REPORT.

To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New York:

Pursuant to chapter 430 of the Laws of 1907, the statute creating the Commission, the State Probation Commission, which began its work September 1, 1907, transmits its second annual report covering the year ending December 31, 1908.

During the year there have been no changes in the personnel of the Commission. Commissioner Frank E. Wade was reappointed by the Governor on July 29, 1908, for a term of four years.*

A Brief Summary of the Year's Work.†

*

Twenty-seven hundred and fifty-four boys and girls, and 7,680 adults, making a total of 10,434 persons, were reported by probation officers as on probation during 1908. Of these 8,762 were placed on probation during the year. On December 31, 1908, there were 2,378 persons remaining on probation. The corresponding number for December 31, 1907, was 1,672.

Three hundred and twenty probation officers supervised probationers during the year, which is more than double the number of active probation officers reported in the last report of this Commission.

During 1908 the probation system was used in the courts of 26 cities as against 16 cities reported in 1907, in 8 town and village courts in 1908 as against 1 village court in 1907, in 23 county courts as against 11 in 1907, and, as far as the reports of probation officers indicate, in the Supreme Court in 6 counties as against none in 1907.

Appointments of probation officers were made for the first time during the year in 27 courts and boards of magistrates, and by 5

* On January 5, 1909, the State Commission of Prisons designated Francis C. Huntington as a member of the State Probation Commission in place of Roger P. Clark, resigned. On April 21, 1909, the Governor appointed Alphonso T. Clearwater of Kingston, to succeed Felix M. Warburg, resigned.

Some cases are here included which were not reported in time to be included in this report in its preliminary form.

Supreme Court justices. During the 16 months from September 1, 1907, when the Commission began its work, to December 31, 1908, probation officers were originally appointed in 17 county courts, 9 city boards of magistrates and courts, 11 town and village courts and by 5 Supreme Court justices, which equals the number that made appointments during the entire six years prior to the time the Commission organized its work.

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF COURTS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICES APPOINTING PROBATION OFFICERS BEFORE AND SINCE THE STATE PROBATION COMMISSION BEGAN ITS WORK.

Salaries for probation officers were appropriated during 1908 for the first time in ten county courts and two cities. Eightytwo probation officers were either paid salaries from public funds during the year, under that title, or were detailed from other branches of the public service to devote their entire time to probation work. Including those paid salaries from appropriations made during 1908 by the supervisors of six counties to become available January 1, 1909, and including those who are privately salaried, there are at the time of making this report over 100 paid probation workers in the State.*

*One additional county and one city made appropriations in January and February, 1909. Through misinformation the preliminary form of this report erroneously stated that one more county had made an appropriation in 1908.

During 1908 the Commission held nine meetings, three being on the invitation of local magistrates; besides which at variors times commissioners, individually or as committees, have conferred with magistrates and other officials. The Commission has also held two conferences of probation officers. The secretary during the past year has visited county courts and officials of 21 counties, and courts and officials in 47 cities and 6 towns and villages and also a few Supreme Court justices and various private citizens, thus enabling the Commission to secure first hand information regarding the use of probation throughout the State. In November the Commission issued sets of forms for both juvenile and adult probation, and during the last two months of the year supplied over 60,000 of the forms to twenty-five courts and boards of magistrates who desired to use them. Also through correspondence, distributing literature and other means the Commission has been able to make many suggestions for improving probation methods.

What Probation Is.

Probation, as authorized by the laws of New York State, is a system of discipline and correction, or, in some cases, of moral guardianship, applied by courts to suitable offenders, after conviction, for the purpose of improving their conduct and circumstances without committing them to institutions. The defendants are released conditionally on their good behavior, under suspended sentence, and under the friendly but authoritative supervision of a representative of the court, known as a probation officer. The probation law contemplates that in placing a defendant on probation certain terms and conditions shall be imposed, and it provides that if the probationer violate these conditions, his probation officer may return him to court for the execution of sentence. Besides usually requiring each probationer to report to him from time to time, the probation officer is expected to visit the probationer at frequent intervals and to do whatever seems essential to improve his surroundings and habits. The probation officer should report regularly to the court concerning the progress of each probationer. When so directed by the court, the probation officer also investigates cases, particularly with reference to the history, circumstances and character of the defendants, in order to lay be

fore the court facts which may be important in determining whether they should be placed on probation.

The general statutory provisions relating to probation are found in sections 11-a, 483 and 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in sections 12 and 291, subdivision 7, of the Penal Code. There are also special provisions regarding probation in the charters of first-class cities.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROBATION AND PAROLE.

It is desirable to keep the distinction between probation and parole clearly in mind. Under the New York laws the word probation refers to the supervision of defendants who, after conviction, are released under suspended sentence. The suspension of sentence alone does not constitute probation: there must also be oversight by a probation officer. The word parole, on the other hand, is applied to two entirely different systems. In some courts before convictions are found, cases are adjourned from time to time and the defendants conditionally released; and this is called parole. There is no authority to apply the term probation to this practice, because under the New York State laws a person cannot be placed on probation until after conviction.* Parole is the appropriate word to use also in connection with the conditional release of inmates from penal or reformatory institutions before the expiration of their term of commitment. The word probation should not be applied to the supervision of unconvicted defendants during the temporary adjournment of their cases, nor to the oversight of inmates released from institutions.

Illustrative Cases.

The value of probation may be illustrated by such examples as follow. The efficiency of probationary treatment is most thoroughly tested when a period of several years has elapsed since the defendants were placed on probation, and when previous to being placed on probation the probationers have been for some time habituated to crime or have had environments so adverse as to make the formation of proper habits difficult.

*In states where children's cases are heard under civil procedure, children are placed on probation after the court has adjudicated their cases, declaring them either delinquent, neglected or dependent.

His father a drunkard, his mother dead, his brother a reformatory inmate, the home without even a bed and with the rent three months in arrears, and he himself living away from home with a prostitute - these were the circumstances of a seventeen-year-old youth put on probation after conviction for grand larceny over eight years ago. The probation officer secured work for the boy, induced him to go home to live, and by patient efforts completely changed the home conditions. The officer arranged a compromise with the landlord about the rent, and paid for one month in advance; he induced a friend to provide furniture and other household necessities; he encouraged the grown-up sister to attend to the home duties; and by keeping watch of the father was able to help overcome his drunkenness for nearly two years. To-day the probationer is happily married and works steadily, earning $26 per week.

In 1901 a probation officer in another court received a twentysix-year-old man on probation, who had already served sentence for burglary and who was at the time under conviction for grand larceny. The man was a loafer and a drunkard and so depraved that his wife could not live with him. Owing to his record the district attorney and others who knew the defendant scouted the possibility of his reformation and urged the court to impose a heavy sentence, but since the court felt that there was something still left in the man to build upon, it placed him on probation. The probation officer secured work for the man, and by persistent efforts brought about a reunion with his family and developed an ambition to do right. For upwards of seven years the man has been working faithfully and is a respected citizen.

Children naturally offer the most hopeful cases for probation, for their character is still in the making.

A Jewish boy fourteen years of age convicted of climbing through the transoms of stores and stealing cigars and money, was placed on probation in 1905. The evidence indicated that the boy, together with two older youths, had been implicated in a series of such burglaries. He had previously been convicted of petit larceny from a dry goods store and also for stealing peanuts. The home conditions were negative, the parents being very negligent. The boy continued to improve in behavior while on probation, and he is now, at the age of eighteen years, working regularly and earning $12 per week.

What the probation officer does to achieve success depends upon the circumstances of the case.