ground that such contacts might jeopardize continued employment. Although the advisability of this practice is a debatable point, still the importance of employment as a factor in rehabilitation and the desirability of fostering a sympathetic and cooperative attitude toward probation in the community, suggest that probation departments might advance both objectives through tactful relations with employers.

Although most States limit the length of the probation period, in practice the time during which a probationer remains under supervision is a matter generally determined by the probation department. The usual devices available for altering the original period fixed by the court are extension and pretermination discharge. While it is customarily necessary to obtain formal court authorization in either case, the courts tend to grant approval as a matter of routine. Thus the use of these devices, which are calculated to facilitate individualization in treatment and to accommodate the duration of probation to circumstances as they arise, depends upon the initiative of the supervisory agency or officer. The same is true with regard to modification of terms and conditions. The metropolitan and centralized county organizations utilize these three devices more frequently than others, a fact which may indicate that closer attention is given to the needs of the particular case.

All of the departments have adopted the policy of recommending revocation of probation if a new offense is committed or if the probationer persistently disregards the conditions of release. However, strict adherence to this policy is not found. In many departments the supervisory staff is so small and active oversight is so superficial that it is possible to detect only the most flagrant violations; moreover, the interpretation of "persistent violations" varies from one unit to another.

Generally most of the organizations, with the exception of some small urban and rural departments, maintain permanent records of their work. Recording techniques, however, are not standardized. While routine methods of recording

See infra, ch. VII.

data must of necessity be accommodated to the size and work of each department, the content of records should, in every case, permit of objective analysis. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to make evaluations and comparisons as to the effectiveness of supervision on the basis of record contents. Some departments make initial plans for treatment, periodically summarize case history developments, analyze problems, indicate objectives attained, and, when supervision terminates, evaluate achievements. On the other hand, the records of too many departments reflect only the frequency and nature of contacts.

Undoubtedly one reason for the tendency to relegate record keeping to a perfunctory level is the fact that staffs are undermanned and clerical assistance is inadequate. But complete records are necessary before objective analysis of services rendered can be made. While the small organization may be able to do constructive work without adequate records, in the large units with many officers supervising a small army of probationers it is obvious that accurate and fairly detailed accounts of work performed are essential. It must be emphasized, however, that elaborate records are only means to an end and not ends in themselves.

The inadequacy of records naturally is reflected in the periodic reports published by most of the larger departments. In the main, these reports are statistical suinmaries of activities for a given period. Except for the Federal units, which base their reports primarily on the standardized statistical forms required by the central office, there is no uniformity in the reports as to the quantity or quality of information given, method of presentation, or definition of terms. Comparisons, therefore, are difficult and frequently impossible.

In conclusion, examination of the facilities and characteristics of probation organizations reveals widely varying levels of service between departments similarly organized as well as types of organizations. The need for further development of specific standards of service, procedures, and techniques is everywhere apparent.

CHAPTER III

PROBATION PERSONNEL

INTRODUCTION

The importance of the qualifications, selection, and training of probation officers has frequently been affirmed by leading authorities on the subject of probation. It has been stated that the "progress or retrogression of probation will be attributable, in the final analysis, not so much to probation itself, but to the intelligence and capability, or stupidity and incapacity, of those who guide its destinies."1 Elsewhere it has been intimated that the efficiency of probation as one of the institutions of criminal justice depends upon "the manner in which it is organized and administered," as well as "the character, experience, skill, training, and similar characteristics of its personnel." The National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement concluded that "only persons possessing adequate technical training and experience should be selected to serve as probation officers." More recently the executive director of the National Probation Association stated that, among other minimum standards required for successful service, "officers must be well educated and have special training and experience before entering the service."

Besides emphasizing the need for properly qualified personnel qualified by both training and experience the authorities also associate the lack of adequate qualifications with the failures of probation. Undoubtedly much of the current criticism of probation should be confined to the inadequacies and inaptitudes of its practitioners, since "the mechanics and quality of administration" are more valid subjects for criti

1Cooley, Probation and Delinquency (1927) 37.

Michael and Adler, Crime, Law, and Social Science (1933) 318, 319. 'Penal Institutions, Probation and Parole (1931) 173, Report No. 9 of the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement.

'Proceedings, Governor's Conference on Crime, the Criminal and Society (N. Y. 1935) 986.

cism than probation principles." The charge has been made that inefficient probation officers turn probation into a farce. Further, it has been suggested that probation outcome is closely dependent upon the qualifications of probation officers. Certainly, "one cannot discuss supervision without touching upon the qualifications of probation officers, for without a capable staff good supervision of probationers cannot be secured." 8

Although inadequately trained probation officers constitute a serious weakness in the administration of criminal justice, not infrequently the fault lies with the courts' use of the probation officer. "Many courts use him for clerical purposes, others use him in a perfunctory way as a sort of court factotum." 10 These shortcomings of probation in practice are ultimately involved in such adverse evaluations of probation as a "blundering ahead," 11 "a more or less hit-or-miss affair with various standards of practice," 12 and as an underfinanced gesture 18 which is "becoming increasingly identified with the older traditional processes of the criminal law."14

Another reason why probation has "fallen short of its promise in the United States so far" is attributed to the fact that probation officers have been "chosen with little eye to their fitness." 15 It is known that "judges have appointed as probation officers relatives or friends who needed a job and the necessity of suitable training and experience for the position has been disregarded." 10 In the State which gave birth to probation and which is considered as having an efficient system, the Judicial Council has seen fit to comment upon

5 Sutherland, Criminology (1934) 351.

Gillin, Criminology and Penology (1935) 601.

Penal Institutions, Probation and Parole, op. cit. supra note 3, at 167; Cantor, Crime, Criminals, and Criminal Justice (1932) 339.

8 Johnson, How Can Good Case Supervision be Secured for Adults on Probution? (1923) Yearbook of the National Probation Association, 167.

• Glueck, Probation and Criminal Justice (1933) 4.

10 Stearns, The Personality of Criminals (1931) 117.

11 Haynes, Criminology (1935) 439.

12 Cooley, op. cit. supra note 1, at 29.

"Penal Institutions, Probation and Parole, op. cit. supra note 3, at 186.

14 Glueck, Psychiatric Treatment and Probation (1923) Yearbook of the National Probation Association, 57.

15 Penal Institutions, Probation and Parole, loc. cit. supra note 13.

16 Report of the Special Crime Commission (Mass. Senate Document No. 125, 1934) 19.