Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

METHOD OF STUDY.

This study of courts in the United States hearing children's cases was conducted by means of questionnaires and correspondence. The limitations of the questionnaire method were recognized, but it offered the best means of securing general information in regard to the situation in the country as a whole, which would serve as a basis for further studies of the methods of dealing with children before the courts.

Information was sought from every court having authority to hear children's cases involving delinquency or neglect (with certain exceptions enumerated below), regardless of variations in definition. Courts in every State were addressed. The questionnaire, which was prepared by the Children's Bureau in collaboration with the committee on children's courts of the National Probation Association, and other experts in children's work, consisted of three parts, of which one was sent to judges, one to probation officers, and one to clerks. The questions addressed to judges were concerned with jurisdiction, organization and method of trial and the questions to probation officers, with methods of investigation and probation work. Those sent to clerks asked for the number of cases and the dispositions. When replies were not received, follow-up letters were sent.

It was difficult to prepare lists of judges and probation officers and sources varied greatly in the different States. In two States, lists were furnished by a State commission concerned with the supervision of probation work. Fairly complete lists were furnished in more than half the States by a correspondent of the National Probation Association or by some State board or official. In several States, there was no list of judges hearing children's cases or of probation officers and no organization or official in the State kept such information currently. The names of judges for specified courts could sometimes be secured from a State manual or a tax list or from some State official. Often it was necessary to address a court without the name of.the judge.

The type of court having jurisdiction in children's cases is, in general, clear from the laws of a State, but in several States it could not be determined from the law without further inquiry. For example, in four States the judge hearing children's cases was selected from several court systems in the county, but in certain counties no

1 See Questionnaire forms, Appendix B.

selections had been made and it was not possible to discover who was doing the work. In certain other States, one judge was assigned for juvenile cases from among a number of similar power. Or, again, concurrent powers were given two or more systems of courts, but not all these courts assumed jurisdiction in juvenile cases. It was frequently necessary to write to several courts in order to discover which one had assumed such jurisdiction.

Lists of probation officers were secured from State correspondents of the National Probation Association and others having special knowledge of probation and court work. Publications often gave the names of probation officers in charge. These returns were supplemented by names secured from the questionnaires addressed to judges; each judge was asked to state the number and kind of probation officers attached to his court. Some additional names were secured during the process of verification of the State analyses.

Every effort was made to avoid such misunderstandings and inaccuracies as are likely to occur in a questionnaire study. The three replies requested from each court (two if the court had no probation officer), though concerned with different phases of the work, served to supplement and clarify one another. Record forms and published or manuscript reports were secured when available, and were carefully compared with the questionnaire material. The summarizing of material was facilitated by explanatory letters sent to the bureau with many of the replies. Reports of State boards or commissions and of State institutions for juvenile delinquents and the provisions of the juvenile court laws were also studied. As opportunity offered, representative workers from various States were consulted in personal interviews, and the working summary of each State was submitted by correspondence to one or more persons in the State who were familiar with conditions.

The following courts were omitted from the study, though having jurisdiction over cases of delinquency and neglect: (1) Courts serving counties, districts, or cities, the population of which (in 1910) was less than 5,000; (2) a few courts serving counties formed since 1910; (3) justice of the peace or mayor's courts in small communities; (4) courts of appeal; (5) courts receiving juvenile cases through criminal indictment by a grand jury; and (6) courts with concurrent jurisdiction in juvenile cases but known not to be using this power. The replies received from the areas under 5,000 population showed little or no organization for juvenile court work. Most of the counties formed since 1910 were small, and information in regard to population was difficult to secure. However, 18 newly chartered counties in Idaho, comprising a large part of the State, have been included be cause they appeared to be doing work similar to that done elsewhere in the State. Justices of the peace or mayor's courts in small com

munities were disregarded because such information as was received indicated that these courts rarely attempted special work and usually had insufficient records to furnish the information desired; also because the decision was often preliminary to a hearing by a judge with power to pronounce judgment. Cases before courts of appeal and cases brought through grand jury indictments were for the most part of exceptional character and few in number. Judges of the appellate courts who were addressed did not consider that their juvenile work was of the kind to be included in this study.

The facts presented in this report relate in general to the year 1918, during the spring and summer of which replies to the questionnaires were received. Changes resulting from later legislation have not been incorporated, though laws affecting methods of handling children's cases have been passed in several States during the 1919 sessions of the legislatures.

TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS AND NUMBER FURNISHING INFORMATION, TOGETHER WITH AREAS SERVED.

The total number of courts included in the inquiry was 2,391.1 More than half these courts had no recognized probation officer so far as known; the number of chief probation officers or officers in charge to whom questionnaires were sent was 1,071.

All or part of the information desired was returned from 85 per cent of the courts-2,034 out of 2,391. Percentages of replies from judges and from probation officers-80 and 85 per cent, respectivelyshow a slightly greater interest and response from probation officers. No separate percentage was computed for replies from clerks, because in many courts the judge or probation officer acted in that capacity and in some States a number of clerks returned replies for several counties within one court area.

TABLE I.-Number and per cent of courts replying to all or part of questionnaire inquiry, by population of largest city in area served.

[blocks in formation]

TABLE II.-Number and per cent of courts replying to questionnaire for judge, by population of largest city in area served.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]

'If a district or circuit judge rotated over several counties, his complete circuit was considered to be one court and information from his various counties was combined. In Georgia, where one judge was to be designated for each county, and it was not always possible to discover who had been designated, a court was counted for each county even though it was presided over by a superior court judge who also rotated for several other counties. If two judges served one court, both were addressed, but the combined reply was tabulated as for one court.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »