are associated with probation outcome, the statistical analyses indicate that at least some of these factors must be given careful consideration before and after probation is granted.

In this study a factor is considered important when similar significant relationships between that factor and probation outcome are found in many probation departments. Since each of the 24 departments studied is an independent agency, the analyses are equivalent to 24 independent studies. Each department operates under different administrative policies and the circumstances under which probationers are released and the conditions they must observe, vary widely. It is obvious, therefore, that a factor found significant for such different units is of greater importance than one which is significant only in one or two units. Hence a factor is considered of greatest importance in its bearing on probation outcome when consistent significant relationships are found for this factor in a great number of probation departments. It must be borne in mind, however, that the number of cases in each unit varies and that a significant relationship based on a few cases cannot be considered equivalent to a significant relationship found for a large number of cases. Therefore, the number of cases in the units must be taken into consideration before arriving at the comparative importance of the six items analyzed.

On the basis of this test of importance, steadiness of employment during the probation period is the most important factor in its bearing on probation outcome. The unemployed probationers had a significantly unfavorable outcome in 16 of 19 units, while the fully employed probationers had a significantly better record in 13 of these units. Moreover, there was a marked decrease in the frequency of violation as the degree of employment increased. In every department the totally unemployed group had the highest rate of violation, whereas the fully employed group had the lowest rate in all but five units. Because of the consistent significant relationships found for nearly all departments, there seems to be little doubt that providing steady employment during the probation period will lead to a marked decrease in probation violations.

73115-39-VOL, II-27

The presence or absence of a history of previous incarceration is of almost equal importance. Probationers who had not previously been incarcerated had a uniformly better outcome on probation than offenders who had already served one or more terms in penal or correctional institutions. In 15 out of 24 departments, comprising more than 75 percent of the cases considered, recidivists had worse behavior records on probation than persons whose case histories revealed no prior commitments. However, even though the data indicate that recidivists were more inclined to violate the terms of probation, it is by no means clear that all second and third offenders are unsuitable for probationary treatment. It may be that current methods of selection and supervision need to be revised to counteract the more pronounced criminal tendencies of recidivists.

Of lesser importance in their bearing on probation outcome are the factors of age, race and nativity, and marital status. However, when significant relationships between these factors and outcome on probation were found, the relationships were consistent.

The analysis indicates that probationers under 25 years of age violate more frequently than individuals over 35. After the age of 35 there was no appreciable decrease in the frequency of violation on probation. The analyses also disclose that those under 20 years of age are more likely to violate by committing a new offense while on probation, whereas those 35 and over are less likely so to violate.

Negroes had an unfavorable outcome in 5 out of 18 departments. In the majority of units, however, the data do not show significant differences between the races. Nativity seems to be even less important than race. Foreignborn whites had a more favorable outcome than native-born whites in three out of eight probation departments. Because of the small number of units and cases involved, it cannot be said that nativity was or was not of universal importance as to its bearing on probation outcome.

In regard to marital status and conduct during the probation period, the analysis indicates that single individuals violate the terms of probation more frequently than married persons. However, significant differences in these two groups were found in only 9 out of 24 departments. Di

vorced and separated probationers were also found to have had an unfavorable outcome on probation in 6 out of 24 departments. There is no reason to believe, on the basis of the data studied, that the conduct of married probationers with more than one dependent differs from that of probationers with only wives as dependents. It seems that married persons, irrespective of the number of dependents, are inclined to violate less frequently than single, divorced, or separated offenders.

The nature of the offense committed is the least important of the items considered. Not only is there an absence of significant relationships, but in addition some units reveal a favorable outcome for a particular type of crime, whereas in other departments the outcome for the same offense group is unfavorable. There is, however, some indication that probationers in the burglary and larceny groups had worse behavior records during probation than other offenders. Even though the nature of the offense committed does not show consistent significant relationships with outcome on probation, when probationers do violate the terms of release by committing a new offense, they tend to return to the same type of crime for which probation was originally granted.

It should be noted that only one of the items considered in this chapter; namely, steadiness of employment during the probation period, is a factor which originates and operates after release has been granted. However, this factor is the most important of all those considered. The consistently close relationship between steady employment during probation and a low violation rate suggests that the emphasis should be upon circumstances that may be introduced into the probation program instead of upon static elements in the past life of the offender. In other words, it is by no means clear that past events irrevocably predetermine conduct on probation. Hence, courts and probation departments should give careful attention to the employment problems of the probationer, as well as to the environmental and family conditions surrounding the released offender, to the end that the criminal tendencies revealed by a study of the offender's history and characteristics may be counteracted.

CHAPTER XI

JUDGES AND PROBATION

The attitude of judges in regard to release procedures is of primary importance in the administration of parole and probation laws. A judge who is not in sympathy with probation as a method of treating those convicted of crime, or a judge who is in sympathy with the principles of probation but hesitant to apply them in his jurisdiction, because of inadequate facilities or for any other reason, can render a probation law practically inoperative. This is true because in most jurisdictions the judge, and the judge alone, has the discretionary power of granting or denying probation.

Although in most jurisdictions trial judges are not given the power to pass directly upon questions of parole, a judge who is unsympathetic toward parole can through his sentencing practices influence the administration of the parole law. During the course of this Survey some judges, when interviewed, frankly stated that they were not in sympathy with the parole laws of their respective States. Their objections were various but a very common one was dissatisfaction with parole laws which permit parole at the expiration of the minimum sentence minus good-time deductions. Many admitted that in order to defeat the effect of what they considered a too lenient parole law they followed the practice of giving heavy minimum sentences, thus assuring that the prisoner would serve the period of time which the judge thought he ought to serve, parole law or no parole law. The result of this all too common practice fosters uncertainty in the administration of the criminal law and promotes distrust and antagonism between the judiciary and the parole boards. Commenting on the problem, Judge James T. Brand, of Oregon, states:

There have been recent discussions among the judges as to the attitude which they should take in sentencing prisoners to the penitentiary. Some of them asserted that in pronounc

411