In the other units the records are poorly organized and give little usable information. In fact, records are practically nonexistent in many instances.

Reports are issued only by the more fully developed organizations, generally on an annual basis. The reports are primarily of a statistical nature.

FEDERAL PROBATION ORGANIZATIONS

Administrative organization and general facilities.—The Federal probation units in the various judicial districts are under a dual system of control. Budgetary matters and general supervision are centralized in the bureau of prisons, while selection of officers and routine administration devolves upon the courts and probation officers. Federal probation officers do not give exclusive attention to adult probation work, but devote such time as is necessary to investigation of juvenile cases, preparole investigations, and parole supervision.

In the 18 units 50 considered the staffs vary from one to seven officers and one to four secretaries. Exclusive of secretarial workers, the Federal probation personnel consists almost entirely of male officers. The unit in the southern district of New York has one full-time female officer, while in the Boston and Connecticut units the one female secretary has charge of women probationers. Even considering the relatively small number of women probationers, the Federal units have fewer female officers than the other types of organization studied.51

As a whole, the Federal departments have adequate office facilities in the Federal court buildings which permit privacy for initial interviews with probationers. Practically no use is made of other quarters for this purpose. Exclusive of home visits by the officer, the probation offices are the

50 Connecticut; Georgia, northern and southern; Illinois, northern; Louisiana, eastern; Massachusetts; Michigan, eastern; Missouri, eastern and western; New York, eastern, western, and southern; Pennsylvania, eastern and western; South Carolina, western; Texas, northern and western; Wisconsin, western.

51 In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1936, the total number of women placed on probation by all Federal district courts was 963 as compared with 11,359 males. Federal Offenders, 1935-36, table 80.

usual places for personal reporting. However, the Buffalo and Connecticut units make use of other quarters in addition to the probation office. Only the units in Chicago and the eastern district of New York keep evening office hours, 1 night a week and 1 night every other week, respectively. Since the officers have large areas to cover in supervising probationers, the necessary transportation is available on a mileage allowance basis. In some instances, however, allotments for this purpose are not sufficient to permit adequate field supervision.

None of these units maintains doctors, psychiatrists, or psychologists on a full- or part-time basis. However, in 1926 the Public Health Service arranged to furnish psychiatric services on a fee basis to certain district courts. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1937, this service was established at the district courts of Baltimore, Boston, Denver, Detroit, Kansas City, Missouri, New York City, and Philadelphia. In October 1937 the service was extended to the courts in Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh. Under this arrangement the Public Health Service has appointed a panel of qualified specialists subject to call through the probation officers. The fees for services are paid from Public Health Service appropriations.52

Vocational guidance and industrial placement do not receive the exclusive attention of specially designated personnel. However, individual officers give as much time and attention to these problems as possible. Social research projects are not undertaken by the units, but some efforts along this line are attempted by the central office in Washington.

The Federal units have well established reciprocal relations among themselves, although differences in available personnel, case load pressures, and varying standards of work tend to hamper the free interchange of information and service. Similar relations with non-Federal departments are not well developed, on the whole.

Investigation and selection practices. Of the 18 Federal units studied, only the St. Louis department has some mem

For a more complete description of this service, see Federal Probation (April 1938) 42.

bers of its staff devote full time to investigative functions. Since the staffs are generally small and some units have only one officer, a division of work into investigation and supervision is not possible.

It is the policy of all units to make presentence investigations in all juvenile cases. In regard to adults, however, only four units 53 conduct presentence investigations in practically all cases. The usual practice is to investigate only those cases which are likely to be placed on probation. In some departments investigations are made only if the court so orders. The time allowed for completion of the presentence investigation varies considerably, but in the majority of units the customary period is from 1 to 2 weeks.

There is no uniformity in the thoroughness of investigation, although in nearly all units the inquiries, in most cases, approach the intensive level. In the majority all pertinent facts are presented in a written report arranged on a topical basis. Usually an analysis of causal factors is included, but only about 1/3 of the units make definite recommendations for disposition. However, when formal recommendations for disposition are made the courts follow them almost without exception. Predisposition conferences with the judges are a routine practice in about half of the units, and thus some opportunity exists for making informal suggestions as to disposition.

Supervision practices.-Eight of the eighteen Federal departments studied routinely make analysis of the presentence investigation findings as the basic and primary step in determining the type of supervision the particular case may need.

The majority of the units require the probationer to report monthly in person in addition to monthly written reports. However, personal reports to the office are not required when the probationer lives at too great a distance. In such cases written reports are accepted and personal reports are made when the probation officer visits the locality on field trips.

58 Massachusetts; Michigan, eastern; New York, eastern; South Carolina, western.

Georgia, northern and southern; Illinois, northern; Louisiana, eastern ; New York, southern; Missouri, western; Texas, northern; Wisconsin, western.

All of the units make home visiting an essential phase of supervision. However, the frequency of visits varies from weekly to annually, although the general practice appears to be monthly home visits. Community visits are usually left to the discretion of the probation officer. The majority of the Federal units deem it inadvisable to visit or communicate with probationers' employers on the ground that such practice might tend to jeopardize continued employment.

After a defendant has been released on probation, it is a customary procedure to explain the conditions and have him sign an acknowledgment of them. Although the terms are generally so broad that they need be changed only in unusual circumstances, it is the practice to modify conditions when necessary. Probationers are not usually continued on probation beyond the period originally allotted. However, if the probation department petitions for an extension, the courts routinely grant the request. Discharge prior to termination is also an infrequent practice in these units. In general, it may be stated that the conditions and the probation period originally imposed are seldom altered as supervision progresses.

When the probation period expires, it is a routine procedure in these departments to notify the probationer, either by letter or court order. Formal discharge in open court is

a rare occurrence.

Revocation proceedings require a personal hearing before the court. Generally, conviction or plea of guilty to a new offense results in revocation, although in a few departments revocation proceedings are not instituted if the new offense is of a trivial nature. Repeated and persistent disregard of conditions is customarily a basis for revocation.

Since the Federal units, in common with nearly all probation departments, are limited in personnel, informal supervision and advisory service are seldom rendered after termination of the formal probation period. However, cases are frequently referred to other social service agencies for further case work treatment.

Records and reports.-The majority of the 18 Federal departments maintain central file rooms for all records. Where the size of the office warrants, designated members of the

clerical force are responsible for the filing and replacement of records. All records are routinely typed on standard size forms in about half of the units.

Reference indices are kept in all of the units but with varying degrees of completeness. In six departments 55 the indices cover all cases that have been handled, including cases investigated only, those passed from supervision, and those currently under supervision. Ten units 56 have indices covering only cases that have been or are being supervised. In two, eastern New York and eastern Pennsylvania, reference indices are maintained only for probationers under active supervision. It is not the practice to make cross references on the cards to indicate family relationships.

The information on each case is kept in separate file jackets, usually in chronological order. The jackets, in turn, are generally filed chronologically, although some few units have a filing system which is essentially indiscriminate. It is the general practice to keep inactive cases filed separately from active ones.

On the whole records do not appear to be used to the fullest extent as instruments in the treatment of probationers. In five units 57 the records indicate that definite initial plans are made for effective oversight. But periodic analyses of treatment progress are made in only three units,58 and in no instance is an attempt made to evaluate the objectives attained or the effectiveness of supervision in the light of the probationer's progress. While sources of information are generally recorded, only about half of the units indicate the identity of social agencies that use the case history information or make inquiry concerning cases. In the preprobation investigation stage data obtained is at least partially verified, but the records during supervision do not reveal this practice to any marked extent.

Georgia, northern and southern; Connecticut; Massachusetts; Michigan, eastern; New York, southern.

Illinois, northern; Louisiana, eastern; New York, eastern; Missouri, eastern and western; Pennsylvania, western; South Carolina, western; Texas, northern and western; Wisconsin, western.

5 Illinois, northern; New York, southern; Missouri, eastern and western; Texas, northern.

8 Missouri, eastern; Texas, northern and western.