of the State and the payment of a per diem rate for the board of prisoners while in jail, undoubtedly tend to diminish the number of offenders placed on probation in those counties.

(b) Juvenile Probation.

Manhattan and the Bronx. In considering the subject of juvenile probation in Manhattan, it is desirable to disregard the misleading distinction between the terms probation and parole as used in this court, and to consider the substantial fact as it exists -the conditional release of the child under oversight. The Commission desires to place on record its appreciation of the valuable cooperation rendered by the officers of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. In its investigation of probation work in the Children's Court in Manhattan, the officers and agents of that society have been ready to appear before the Commission at all times and produce any records desired, to compile any statistics that the Commission might request, and in fact to facilitate in every way the Commission's work. The Commission has been impressed also with the care with which the judges of the Children's Court in Manhattan inquire into the circumstances of children brought before them, by the fulness of the reports submitted by the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and by the fact that the parent is required to be present and to render an account for his failure to properly look after the child. The Commission is impressed favorably also by the careful attention given to the several cases by the judge at the end of the probation period and by the fact that the parent is required to appear in court and give his account of the child's conduct, in addition to the reports made by the society.

The Commission is of the opinion that this work, already described in this report [see pages 22-28], is carried on by the society efficiently; that its cooperation has been of great value to the Children's Court; and that the probation system as now carried on is an important step in advance as compared with conditions previously existing in this city. It is claimed, however, both by the justices of this court and by the society, that this work is not probation work. This Commission is of the opinion that it possesses some of the elements of probation work, but falls far short of being an adequate probation system, and especially in these particulars:

1. The attitude of the agents of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children toward the children during the period of probation is too largely that of a dispassionate observer rather than of an active friend. Its function is too largely that of securing information, rather than actively cooperating in securing reformation. There is little or no personal relation between the agent of the society and the child. The visit to the child's home is apt to be made, not immediately after the child's release on probation and for the purposes of establishing a friendly and effective relation between the probation officer and the child, but near the end of the probation period, and for the purpose of ascertaining what the conduct of the child has been, in order that the facts may be reported to the judge and form the basis of his action. This practice and attitude seem to us to be due principally to two considerations: First, the number of children is so large that it is substantially impossible for the agents of the society engaged in other multifarious and very responsible duties to take an active personal interest in each child. The greater part of their work is of a different character.

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