As has already been demonstrated, it is questionable whether all probationers have been "convicted" in a technical sense; moreover, it is the general rule that time spent on probation is not credited upon the sentence to be served in the event of revocation. Thus only by giving the phrases "under conviction for crime and serving sentence therefor" a meaning broader than customarily given, could the inhibitory language in the statute be applied to probationers. It is unfortunate that probationers were excluded, while persons who had finished a term in prison and were not under supervision, were, at least from a legal standpoint, eligible for enrollment in the camps.

However, when the Civilian Conservation Corps was formally established by statute in 1937, the provision fixing the eligibility qualifications of enrollees gave the Director of the Corps power to "exclude from enrollment such classes of persons as he may consider detrimental to the well-being or welfare of the Corps, except that no person shall be excluded on account of race, color, or creed." 87 Hence the statutory restriction upon persons convicted of crime and serving sentence therefor, which prompted the Attorney General's opinion discussed above, is no longer operative. Instead, the Director of the Corps may, if he sees fit, permit probationers to enroll in the Corps.

Probationers occupy a position between that of the general citizenry and inmates of penal institutions. However, their exact legal status is not at all clear in the present state of the law. If disabilities do attach to probationers, are they removed after the expiration of the probation period, or is a pardon restoring civil rights necessary in order that the person may thereafter enjoy the ordinary privileges and rights of citizenship? The answer to this and other questions of the same nature must wait for a more definitive development of the law. Yet it seems desirable that probationers should always be carefully instructed as to their civil status from the very outset of supervision. Otherwise misunderstandings are likely to arise which will have an unfortunate effect upon the attitude of the probationer. Unfortunately, in the present confusion of the law not even judges are qualified to offer such instruction.

50 Stat. 322 (1937).

CHAPTER X

SOME FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OUTCOME ON PROBATION

INTRODUCTION

It is the purpose of this chapter to analyze the relationships of selected characteristics of probationers and outcome on probation. The analyses are based upon facts disclosed by the histories of 19,171 probation cases taken from the files of 24 probation units in 16 States and the District of Columbia. The cases considered comprise those in which the probation period was terminated, either by revocation or discharge, within the 3-year period from January 1, 1933 to December 31, 1935.2

1 The following units were employed in making the analyses: Name of unit:

Number of cases

For some probation units, not all terminated cases for the 3-year period were included. However, in such instances the sample used was selected purely at random and there is no reason to believe that the sample used is not representative.

In order to obtain a cross-section picture of probation practices and techniques throughout the country, it was necessary to choose probation departments from different sections of the United States. However, several additional factors influenced the selection of the 24 units. Since the study is concerned with the outcome of adult probationers, it was necessary to select departments which handled adults, some of whose supervision periods were terminated, both by revocation and discharge, during the 3-year period under consideration. Moreover, the records of the probation departments had to be sufficiently complete to guarantee that statistical results would be significant.

Since each probation department is essentially an independent agency controlled by separate personnel and since certain local practices might have special import, the analyses were made on the basis of each unit as an entity instead of on the basis of the entire group as a single unit. By retaining the identity of each unit, the significant relationships that were found to exist despite differences in administrative practices have even greater weight.

The number of cases considered for each of these units range from 125 in Baltimore, Md., to 3,567 cases in Los Angeles, Calif. Within these extremes the number of cases for the separate units varies widely. Four other units in addition to the Los Angeles department are represented by more than 1,000 cases.

Limitations of time, the suitability to objective treatment of the factors selected, and the emphasis generally placed upon specific characteristics prompted the selection of the six factors here considered. These six factors are: Race and nativity, age, marital status and number of dependents, present offense, recidivism, and employment on probation.

The six factors analyzed in this report represent only a small proportion of the number of items for which some information was available in schedule form. The probation schedule provides information for 109 factors dealing with the parental background, personal history, criminal history, trial history, and probation history of the probationer. Because of the curtailment of Survey funds and the attendant reduction in personnel and mechanical equipment, it was necessary to resort to hand tabulation in order to make the analyses in this report. For this reason, it was estimated that only of the 109 items

The importance here attached to any of these characteristics depends not only on relationships found within one particular unit but also upon the regular recurrence of such. relationships in the other units. The significance which can be attached to any particular factor is increased when the relationships which it bears to outcome on probation appear consistently in nearly all departments. This test of consistency, or universality, is important, because its use makes it possible to arrive at results which are not subject to some of the criticisms that have been leveled at similar studies.

The criticisms which have been made against other studies depending on information gathered from official records are that (1) case history data are inadequate; (2) the available information from official records is unreliable; (3) the information in the records deals almost entirely with static elements, whereas the more dynamic elements are not recorded, and (4) proper consideration is not given to the interrelationships of factors. These criticisms assume a degree of validity when results depend upon data derived from a single probation department. In this study, however, cases from a large number of units were utilized. The recurrence of relationships in a large number of units offsets may of the criticisms applicable to smaller studies. Specifically, if it is found that a characteristic is signifi

listed on the schedules could be treated within the period allotted for the probation analyses.

Of importance in the choice of the six items was the extent to which all the units revealed information on each. For this purpose a sampling procedure was used to determine which items were recorded for the majority of units. Another consideration was the importance attached by probation authorities to certain factors such as recidivism, employment, and types of offenses committed. Finally, there were the limitations inherent in hand tabulation work. Therefore, items with many categories were eliminated because the small staff and limitations of time prevented the detailed analyses which would have been involved.

This rough method of selecting factors for analyses necessarily eliminated many important items which may have a significant bearing on probation outcome. For example, such important factors as the probationer's family relationships; the mobility of the probationer prior to his conviction; his age at leaving school; his usual occupation; the extent of his unemployment prior to probationary treatment; his antisocial habits; his attitude toward his present offense; and his plea upon arraignment are some of the other factors in regard to which data were collected. Also, many items of importance in probation administration, such as the probation officers' evaluation of probationary treatment and the type of presentence investigation, could have been analyzed if additional time and money had been available.

cantly associated with outcome on probation in all or nearly all of the units studied, despite differences in administrative practices and despite the fact that probation has been in operation for varying lengths of time in the different units, then there is little doubt that the particular characteristic has an important bearing upon probation outcome.

The definition of each of the categories for the different items used will be set forth in the sections in which these items are discussed. Since the two terms "failures" and "successes," however, are basic in the analyses of all the items which follow, they must be precisely defined in order that the results of the analyses relating the various characteristics of the probationer to outcome on probation may have validity.

A case was considered a failure on probation whenever the official records disclosed that the probationer had violated any of the terms of release. The violation may have been either a breach of conditions of probation or a violation by committing a new offense on probation. The probationer was considered a violator whether or not his probation was revoked. This definition of failure, which does not differentiate between condition violations and offense violations was used because the primary objective was to discover the essential association between the various characteristics of probationers and conduct on probation, rather than to analyze the revocation practices of the various departments. However, a separate analysis was made to determine whether changed relationships would result if the definition of failure were limited to new-offense violations on probation. Since both violations of conditions and violations by new offenses are basic in the interpretation of the results of the analyses which follow, both terms were given careful consideration.

A case was considered a success on probation when the official records revealed that the probationer had not violated the terms of his release, either by violating the conditions or by committing a new offense during the probation period. The term "success," as here used, means only

4 However, when the definition of failures is limited to violations by offense, the definition of successes automatically is broadened to include probationers whose records showed violations of conditions.