the probation system, almost to the exclusion of other methods. The probation officers of the Juvenile Court of Buffalo include 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 probation 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.

A third defect in the Buffalo probation system is the absence of a full report to the court and the discharge of the probationer at the termination of the period of probation.

It may well be that if at the end of each probation period, the probation officer had reported fully to the judge the circumstances, surroundings and conduct of each child, he would have adopted a somewhat more drastic policy in connection with confirmed offenders. If a judge is to exercise increasing wisdom and discrimination in the application of the probation system, it is essential that he should be informed of the results of his previous selection of offenders for probationary treatment.

In Rochester there is a combination of paid service provided by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and volunteer service rendered by the managers of that society, clergymen and others. From our examination of the judge of the juvenile court and of the agent of the society, we gain an impression that here too the volunteer work has many elements of value but is not entirely satisfactorily organized; that it is not easy to be sure that the volunteer worker understands all that the court expects him to do and that he actually carries out the wishes of the court. The agent of the society here, as elsewhere, admits that his other duties, previously assumed, are so extensive and engrossing that it is not possible for him to carry on the probation work in all respects as he believes it should be carried on.

In Syracuse too the overworked salaried agent of the Humane Society finds himself unequal to the work previously assumed and to the additional work involved in the adoption of the probation system. As this report goes to press we are informed that provision is being made for at least one salaried probation

officer for children in the Juvenile Court of Syracuse. We believe this to be in line with the inevitable and logical development of probation work.

In Utica there is so-called probation without a probation officer. Truant officers exercise some supervision over truants on probation (as they do elsewhere), but as there are only two truant officers for this city of 63,000 people, they are naturally unable to add any considerable amount of probation work to their other duties. The action of the judge in releasing a considerable number of offenders under suspended sentence is commendable, but its effectiveness would, in our opinion, be very greatly increased if probationary oversight were available for those so released.

In Schenectady the agent of the Humane Society is the only probation officer. To a greater extent than is the case with any other representative of these societies engaged in probation work, he emphasizes his personal acquaintance with the boys and relies upon his personal influence as an important factor. The work in Schenectady seems to us to realize more nearly the proper standards of probation work than in most other cities of this State. The visitation at the boys' home is not as frequent as the agent would like to have it, the court records are not as complete as they should be, and in our opinion the term of probation might profitably be extended somewhat.

In Albany and Troy the probation work is carried on by agents of the Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society, is admittedly somewhat tentative, but seems to us to be proceeding in the right directions. Friendly relations between the probation officer and the probationer are emphasized. Failure to observe the terms of probation is not allowed to pass unnoticed; visitation of the home.

is recognized as an essential factor. Here, as elsewhere, however, the agents of this society, by reason of the large amount of work of various sorts devolved upon them, are admittedly unable to visit the probationers in their homes, except occasionally, and hence are not able to form effective personal relations with them. The term of probation is, as a rule, somewhat longer than in most other cities. A larger amount of paid service, supplemented by volunteer aid and a longer period of probationary oversight, are desirable.

SOME GENERAL DEFICIENCIES.

(a) Too indiscriminate use.

While the probation system is of undoubted value and in our opinion is capable of much wider acceptance and more extended use than at present, in common with other human institutions it is not free from dangers. These dangers arise in the main from a disposition to regard the newest thing in social advance as a panacea, and consequently to apply it without due discrimination. Probation is a valuable institution; but it is not in all cases, even of juvenile offenders, a proper substitute for commitment. To fail to place the offender under a vigorous corrective discipline when such course is clearly indicated by the circumstances of the offense and the previous character and present disposition of the offender, is an evil only less serious than to imprison the offender when the circumstances would justify his release upon probation.

(b) Attenuated probation.

The probation system may easily become so attenuated as to be of little value If the probation officer has an excessively large