determine what percentage of the number of persons released on probation was subjected to a presentence investigation. If it is true that the primary purpose of a presentence investigation is to aid the court in selecting the proper treatment, it seems obvious that the statistics on the extent of Federal probation service should reveal the relation between investigation and release on probation.

The defect noted above for the 1933-34 statistics was remedied in the report for the following fiscal year. It is possible to determine what percentage of probationers received for that year was subjected to a presentence investigation. Moreover, the type of investigation made is shown according to the offense, thereby permitting a comparison of the relative frequency of investigation according to the type of crime committed.54

In 1933-34 a total of 9,738 presentence investigations were made, divided as follows: Complete study, 4,821; partial study, 2,929; hasty study, 1,988. As between types of investigation, the complete study classification increased both in actual number and in percentage of total investigations over the figures for the preceding year.

Of the total of 8,482 probationers received for supervision during the fiscal year 1934-35, 4,276, or 50 percent, were investigated prior to release. According to type of investigation, the distribution was as follows: Complete study, 2,299; partial study, 1,358; hasty study, 619. Thus it appears that about half of the number of persons released on probation were investigated before release, and it also appears that about 44 percent of the persons investigated before sentence were placed on probation.

There appear to be no particularly significant variations in the frequency of investigations according to crime committed by probationers. Quite uniformly, the percentage for each type of crime seems to be about the same. However, the picture is not complete, as no figures are given showing the nature of the crime committed by persons who were investigated but did not receive probation. Were such figures available, it might be possible to draw some conclusions re

Federal Offenders, 1934-35, pp. 182, 361.

garding the basis for the preliminary selection of cases for investigation.

The number of presentence investigations in the fiscal year 1935-365 totalled 11,607, distributed as follows: Complete study, 6,096; partial study, 3,596; hasty study, 1,915. Out of a total of 12,322 persons received for supervision during the year, 6,113, or 50 percent, were investigated before release. Of this number, a complete study was made in 3,110 cases, a partial study in 2,301, and a hasty study in 702. While the percentage of probationers investigated remained the same, yet the percentage of persons investigated who were placed on probation increased from 44 percent in 193435 to about 53 percent in 1935-36.

The 1935-36 compilation introduced a new table showing the type of presentence investigation by judicial district. The table is set out below in abridged form, and it clearly shows the great variation from one district to another, both in the extent and type of investigation made. Although these discrepancies are partially explained when it is considered that probation is a relatively new device in many districts and that there is a lack of sufficient personnel in some areas to permit adequate investigation, yet it would seem that there is room for a considerable improvement in the use of presentence investigations in nearly all judicial districts.

TABLE 1.—Federal probationers subjected to presentence investigations 1

TABLE II.-Type of presentence investigation of Federal probationers received for supervision, by judicial district: 1935-361

TABLE II.-Type of presentence investigation of Federal probationers received for supervision, by judicial district: 1935-36-Continued

In the fiscal year 1936-37, the number of presentence investigations totaled 14,126, which number exceeded the total for any previous year. Of the 12,489 persons released on probation, 6,618, or 53 percent, were reported as receiving presentence investigation." The differentiating of presentence investigations as to types AAA, AA, and A, based on the relative intensity of the investigation, was discontinued in the Federal probation report for 1936-37. No useful purpose was served by classifying presentence investigations according to type because the officers in each Fed

56 Federal Offenders, 1936-37, pp. 175, 312. The percentage of those released on probation who were investigated before sentence varied from a fraction of 1 percent in some judicial districts to nearly 100 percent in others.

eral probation unit were free to evaluate the intensity of the investigations they performed. The result was that the classifications into the three types became meaningless because it was found that some officers classified their investigations indiscriminately and did not follow the criteria established by the Bureau of Prisons.

An increase in the size of the Federal probation staff, coupled with a more discriminating selection and the training of personnel, are planned for the future. When these plans are realized, undoubtedly there will be an increase in the number of probationers who are investigated for release in practically all judicial districts. When this is done, one of the most serious limitations of the Federal probation system as it operates today will have been remedied.

SUMMARY

Examination of representative probation departments in all parts of the country reveals the need for a more nearly complete and accurate system of record-keeping than is at present maintained. Until reliable records of probation work are maintained, any survey of the progress, needs, and achievements can result in no more than shrewd guess.

Where information has been made available as to investigative practices in various probation departments in all parts of the nation it has led to the conclusion that at the present time this phase of probation work is being carried on in an uneven and unsatisfactory manner. Here and there a bright spot appears on the otherwise dismal canvas, but only in a few scattered probation departments is investigation regarded as a vital, indispensable, and basic function.

Wide variations in the quality of the service are prevalent within the boundaries of a single State. Several probation departments, all located in large cities or serving metropolitan and industrial areas, offer adequate and uniformly good presentence investigations. In many more departments the beginnings of a good service can be discerned. The annual reports on probation work from many jurisdictions speak of contemplated improvements when the neces

ST See ante, ch. V.

73115-39-VOL. II-15