TABLE VII.-Comparison of dispositions of delinquency cases in the Chicago court and in other courts in Illinois during one year.

a Basel on Chicago court and 62 of the 101 courts outside Chicago. Includes 216 guardians appointed to place child in home; 459 continued generally; 2 committed to County agent to be deported as nonresident.

€ 10 pending and 4 not reported. d Pending.

Some insight into the attitude of many judges of general power in the disposition of the children who come before them was gained from their reports. These frequently failed to differentiate between. the case of a child and of an adult or to recognize the cardinal principle of juvenile courts-that the purpose is not punishment but education and discipline suited to the needs of the child. The terminology used in the replies frequently linked children with criminals.

Judges of general powers sometimes referred to their own methods in terms which imply little realization of the distinction, as illustrated by the following quotations:

all cases against children are held at same court as against adults, no

There is no juvenile court in this county, nor is there any probation officer appointed to look after children. Children are tried before the same court as adults, but when they are of tender years are sent to the State reformatory.

I never shut the door of hope to the young offenders and my rule is not to send them to the State penitentiary, and I place them on the county farm, as the adults are placed. I usually make some arrangements with the man and wife in charge of county farm by which these children can be looked after and given some training.

In this State the county judge acts as probate judge, but in all cases where misdemeanor or crime has been committed the cases are handled by the judge of the criminal court. He sometimes lets them go on probation and sometimes sends them to the reform school. The only cases as a rule that are handled by the county judge are when the parents bring in disobedient and willful children and request that they be committed to the reform school.

We have a State reform school to which delinquents are sent from circuit court. Can't be sent to reform school till found guilty of felony and sentenced to penitentiary. Ought to be accessible to parent or citizen in juvenile court without criminal prof cedure.

Cases were based upon a criminal information signed by the county and prosecuting attorney charging the delinquent with the commission of a crime. When delinquents are found guilty of a crime, they are sent to the industrial school.

One judge spoke of State institutions, or schools, for criminal and incorrigible children, and that prosecutions for commitments to an institution must go through the criminal division under the criminal code. The lists of cases reported for several courts in one State referred to "felonies" and "misdemeanors."

Two judges wrote: "A child under 16 is never placed in prison unless he commits a very grave offense, or is a hardened criminal and beyond control," and "young criminals in this State are carefully looked after by the judges."

In three States the judges referred to whipping as one method of disposition of the cases. One judge said his method in dealing with truants was: "First, lectured; second, ordered whipped by parents; third, turned over to the State board of charities and correction." Among the dispositions listed in the published statement in a report of a State board of charities, whipping was reported for four courts for 121 children, both white and colored. In another State a judge said that in a great many cases where nothing serious has been done the parents of the child or children are required to give them a whipping.

A report sent in by one court is an interesting commentary on the methods still existing in some parts of the country. Of the children brought before the court in the year for which the report was made, 65 were sent to jail; 40 were placed in a chain gang; 12 were sent to a reformatory and 1 to an orphanage; 156 were fined; 156 were dismissed; judgment was suspended for 25; and only 51 were placed on probation.

A judge from another State wrote of methods of handling juvenile delinquencies and criminals among children, saying: "In such cases when the circumstances warrant we usually send them to the State reformatory, State farm, or parole them under the care of some person who may be interested enough to give them proper care and attention. In some cases the individual, though a minor, sometimes is sent to the chain gang or penitentiary."

Fines were not generally imposed upon children, though a few courts in 32 States reported using this form of punishment.

INFORMAL HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS.

In many courts complaints were received informally and investigated by the probation office without a petition or warrant having been filed. By this means many cases were settled without a formal court hearing. Informal handling of complaints appeared to be more usual in some States than in others. Some States did not permit probation officers to make investigations preceding the trial. But in States where this was allowed the large, well-organized probation offices frequently reported handling on informal complaints as many children as were reported brought into court on formal complaint.

The method of procedure in a well-organized complaint department is described by the Chicago court:1

The head of the complaint department receives all complaints, so that none are received that do not rightfully belong to the court. The complaint is then registered with the social service registration bureau, so that when the officer receives it he or she can immediately get information from the various philanthropic agencies of the city with which the family has come into contact. The officer then proceeds to ascertain what the facts in the case are, reporting every visit made to the head of the department. If possible, the children are not brought into court, but the case is settled out of court by the visiting of the investigating officer or by referring it to the proper public or private agency or person.

It is interesting to note that in courts which made a practice of handling complaints informally the percentage of cases dismissed on court hearing was low. A tentative comparison was made for the court in Chicago and the courts in other parts of Illinois. This showed that the Chicago court dismissed only a third as large a proportion of its cases as the other courts in the State (6.4 per cent for Chicago, 19 per cent outside Chicago).

COMMITMENTS TO AND RELEASE FROM INSTITUTIONS.

An attempt was made to discover through the questionnaire the relationship of the court to the institutions to which children were committed, and the number of States in which the court retained control of the child after commitment, including authority over his release from institutional care. Because of the legal difficulties involved in this question and the evident misunderstanding by many judges, no reliable summary could be made. The judges frequently considered that they had ultimate authority over commitments, because their original order stated the term during which the child was under the supervision of the institution, frequently until majority or until 21. Other courts operating under the same law considered the release to be within the hands of the institution if the institution determined the time and circumstances of parole. The same misunderstanding occured in the interpretation of the question relating to whether a commitment to an institution was determinate or indeterminate, and very little was secured from the replies to this question.

1 Juvenile Court and Juvenile Detention Home (Cook County, Ill.), Annual Reports, 1916. Chicago, 1917. p. 6.

DETENTION.

METHODS OF DETENTION.

Methods of detention varied not only in different sections of the country but within a single State. They reflect, in a measure, the degree to which the modern principles of children's work are appreciated, for some suitable arrangement for the separate detention of children awaiting hearing and disposition is an essential factor in the organization of a juvenile court. The actual methods used were different in various communities and depended, in part, upon the number of children to be considered and the type of area served. While distinctive plans had been developed by some courts in their detention homes and boarding-out systems, a large number of smaller courts had paid little attention to this important feature. Some had no method of detention other than the jail.

This questionnaire inquiry has attempted merely to enumerate the prevailing methods used, and to indicate roughly the extent to which those most approved have been reported. No attempt has been made to tabulate the method used in each court in the country, because of the varied combinations of methods reported by individual courts and the large number of indefinite replies which could not fairly be classified. Further study would be needed to determine the standards of care maintained by detention homes or the adequacy of supervision of private-family homes. It was not even possible to test all the methods reported by the minimum requirement of separation of children from contact with adult prisoners or paupers. In all courts children frequently are permitted to remain at home with their parents either after the formality of signing a bond or after the parent or probation officer has promised to produce the child in court for the hearing. In a few instances the judges wrote that every case was disposed of immediately and consequently no method of detention was necessary.

The methods reported for detaining children who do not remain at home pending hearing fall into five groups as follows:

(1) Publicly supported detention home or room connected with the court.

(2) Privately supported detention home.

(3) Family home and home of court official.

(4) Other expedient.

(5) Jail or police station, with or without separation from

adults.