in the State. It may investigate local bureaus, require reports, establish general rules for probation procedure, and recommend the removal of probation officers.

Under the new system being evolved in Michigan, the department of correction, through the probation bureau, has the duty of appointing and supervising probation officers in all adult courts except in Detroit. The new law marks an important departure from many others providing for a measure of State supervision, in that grants-in-aid may be extended to counties unable to maintain a level of probation service equal to the standards set by the bureau.

It is evident that the powers of these State supervisory agencies, with a few exceptions, are too limited to permit active State participation in probation work. Few have any authority in the selection of personnel. With the exception of Michigan, State funds cannot be used to develop probation in localities unable to support adequate facilities.

Without a centralized authority responsible for the development of probation in the State, many local and essentially autonomous organizations have emerged. In the same State there may be two or three types of independent agencies, functioning with little or no relation to each other or to the State. The character of service rendered by the departments varies in the extreme, even within the same