The administration of probation is as much a State function as the administration of courts, prisons, and parole. Although the best probation work is being done today by a few of the centralized county and metropolitan agencies, the serious need for uniform and improved standards and policies recommends the organization of probation work on a State-wide basis and under centralized State control.

No study or evaluation of probation would be complete without a summary acknowledgement of the effectiveness of the National Probation Association. This private association has played a most important part in the organization, promotion, and coordination of juvenile and adult probation service. Its work is performed on a consultative and advisory level.

Although the National Probation Association has been in existence since 1907, it has functioned as an incorporated agency with a paid staff only since 1921. Its work is carried on by a staff of workers in the headquarter's office and by field officers, all under the supervision of an elective rotating board of trustees assisted by a professional council of leaders in the field of probation administration. This association is "the only national agency exclusively engaged in the effort to extend and improve probation service." The Association also "is concerned with the coordination of probation, parole, and institutional work, and interested in all measures for the effective social treatment, and prevention of crime." Its Nation-wide membership of more than 15,000 persons includes the majority of probation workers, judges, and citizens interested in the successful application of probation principles. Its current effectiveness can best be indicated by an outline of its program as set forth in its 1937 yearbook:

In its working program the association:

1. conducts city and State-wide surveys of courts and probation departments, prepares reports, organizes and cooperates with local committees and agencies to maintain and develop effective probation and social court organization;

2. drafts laws to extend and improve probation and juvenile courts, and assists in securing the enactment of these laws;

3. aids judges in securing competent probation officers and assists the officers and other qualified persons in obtaining placements;

4. promotes State supervision of probation and cooperates with State departments and associations;

5. conducts a national probation conference and assists with special conferences and institutes for training probation officers;

6. carries on a research program for the study of practical problems in this field;

7. serves as a clearing house for information and literature on probation, juvenile courts, domestic relations courts, and crime prevention, for the entire country;

8. publishes a bimonthly magazine, Probation, with information and practical articles; the Yearbook, with addresses and reports of the annual conference; a National Directory of Probation Officers; summaries of juvenile court and probation legislation; case record forms for probation officers; reports of surveys and studies; practical leaflets and pamphlets. Without doubt the National Probation Association deserves a great deal of credit for the development of the best policies of probation in the United States. Other unofficial agencies which are performing valuable educational and coordinating services in the field of probation are the recently organized parole and probation associations, i. e., Western, Central States, Southeastern States, Southwestern States, and New England. These organizations were established for the purpose of effecting more complete coordination of probation and parole services within their various geographical areas. Their membership for the most part consists of the officials who are engaged in the practical administration of probation and parole laws.

The Interstate Commission on Crime has also performed valuable services for probation especially through its work in sponsoring interstate compacts for supervision of out-ofState parolees and probationers. The work of all such organizations has been effective in raising standards of selection and supervision of probationers within the States themselves.

PROBATION PERSONNEL

Although social case work is the basic elements in probation service, the qualification standards established and applied in the probation work of most departments do not meet the requirements set for professional social case work. In fact, only a minority of the probation departments

studied apply definite qualification standards in the selection of probation officers. The departments under civilservice regulations appear to have higher educational and experience requirements than non-civil-service organizations.

In the majority of the departments studied, officers are selected by the courts. In a few departments the final appointing authority is limited by civil-service regulations. With few exceptions, officers are not chosen on the basis of uniform and clearly defined qualifications. Unrestricted selection, either by the judiciary or some other authority, carries with it the danger of political pressure, nonuniform standards, and insecurity of tenure.

Too frequently the qualifications of probation officers selected by judges including Federal judges are not high enough to assure efficient probation work. There is a serious need for improved probation personnel in most jurisdictions. Selection of probation officers on the basis of merit determined by civil-service ratings, protection of tenure as long as competent work is performed, and payment of salaries commensurate with the professional training which should be required of all probation officers would do much toward improving the public's confidence as well as that of judges and law enforcement officers in the administration of probation.

With existing low qualification standards the need for "inservice" training of probation officers is readily apparent. Unfortunately, however, only a few departments conduct regular training programs; in fact, many do not appear to encourage or facilitate continued professional advancement.

ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION

The eligibility of offenders for probation is determined by statutory provision in most of the States. However, the degree to which statutes regulate the selection of probationers varies greatly from State to State, and the lack of uniformity in the statutes seems to be dictated rather by an arbitrary legislative discrimination than by reason. The most recurrent and striking difference is to be found in the matter of judicial discretion in the selection of proba

tioners, some jurisdictions entrusting the subject entirely to the wisdom and sound judgment of their courts, while others have surrounded their judges with a mass of restrictive and particular exceptions, allowing little latitude to the courts in the matter.

Statutory provisions excluding certain offenders from probation are, in the main, designed to weed out the persons who are not suitable material for the processes of probation. However, taken alone, the specific offense committed is an insufficient criterion for determining whether a prisoner should be released on probation. An analysis of some factors influencing outcome on probation set out in detail in chapter X of this Survey shows that there is no clear indication that offenders who have committed the so-called more vicious crimes are poorer probation risks than others who are found guilty of the less serious offenses. The Survey analysis of the records of nearly 20,000 terminated probation cases taken from the files of 25 probation departments in 16 States and the District of Columbia does not reveal any universally significant relationship between the nature of the offense committed and behavior on probation.

Rigid statutory restrictions on eligibility for probation lead to subterfuge and circumvention. Frequently courts accept a plea of guilty to a lesser offense for which probation is permissible if it appears that the defendant is susceptible to probationary treatment. Although a desirable result may be achieved in the particular case by the use of such methods, the legislative restriction on probation eligibility is thereby defeated.

As long as probation is viewed as a form of leniency, it is natural to assume that certain offenders will be denied probation purely on the basis of the crime committed. Even though practical considerations require that some limit must be fixed upon the number of probationers, eligibility for probation should not be determined by inflexible statutory provisions. The soundest solutions to the eligibility problem is that which grants the court broad discretion in the matter of probation.

However, that discretion should be exercised only in the light of intensive investigation of the merits of each case

73115-39-VOL. II-30

and with the assurance that thorough supervision will be maintained over the probationer. The eligibility of offenders for probation should be based upon the findings of trained and qualified probation officers equipped to investigate offenders, rather than upon arbitrary and unrealistic statutory restrictions.

LAW AND THEORY OF PROBATION INVESTIGATION

Statutory restrictions on eligibility in many jurisdictions limit to some extent the groups from which probationers may be selected. By and large, in the majority of jurisdictions in the United States, the burden of selecting or rejecting offenders for supervised release falls upon the courts.

A rehabilitation program cannot succeed where overwhelmingly adverse factors exist in the character, health, mental state, and environment of offenders. It should be the purpose of the preprobation investigation to disclose to the court both the favorable and unfavorable influences at work in the defendant's personality and circumstances in order that the choice may be as wise and enlightened as the predictability of human nature permits.

Statutes in 24 jurisdictions in the United States make some provision for investigation, though the requirement that such investigation be conducted before sentence is not general. Presentence investigations of persons considered for probation are mandatory only in California, New York, and Illinois. In Michigan and North Carolina they are mandatory for all felons who are considered for probation. In all other States investigations need be made only in the discretion of the courts.

In no jurisdiction is any specific period of time for the making of preprobation investigations set out in the statutes. Laws in a few jurisdictions require that the reports of investigations be kept as permanent parts of the court records in the case, and in a few others copies of the reports are directed to be sent to any institution to which the defendant is committed in case probation is denied. Not many statutes prescribe methods to be pursued by the investigating officers.