County Probation Officers Needed to Serve Throughout Certain Counties.

It is only a question of time before the use of probation will become general in the higher courts throughout the State; and experience has shown the wisdom of having probation officers who serve in a county court serve also in the supreme court and other courts in the county. Although until recently probation has been developed principally in the more populous communities, the system is, proportionately to the population, equally desirable and beneficial in small places and rural communities. Under the present law every justice, including every. justice of the peace in towns, is directed to appoint a probation officer, which, if done, would result in some three thousand probation officers in the State. The quality of the work done will be promoted by having fewer probation officers. The natural geographical unit in the development of the probation system in the less densely peopled communities is the county. The law should be amended to authorize each county judge to appoint one or more county probation officers, whose services shall be available for the county court, the supreme court in that county and all inferior courts, except those of cities of the first and second class. Without waiting for statutory authorization some half dozen county judges have already appointed probation officers to serve in both the higher and the lower courts in the county, and in most such instances the boards of supervisors have made appropriations for their compensation.

The appointment of county probation officers should not interfere with any magistrate within the county also appointing one or more volunteer officers for his own court; and it should remain permissible for cities and villages to appropriate funds for probation work. Magistrates with whom the Commission has conferred regarding the development of probation service along these lines have commended the plan.

Need of Education About Probation.

A well-informed and appreciative public opinion concerning the operations and benefits of the probation system is important

both to secure appropriations for the support of probation service, and to enlist the active co-operation of individual citizens and of various organizations. During the past year the State Probation Commission has issued literature describing the methods and advantages of the system, and has had the subject discussed in conventions and public meetings. The Commission is co-operating with magistrates, when they so desire, in creating a wider public interest in probation in their respective localities.

The Selection of Probation Officers.

A question frequently asked of the Commission is what sort of persons make the best sort of probation officers. It is important that the duties of probation officer be entrusted only to persons qualified for the work by reason of their character, temperament, ability and interest. It is of course impossible to establish any one definite set of qualifications as necessary for all probation officers, but such characteristics as the following are desirable. A probation officer should be skilful in weighing all the factors in a case, and in laying out a plan of action adapted to its individual requirements; he should understand the experiences and point of view of those under his care; he should have a pleasing but strong personality so as to win the full respect and confidence of his probationers, for his most effective influence is to be had through tactful persuasion rather than by command; he should be judiciously sympathetic, but at the same time firm in decision and action; he should be resourceful so as to put into operation new measures in case his first attempts fail; he should be able to command the co-operation and assistance of different persons or organizations in the community when desirable; and finally he must be of good character and so deeply interested in his work as to be untiring in efforts to help his probationers.

It is obvious that the probation system in any community will fall far short of its possibilities if the duties of probation officer are entrusted to persons not thoroughly interested in the work, or who do not deal with their cases in a proper manner. Due chiefly to the facts that the police and sheriffs were easily available, and that the repressive side of probation was the easiest to put into operation, the original assignments to probation service in several

places have been policemen; but, since the duties of a probation officer are primarily to establish a friendly relationship with his probationers, to develop proper motives and habits, and to bring about readjustments between probationers and their environment, it is evident that the qualifications most essential for efficient probation work have little to do with police duties. The point of view and training of a policeman are liable to be too largely repressive and disciplinary. If a policeman happens to be personally fitted to act as probation officer, it is likely, and especially with children, that the fact of his being a policeman will make his probationers dislike to have him visit their homes, etc., and will make it difficult for him to establish the friendly relationship needed.

The Commission can help to educate probation officers by means of literature, conferences and visitation; but the important thing is to have fit probation officers appointed.

Where salaried probation officers have been appointed, civil service examinations have been held for the purpose of establishing an eligible list. The earlier examinations were chiefly written, but those held more recently have included experience as a subject for examination, and they have been conducted in part orally. It is important that the examinations be so framed as to show not only the amount of information possessed on the subject of probation, but also the past experience and the temperament, interests and other personal characteristics of each candidate. It is desirable to supplement the formal examination with investigations by competent, disinterested persons into the abilities and character of the candidates who have successfully passed the other portions of the examination.

More Local Probation Associations.

Early in 1908 the New York Probation Association was organized, and opened a home for the temporary shelter of women who are either held for trial in, or released on probation by, the New York city night court. In December a volunteer probation association was organized in Syracuse, with an enrolment of about one hundred members, which has as its objects to assist the local probation work and to co-operate in the parole oversight of juveniles

released from institutions. The male probation officers in the New York city, second division, magistrates' courts formed an association in the spring, and in January the Yonkers general probation committee, which was established in the preceding month, elected officers and began its work. There are now ten probation organizations in the State.

State Supervision in Other States.

A State Commission on Probation was created in Massachusetts in 1908 to supervise both juvenile and adult probation, thereby superseding the divided State supervision of juvenile and adult probation, which was formerly assigned to the State Board of Charities and to the State Board of Prison Commissioners, respectively. No other State ever had any separation in the State supervision of juvenile and adult probation. The duties of the Massachusetts Commission on Probation are to prescribe the form of all probation records and reports, to make rules for the registration of reports and for the exchange of information between courts, to provide for the organization and co-operation of probation officers and to assist justices and probation officers by the interchange of information. The Commission may also hold conferences of probation officers and justices. During 1908 Kentucky and Louisiana enacted laws requiring State supervision of probation work. In Kentucky, where probation is administered only among children, the juvenile courts are required to report to the governor showing the disposition of cases; and in Louisiana, where also probation is applied only to juveniles, the courts must report similar information to the State Board of Charities and Corrections. Fifteen states have some form of State supervision.*

Legislation in New York State in 1908.

The only general probation law enacted by the New York Legislature of 1908 was chapter 99, amending section 11-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as requested by the State Probation Commission, to require appointments of probation officers to be made in writing and filed with the State Probation Commission, and

*The first report of this Commission named the States having state supervision of probation and juvenile courts. Indiana should have been included

in the list.

to permit counties to pay salaries to probation officers. This law went into effect on April 9, 1908, and during the year eleven county boards of supervisors, availing themselves of this permissive legislation, made appropriations for probation service.

A bill was introduced into the Legislature of 1908 to establish a separate State probation commission, exclusively for children; but it was not reported in either house. The State Probation. Commission opposed the bill. No criticism was made of the work done by the present State Probation Commission, nor any reason presented why the present Commission could not secure all the results sought by the bill. This Commission opposed the bill because there was no reason for having two commissions to do what one is doing, and because the bill as drafted would defeat rather than secure the effective supervision and development of juvenile probation.

It was erroneously claimed that the policy of the State of keeping delinquent children separate from adult criminals called for a separate probation commission dealing exclusively with children. This contention failed to recognize that the actual custody or care of juvenile probationers and of adult probationers is very different from State supervision. The State Probation Commission deals directly with neither children nor adults on probation, but deals only with probation officers. It is very desirable that children on probation be not allowed to mingle with adults on probation, but the bill had no provisions which would secure such a separation either through separate probation officers for children, through separate judges for children, or by any other means. Instead, the bill proposed a division in the supervision of probation officers at the point farthest removed from the individuals on probation, namely, in the State system of inspecting and supervising the work of probation officers. There is no more reason for having two State probation commissions than there would be for having two State boards of charities, because the State Board of Charities supervises reformatories for children and also those for adults.

The same courts and magistrates appoint and direct the work of probation officers for adults as appoint and direct the work of probation officers for children, and about one-third of the probation officers in the State exercise supervision over both juveniles and