In 1906 a twelve-year-old boy was put on probation for petit larceny and the chief factor in restoring him to proper conduct was inducing the parents to look after the boy. The mother had been very slovenly. When the father came home from his work the supper was usually not ready, and since the lamps were often neither filled nor trimmed he could not see to read his

evening newspaper in the house. For these reasons the man would go into a saloon where he would meet his friends and there he often got drunk. At home the man abused the mother, and allowed the boy to do as he liked. The probation officer induced the woman to give proper attention to her domestic duties, and thereby succeeded in getting the man to keep away from the saloon. As soon as these changes were brought about, the probation officer made the parents look after the boy, with the result that he has never since gotten into trouble.

In another instance a boy's behavior in school had been so bad that it was necessary to transfer him to four other schools. He was also disobedient at home and addicted to petty thieving. The principal means which the probation officer employed to get the boy to become a regular school attendant and well behaved, was placing him under a teacher who would take the proper attitude toward the boy and give him the necessary assistance and encouragement in his school work.

Some of the most valuable work done by probation officers is investigating the history, character and circumstances of defendants preliminary to the court's decision as to the most advisable disposition of their cases. Appearances are often deceiving. Many seemingly hardened offenders have not previously indulged in crime, while others who seem to be first offenders may be confirmed criminals.

In one court the officials and spectators had their sympathies aroused by the appearance of a certain defendant, and since neither the district attorney nor the police had any evidence that he was other than a first offender, he seemed likely to be shown leniency. Persistent inquiries by the probation officer, however, revealed that the man had several aliases, and that he was an ex-convict who had killed his mother and at the time was wanted elsewhere for highway robbery. As a result of the probation officer's investigation the man was committed.

A ten-year-old boy was arrested for stealing newspapers in the early morning. The thefts had been going on for some time. Investigation showed that the boy's parents compelled him to get

up at 4 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of peddling papers until school began. After school they required him to sell papers again and kept him on the streets until 10 or 11 o'clock at night, or if after selling his papers he returned home earlier than that, they made him do work in the house. During the summer they compelled him to peddle vegetables from a heavy basket. Investigation by the probation officer made it evident that the chief fault was moral delinquency, not on the part of the child, but on the part of the parents.

An equal degree of improvement is not expected in all cases. Some defendants, who previously have led proper lives, may be convicted for a slight offense, and probation is imposed chiefly as a reprimand and warning. In other cases a change of habits is much to be desired, although permanent improvement is not to be expected, and indeed would probably be impossible under any treatment. In such instances it is often a distinct gain to induce the defendant through probation to behave well even temporarily.

A German who had long been addicted to drink, thereby causing his family much suffering, was kept from drinking for several months by being placed under probationary oversight. The man was not informed when his probation had ended, but he chanced to read the fact in a newspaper, whereupon, free from restraint, he immediately left the house and got drunk. In this case perhaps no treatment could have cured the man of his inebriety; but it was a marked improvement to have kept him sober for even a few months.

Frequently men convicted of failure to provide for their families are placed on probation upon the condition that they keep at work and pay a stated amount of money weekly to their probation officer or through some other official, for the support of their families. One probation officer in the State collected nearly six thousand dollars from this class of offenders during 1908, besides which he required other probationers to pay probably an equivalent amount directly to their wives. If instead of using probation to secure the support of the family, the negligent husband is committed to jail, his family remains a charge upon charity and the public must also support him in the institution. For other offenses also defendants are sometimes allowed to go on probation because of the suffering which would be inflicted on innocent members of their families were the defendants imprisoned.

Probation is used also to collect fines. A defendant may be anable to pay a fine at the time of trial, for which reason he would ordinarily be committed to an institution; and in other cases were a defendant able to secure money enough to pay his fine at the time of trial in a lump sum, it would result in hardship in his family. Defendants are therefore at times released on probation with the requirement that they pay their fines in small installments weekly. One man is paying a $50 fine in installments of twenty-five cents per week.

Probation is also employed as a means of securing restitution for damages or losses inflicted.

A man who had stolen a load of whiskey valued at $216 was placed on probation upon the condition that he refund its full value. He had become drunk after stealing the whiskey, and in turn the whiskey was stolen from him, which he was unable to recover. While on probation the man kept at work and made weekly payments from his earnings during a period of two years, until the original owner of the property was fully compensated for his loss. Had the defendant been committed to an institution for the theft, he might have fallen into associations which would lead him to continue in crime, and the owner of the property would not have been compensated for his loss.

Financial Advantages of Probation.

Crime costs the citizens of New York State annually several millions of dollars. Eight thousand eight hundred and fifteen persons were committed to penal and reformatory institutions during the year ending September 30, 1908, to be supported by the State, and the direct cost to the State of maintaining the inmates of these institutions during the year was $1,428,484.35. This does not include the expense of additions or repairs to the institutions. There were in addition 110,463 persons committed to county jails and New York city institutions, who were maintained by the various counties and by New York city; besides which there were numerous juvenile delinquents committed to various private institutions throughout the State, such as the New York Catholic Protectory and the New York Juvenile Asylum, to be supported largely by local authorities. The total yearly cost of conducting

the public penal and reformatory institutions in the State, and of maintaining children committed to private institutions, approximates four million dollars.

The public expense of the probation system for supervising the 10,434 and more persons on probation in 1908, of whom 8,762 were placed on probation during the year, was about $62,156. This includes the salaries of policemen and other public officials detailed to serve as probation officers. Should a probation officer receiving $1,200 salary save during the year five or six boys from commitment to a reformatory the saving would equal the probation officer's salary.

Besides reducing the expense of institutional care and treatment, the probation system also has financial advantages in that by correcting evil habits before they become confirmed it prevents defendants from continuing in crime and being committed to institutions in the future for later offenses; it requires defendants to keep at work, thus enabling them to be self-supporting, and to contribute to the support of their families; and it increases the amount of fines and restitution collected.

More Courts Using Probation, and More Probation Officers. NUMBER OF COURTS USING PROBATION.

During 1908 probation was used in the courts of 26 cities and 8 towns and villages, in 23 county courts, and, as far as the reports of probation officers indicate, the Supreme Court in 6 counties. Comparing these statistics with those published in the last report of this Commission, we find that during 1907, probation was used in the courts of only 16 cities, 1 village and 11 counties.

COURTS MAKING ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS DURING THE YEAR.

Original appointments of probation officers were made during 1908 in the Buffalo police and morning courts, and in the courts. in Corning, Hudson, New Rochelle, Ogdensburg, Rensselaer and Rome; in the county courts of Albany, Chenango, Columbia, Dutchess, Franklin, Herkimer, Ontario, Rockland, St. Lawrence and Suffolk counties, and in nine town and village courts, and by five Supreme Court justices.

NEW APPROPRIATIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR.

More than half of the fiscal boards or bodies which have thus far made appropriations for probation officers did so in 1908. New appropriations for probation service were made during 19.08 in the Buffalo juvenile court, the Buffalo morning courts, the Buffalo police court and the Johnstown recorder's court; in the county courts of Broome, Chenango, Erie, Essex, Montgomery, Onondaga, Saratoga, Schuyler and Suffolk counties; and for male probation officers in the New York City, second division, court of special sessions and magistrates' courts. Additional women paid probation officers were appointed in the New York City, first division, magistrates' courts. The appropriations made by the supervisors of Chenango, Erie, Essex, Montgomery and Saratoga counties did not become available until the beginning of 1909. Including the appropriations made during 1908 to become available during 1909, but not including any appropriations made since December 31, 1908, appropriations under the title of probation officer have thus far been made in 15 boards of magisrates and courts in 10 cities and in 10 county courts.* A county official in Rockland county was paid additional compensation in 1908 to do probation work. If we add counties having public officials devoting their entire time to probation work but receiving salaries under other titles, the number of counties which have provided for paid probation service is 13.

NUMBER OF PROBATION OFFICERS.

Three hundred and five individuals under 320 different appointments actively discharged the duties of probation officer during the year. Forty-nine probation officers were publicly salaried under that title; 33 were detailed from other branches of the public service to give their time wholly to probation; 9 were salaried from private sources; and 229 (including officials paid under other titles but not devoting themselves exclusively to probation, and

* In January, 1909, Otsego county made an appropriation for a probation officer, and in February, 1909, the Rochester board of estimate and apportionment included in the budget for 1909 an item for the salary of a chief probation officer in the juvenile court of that city.