It is that of investigation of charges of cruelty. It is hardly to be expected that in the brief portion of their time devoted to this work they would readjust themselves to a quite different kind of service. Furthermore, the principal purpose of the society, the enforcement of the laws relating to children, seems to us to emphasize activities which are very different from, if not inconsistent with, the underlying essentials of probation work. It is but natural that the chief executive officer of this society should regard fear as an essential element of probation, and should place little stress upon the personal relation between the probation officer and the child, but in this, his honest judgment, we believe him to be mistaken.

If this society continues to do the probation work of the Juvenile Court, it is desirable, in our opinion, that it should differentiate such work more fully from the other work of the society, that a sufficient number of officers should be detailed for this purpose and relieved from other duties, and that much greater stress should be laid upon the establishment of friendly and helpful relations between such officers and the children under their care.

It has been argued at considerable length before this Commission that the probation system is unconstitutional, in that it attempts to interfere with parental control and authority without due process of law. The argument is based in the main upon the use of the word "custody," occurring once in existing statutes in connection with the powers of courts in placing persons on probation. In the opinion of the counsel of this Commission and of its four members who are lawyers this objection is not well taken, although the use of the word "custody" in this connection is considered unfortunate. It is the opinion of this Commission

that neither the actual physical custody nor the guardianship of an offender is or should be imposed upon the probation officer. The power of the probation officer grows out of the fact that a report by him to the court that the offender is conducting himself in an improper manner is likely to result in the rearrest, and possibly in the commitment of the offender. The statutes would gain in clearness by the elimination of the word "custody " and the substitution therefor of the word "supervision."

As to the Children's Court of Brooklyn, the Commission has been especially impressed by the study which has been given to this subject by the presiding justice of this court, by his deep personal interest in the individual cases coming before him, and by the care with which he has undertaken to build up a probation system. Among those who have contributed largely to the development of probation work for children in this State, Judge Wilkin stands one of the foremost. He is strongly impressed with the importance of developing a system of probation through cooperation with private societies. He emphasizes the dangers of officialism and routine in public work, and values highly the interest shown by private societies which have placed probation officers at the service of the court, and also by volunteers who have assisted. The Commission finds that much valuable work of a real probation character has been done in connection with the Children's Court in Brooklyn, but that at certain points the system outlined by Judge Wilkin has proven inadequate. In fact, of the three sources from which he expected to receive the aid of a salaried probation officer, only one has been really effective. The Catholic probation officer, a salaried representative of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, has given continuous and effective service and has high standards

of what probation work should be. By reason of the large number of children of that faith who are placed under his oversight, he is not able fully to realize those standards in practice. He is not able to visit the homes of all the children, nor in any case as frequently and regularly as is desirable. The Protestant agent first appointed was unable to give a sufficient amount of time, as he had other important duties to which he owed his first allegiance. The Protestant officer next appointed also continued his duties as a missionary, and, in our opinion, did not possess all of the personal qualifications needed for effective probation work, though the excellence of his intentions and his usefulness as a missionary are not questioned. The Jewish officer first appointed proved unsatisfactory and the place had not been filled when Judge Wilkin appeared before the Commission. Since that date a woman representing the Allied Hebrew Women's Clubs and a man representing the Social Service Committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church have been appointed.

The result of these facts has been that the work, in the absence of a sufficient number of salaried probation officers from any other source, has passed to an increasing extent to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. This society has recently placed a salaried woman probation officer at the service of the court.

In brief, then, the Brooklyn court, though doing much excellent work, has not been able up to this time to organize and carry on its probation work as it would like to do, because of the absence of a sufficient number of salaried probation officers.

In Buffalo the situation is entirely different from that in either Manhattan or Brooklyn. The excellences and the deficiencies of volunteer work are illustrated, as also the tendency to use

the probation system, almost to the exclusion of other methods. The probation officers of the Juvenile Court of Buffalo juclude some of its best citizens-persons who for years have been engaged in charitable and reformatory work, persons of college or professional training, but who also have manifold other and urgent duties, who are able to give but a fraction of their time to probation work, who may be tempted to assume duties which they subsequently find, if properly performed, require a larger portion of their time than they are able to devote to them, and who, by reason of their preoccupation in other duties may hardly be conscious of the fact that the duties which they have undertaken in this connection are not performed with the regularity and completeness which they would recognize to be highly important. The absence of uniform standards of work, the absence in some cases of effective home supervision of children, the more or less perfunctory reporting by the children, in many cases the placing of so many children under the care of one pro bation officer that he is unable to establish effective relations with them, must be put down as serious shortcomings of probation work for juvenile offenders in Buffalo.

The Commission also is of the opinion that, in an effort to deal leniently with the juvenile offender, Judge Murphy has released on probation children who, for the protection of other children in the community as well as for their own benefit, should have been subjected to the disciplinary influences of a reformatory institution. This we find to be particularly true in case of children brought before the court on more than one occasion. While probation is not exclusively for first offenders, it does not produce favorable results if children, who have been repeatedly released conditionally, with the admonition that a

repetition of the offense will involve more drastic measures, are still, upon subsequent arrests, released as before.

If a child while still on probation commits a fresh offense with impunity, both he and his friends will consider probation little more than a farce.

From a statement furnished by the chief of police it appears that from the establishment of the Children's Court in July 1, 1901, to December 20, 1905, 72 boys were arraigned before the court three or more times. It also appears that 11 children were released on probation or under suspended sentence three times; 19, four times; 3, five times; and 1, six times. The following cases are reported:

A. B., placed on probation in Juvenile Court five times: September 20, 1901; March 10, 1903; July 5, 1904; March 1, 1905, and March 20, 1905.

C. D., placed on probation in Juvenile Court five times: October 8, 1901; November 29, 1901; July 30, 1903;. April 13, 1904, and November 27, 1904.

E. F., nine times in Juvenile Court: Sentence suspended January 14, 1902; discharged May 2, 1902; placed on probation, July 31, 1902; discharged June 27, 1903; July 23, 1903, and September 18, 1903; sentence suspended October 5, 1903, and December 7, 1903; and sent to State Industrial School, April 7, 1904.

G. H., five times in Juvenile Court and twice in Police Court: Sent to Protectory, January 28, 1902; placed on probation, November 11, 1903; November 21, 1903, and March 16, 1904; discharged, January 18, 1904; held for grand jury in Police Court, October 17, 1904; sent to State Industrial School, December 10, 1904.

I. J., five times in Juvenile Court twice in Police Court: Placed on probation, February 25, 1902; March 21, 1904; April 17, 1904, and June 4, 1904; discharged, November 25, 1904; held for grand jury in Police Court, May 9, 1905, and sent to State Industrial School, October 2, 1905.