Offenses for Which Probation Has Been Used. The tables below show the relative frequency of the various offenses for which defendants have been placed on probation. Among boys the offense occurring most frequently was larceny, and there has been a decided increase in the use of probation for this class of offenders. Truancy, disorderly conduct, burglary and incorrigibility followed in order. Among girls, incorrigibility was the most common, while larceny and truancy came next. Disorderly conduct and larceny occurred about equally among men. There were over 600 men placed on probation for non-support during the year. Public intoxication ranked first among women, with disorderly conduct and larceny following. It should be borne in mind that in determining whether a person should be placed on probation, the nature of the offense is ordinarily not so important as the circumstances, history and character of the defendant; and knowledge about these points is usually to be obtained chiefly through special investigations. Results of Probation as Reported by Probation Officers. During the year 7,276 persons passed from probation, of whom 2,075 were juveniles and 5,201 were adults. RESULTS IN 7,276 CASES AS REPORTED BY PROBATION OFFICERS. Eliminating the cases where the probationers died, were in custody pending disposition, removed with permission, and where the results of probation were not stated by probation officers, there remained 6,333 cases in which over two hundred probation officers expressed their opinion as to what had been accomplished by probation. Seventy-eight per cent. of these 6,333 probationers were reported as improved in conduct; twelve per cent. were rearrested and committed; five per cent. absconded or were lost from oversight, and three per cent. were discharged without definite improvement being shown. The reports indicate slightly better results among children than among adults. In considering these estimates, certain facts should be remembered. First, the standards by which probation officers judge the results of probation are not uniform; and therefore a case which one officer calls satisfactory in its outcome, another officer might call a failure. Second, some probation officers make careful inquiries into the conduct and circumstances of each probationer, thus acquiring accurate and extensive knowledge on which to base their judgment of the results of the probation; while others by depending for their information on unverified reports received from the probationers themselves, do not know enough about the daily life of their probationers to warrant drawing conclusions about the results of the probation. Third, in some cases where failure is reported, the probation does not last long enough to give probation a proper test; while in other cases where success is reported, the probationary period is not long enough to make it certain that whatever effects seem to be accomplished, are real or likely to endure. Fourth, the efficacy of probation should be judged in connection with the fact as to whether careful preliminary investigations have been made to ascertain the fitness of defendants for probationary treatment, and where such inquiries are neglected the proportion of unsatisfactory results is naturally greater than where the probation follows such preliminary investigations. Fifth, some probation officers do little or nothing which in any real sense aids the probationers, and it cannot be expected that their cases will turn out as satisfactorily as those in which the probation officers give their probationers the proper attention and do things which actually help them to improve. Because of these differences in the methods and standards of probation officers, the above percentages must be accepted with reservations. Duties of the Commission. The duties of the Commission, set forth in the statute creating it, may be summarized as follows: 1. To exercise general supervision over the work of probation officers, and to keep informed as to their work. 2. To collect and publish statistical and other information as to the operations of the probation system. 3. To inquire into the conduct and efficiency of probation officers from time to time, and, when advisable, to conduct a formal investigation of the work of any probation officer. 4. To secure the effective application of the probation system and the enforcement of the probation law in all parts of the State. Meetings and Organization of the Commission. The Commission has held bi-monthly meetings as required by statute, and three special meetings, as follows: January 9. At the Capitol, Albany. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy, Wade and Warburg. January 10 and 11. At the City and County Hall, Buffalo. Special meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy and Wade. March 12. At the Capitol, Albany. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy and Wade. April 13. At the City Hall, Elmira. Special meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy and Wade. May 21. At the United Charities Building, New York city. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy, Wade and Warburg. July 16. At the United Charities Building, New York city. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, McCarthy and Wade. September 10. At the Capitol, Albany. Regular meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Draper, McCarthy and Wade. October 21 and 22. At the County Court House, Rochester. Special meeting. Present: Commissioners Folks, McKenna, Clark and Wade. |