CHAPTER XII
RÉSUMÉ

No attempt will be made in this résumé to summarize all of the detailed findings and conclusions presented in this Survey of Probation. The reader must turn to the several chapters, most of which end with a summary, for conclusions and supporting evidence in regard to many of the topics contained in the table of contents. However, this résumé will present the general findings and conclusions of the Survey discussed in the order of the chapter headings.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION

Definition.-As applied by modern courts probation seeks to accomplish the rehabilitation of persons convicted of crime by returning them to society during a period of supervision rather than by sending them into the unnatural and, all too often, socially unhealthful atmosphere of prisons and reformatories.

Probation is the postponement of final judgment or sentence in a criminal case, giving the offender an opportunity to improve his conduct and to readjust himself to the community, often on conditions imposed by the court and under the guidance and supervision of an officer of the

court.

The successful application of the probation method presupposes an adequate investigation into the facts of the defendant's environment, character, and previous record; a wise selection by the courts of offenders capable of benefiting by the treatment; and a zealous but sympathetic prosecution of his duties by the supervisory officer.

Origin and development.-Modern probation legislation in the United States is generally traced to at least two sources: The common law practice of suspending sentence for an indefinite time or during good behavior, which allegedly had its foundation in the practice of English courts,

and early statutes specifically authorizing courts of general criminal jurisdiction to suspend either the imposition or execution of sentence. However, the conception of probation as an outgrowth of the common law power of courts, in England and the United States, to suspend sentence is erroneous. Unfortunately this mistaken idea has gained wide currency even among those best informed on the subject of probation. It is undeniably certain that courts in the United States, especially those in Massachusetts, on whatever basis or theory, did in fact engage in the practice of suspending the sentences of convicted persons, and this over a long period of years.

Any attempt to trace the origins of probation in the United States must, of necessity, concern itself primarily with Massachusetts for it was in that State that the courts first attempted to lessen the rigors of contemporary criminal law by procedures which were informal and occasionally extra-legal. In such procedures are to be found the legitimate origins of all later probation laws and practices. It was in Massachusetts that the first true probation law was enacted. It was, later, in Massachusetts that early experiments in the development of the system were conducted and evaluated. In short, probation in the United States has no early history apart from the development of the Massachusetts system.

In 1878 the Massachusetts legislature passed what may be considered the first probation statute. Though this law related only to the courts of criminal jurisdiction in Suffolk County (Boston), it contained all of those elements which today are deemed the fundamentals of a probation system.

Although probation had been developing in Massachusetts over a long period of years and was finally enacted into law there in a form which was to set the pattern for all subsequent development in the field, before the year 1900 only six States had adopted probation legislation, and of these only three dealt with adult probation. It is, therefore, for the most part in the United States, a relatively new method of dealing with criminals, having grown up over a period of less than 40 years.

After 1900 probation developed rapidly until 1915 and more slowly since 1915. Adult probation in some form was authorized by 33 States by 1915, 1 State was added in 1919, 2 in 1923, 1 in 1931, 1 in 1934, 2 in 1937, and 1 in 1938, leaving 11 States still without any type of adult probation law.

Extent of probation.-Unfortunately, no inclusive information is available as to the number of persons on probation in the United States at any given time or the number so released during a year. Moreover, the percentage of offenders convicted in the various State courts who are placed on probation or released on suspended sentence is not known for all States. Although distinct advances have been made in the last 5 years in the collection of criminal statistics on a national scale, the fact still remains that "Statistics concerning probation, like statistics concerning nearly every other aspect of work with offenders, are distressingly inadequate in the United States."

The most comprehensive collection of judicial criminal statistics is the information gathered by the Bureau of the Census. Since 1932, the Bureau has collected statistics covering the disposition of criminal cases in the State courts of general criminal jurisdiction. Although information obtained by the Bureau of the Census is the best available from a quantitative standpoint, it is far from complete. For 1936, the statistics cover only 29 States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, only the courts of general criminal jurisdiction reported, and hence the relative use of probation or suspended sentence by the minor courts is not shown. However, it appears that probation or suspended sentence is granted to approximately one-third of the major offenders finally disposed of in these States. However, the States show wide variation in the use of probation or suspended sentence.

In contrast to the incomplete state of statistics revealing the extent of probation in the States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons collects complete information on the relative use of probation in the Federal district courts. For the fiscal year 1936-37, the Federal courts in the continental United States disposed of a total of 35,690 defendants by commit

ment or probation. Of these, 12,489, or 35 percent, were placed on probation.

ORGANIZATION OF PROBATION DEPARTMENTS

The administration of adult probation is still primarily a local responsibility. Although a number of States have established State-wide systems that permit centralized financing, control, and supervision of probation service in the courts of the State, State participation is far from general.

Apart from the States which have assumed definite control of probation, there exist in other States central agencies which exercise various degrees of supervision over probation work. Generally, an unpaid commission, the department of public welfare, or some other State agency is vested with limited powers over the many and varied probation organizations in the State.

Without a centralized authority responsible for the development of probation in the State, many local and essentially autonomous organizations have emerged. In the same State there may be two or three types of independent agencies, functioning with little or no relation to each other or to the State. The character of service rendered by the departments varies in the extreme even within the State.

While it is difficult to find a basis for classifying probation agencies into mutually exclusive groups, the probation departments studied in the Survey were grouped into the following five classes: (1) Centralized State probation departments; (2) centralized county organizations; (3) metropolitan and large urban agencies; (4) smaller urban and rural departments; and (5) Federal units.

The centralized State organizations show a marked tendency to combine probation and parole work in the same department. This tendency toward consolidation of two related release procedures is a natural development and to some extent avoids duplication of services with consequent saving to the State. However, since parole administration is in most States centered in one agency, it follows that consolidation of the two procedures is hardly possible in the

absence of State-wide control of probation. Hence the county and metropolitan probation departments customarily do not have parole duties.

Thorough presentence investigations are indispensable to effective probation work. Regrettably, this important phase of probation service is nonexistent or performed in a perfunctory fashion in many departments. The centralized county and the metropolitan organizations are most advanced in this respect. Of the organizations studied, six centralized county units, four metropolitan departments, four Federal units, and a few small urban and rural departments conduct presentence investigations as a matter of routine in all cases.

The intensity and thoroughness of presentence investigations vary in the extreme. In most probation departments the inquiries are relatively superficial and perfunctory. However, in the centralized county, metropolitan, and Federal departments it is encouraging to note a tendency toward intensive and searching investigations that cover all pertinent factors in the criminal, social, and personal history of the offender.

Many departments still rely primarily upon volunteer sponsors and ex officio personnel for the active supervision of probationers. On the whole, unofficial sponsors and volunteers are not able to devote much time to their task and are seldom likely to exercise more than cursory surveillance over probationers; at best, they are a poor substitute for trained, professional, full-time workers.

Examination of the facilities and characteristics of probation organizations reveals widely varying levels of service between departments similarly organized as well as from one type of organization to another. The need for further development of specific standards of service, procedures, and techniques is everywhere apparent. The efficiency of most probation departments is seriously impaired by a lack of sufficient personnel and facilities. Except for a few departments which are doing excellent work, American probation is characterized by inadequate presentence investigations and by an appalling failure to provide for competent and adequate supervision of probationers.