CHAPTER VII. THE CONTROL OF PROBATIONERS-CONDITIONS The Power to Prescribe Conditions-Nature of Power-Types of Terms and Conditions-Costs, Bonds, Fines, Restitution, Support, Fees for Probation Service-Intoxicants-Disreputable Persons and Places-Late Hours-Employment-Indebtedness Conditions in Special Cases-Summary. CHAPTER VIII. SUPERVISION OF ADULT PROBATIONERS_ Introduction-The Supervising Agency-The Supervising Process-Factors Influencing Adequacy of Supervision--Out-of- CHAPTER IX. REVOCATION AND TERMINATION OF PROBATION_ Revocation Procedure-Frequency of Revocation-Termina- tion and Discharge-The Legal Status of Probationers. CHAPTER X. SOME FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OUTCOME ON Introduction-Race and Nativity-Age-Marital Status- Recidivism-Nature of Offense Committed-Steadiness of Em- CHAPTER XI. JUDGES AND PROBATION.. Method of Collecting Judges' Views-Educational Back- ground-Political Influences-Factors Influencing Sentences— Leniency Factors-Severity Factors-Pleas and Sentencing Practices--Judges and Indeterminate Sentences-Judges' Views History and Development of Probation-Organization of Probation Departments-Probation Personnel-Eligibility for Probation-Law and Theory of Probation Investigation— Investigation Practices-The Control of Probationers: Condi- Page FOREWORD Three years ago at my direction there was commenced a research project known as the Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures. The undertaking was financed by a substantial grant of funds by the Works Progress Administration; but the professional direction of the project was made the responsibility of the Attorney General and a staff of persons designated by him. In spite of many difficulties, some foreseen and others unforeseen, the Survey, subject to certain necessary limitations, has been completed. It is my pleasure to present to the public these five volumes of source material dealing with the various methods for the release of persons who have been convicted of crime. There were suggestions at the outset that the Survey be limited to a probe of the subject of parole. If it had been so limited I would not have been interested. My fundamental purpose was to secure a broad view of the whole field of release procedures, including probation, parole, pardon, and other forms of release both from penal institutions and through the courts. No such study had theretofore been undertaken. There is in the United States no uniform system of probation or parole or pardon. Widely varying methods of administering these procedures prevail in the various jurisdictions, State and Federal. Very little is known about them. The study was instituted in a spirit of experimentation. It does not purport to furnish the answers to all of the questions which arise in this broad field. These five volumes do, however, furnish valuable source materials which lay the foundations for intelligent work by legislators, administrators, scientists, students, and all others who are concerned with the problems involved in the punishment and rehabilitation of convicted men. These studies form a part, but only a part, of the need for sound research data in every phase of criminal law administration. The process of fact-finding must be continuous and exhaustive; and it is my hope that this Survey will act as a stimulus to the development of permanent research programs. The success of this effort may be judged by the extent to which public opinion demands the necessary reforms in the administration of criminal justice which are pointed out in the reports. I express my deep appreciation to all those whose conscientious efforts have gone into the making of the Survey, particularly to Justice Justin Miller, who prior to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia served as Director of the Survey, and to Dean Wayne L. Morse, who succeeded him as Director and Editor in Chief. I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the large number of relief workers and administrative officers of the Survey staff whose loyal services have made possible the completed reports. A special word of thanks is extended to the following groups and individuals: The members of the executive committee of the Survey, Mr. Brien McMahon, Mr. James Bennett, and Mr. Gordon Dean; the statistical specialists, members of the technical advisory committee, Prof. Samuel A. Stouffer, chairman, Mr. Ronald Beattie, Dr. Morris A. Copeland, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Dr. Alba M. Edwards, Prof. Merrill M. Flood, Dr. Milton C. Forster, Mr. Bennet Mead, Prof. Thorsten Sellin, Mr. Frederick F. Stephan, and Prof. S. S. Wilks; Messrs. Sanford Bates, Lovell Bixby, and Barkev S. Sanders who were very helpful in preparing the original plans for the Survey; Dr. Milton Forster of the Works Progress Administration whose splendid cooperation made possible the completion of the study; and the several editors, associate and assistant editors whose writings speak for themselves, Mr. Howard Gill, Mr. William Hurwitz, Dean Paul Raymond, Prof. Henry Weihofen, Dr. Hans von Hentig, Miss Helen Fuller, Mr. Charles Morris, Mrs. Elizabeth Peterson, and Mr. Ivar Peterson. I am also under deep obligation to the Governors and other officials of the States whose fine cooperation made possible the collection of the source material. HOMER CUMMINGS, Attorney General. PREFACE The emergence of the probation method during the last half of the nineteenth century marked a definite advance in the treatment of criminals. The development of this system which began as a legal device for alleviating the harshness of punishment and preventing contamination of the criminal novice in the unsavory atmosphere of the prison into a method of social treatment and rehabilitation has implications far beyond those envisaged by the founders of the system. However, with the extension of probation into all parts of the country and with its increased use, many unfortunate tendencies have arisen. There is a recognition among those concerned with the administration and practice of probation work that probation, as carried out in many communities, is not only falling short of its full potentialities, but has, in many instances, degenerated into a lax and purposeless exercise of judicial clemency, which complicates rather than facilitates the administration of criminal justice. There is some difficulty, however, in pointing to any single phase of the problem as constituting the basic difficulty to be overcome in working out an improvement of the system. In many parts of the country probation has grown without sound guidance or definite direction, with resultant inadequacies and abuse. Since its administration has remained primarily with the trial courts, it is essentially local in character and highly individualized. This fact has important bearing upon the present study since in only a few jurisdictions could information be gathered or study made of a State as a whole. With thousands of courts in all sections of the country administering probation according to the interpretations and preconceptions of the individual judges, no attempt could be made to present any detailed or exhaustive study for the whole country. The aims and limitations of the present study need to be clearly recognized. As a part of a general survey of the procedures most commonly employed to effect the release of adult criminals, no attention is devoted to the problem of juvenile probation which is a distinct and highly specialized field in the administration of criminal justice presenting many problems of a nature different from those which must be considered in dealing with the adult offender. Moreover, limitations of time and funds have prevented a detailed treatment of the subject according to the individual units. Such a treatment would, in any case, have been impossible, because of the inaccessibility of essential data in many probation units. It must be realized that relatively little is known at present concerning the methods and procedures followed in the practice of probation in the various States because those charged with administration have failed to keep adequate or comprehensible records of their work. The most that this study hopes to do is to present a comprehensive view of present conditions of probation law and administration throughout the country. In addition, there has been an attempt, for the first time, to assemble and collate the existing literature in the field. Admittedly, the experienced probation administrator or case worker will find little that is new to him in those sections of the study which deal primarily with the theory of probation. Those sections are designed rather for the layman seeking an introduction to the basic principles which should govern the administration of probation treatment. It is to be hoped, however, that the present volume, as the first Nation-wide study ever made of the whole subject of probation, will serve to indicate the nature of the problems inherent in the field, the extent to which defects in the law and faults in administration have contributed to the present inadequacies of the system. Above all, there is expressed the earnest hope that the very limitations and the deficiencies of this study will serve to indicate not only the pitfalls to be avoided but the problems to be considered in future studies of this character. The study could not have been made without the cooperation and sincere interest of hundreds of probation officers throughout the country who generously assisted in |