Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

petitive examination is, in our opinion, more serious.

While

certain qualifications-knowledge of the law, for instance-can easily be tested by written examination, the usefulness of the probation officer, his real effectiveness in dealing with offenders, will depend most of all upon his own personality. The manner, refinement, aptitude and force of character and other personal qualities of the officer will largely determine his usefulness. certainly is impossible to test these adequately by written examination.

It

The Commission has been strongly impressed by the testimony given by the chief examiner of the State Civil Service Commission as to the method by which competitive examinations have been conducted by that Commission for certain positions in State charitable institutions which have some features in common with the position of probation officer. For these positions the written examination has been wholly omitted, or counted as only a small factor in the result. The examiners have personally interviewed each candidate in the presence of a stenographer, questioning him in regard to pertinent matters, forming an opinion as to his personal qualities, and have conducted inquiries by correspondence with previous employers, and other sources of information; and on the basis of all these considerations have given the candidate a rating which determines his position upon an eligible list. The assistance of experts, having special knowledge of the subject, has been secured. In a notable instance, the examination for State librarian, the ratings were made by the librarian of Columbia University and the librarian of the Congressional Library. While this system assumes complete integrity on the part of the examiners, because it permits the identity of the candidate to be known to them, and therefore

opens greater possibilities of abuse than the written examination (which is not wholly free from such possibilities), it does take into account the very important factors of personal qualifications which the written examination cannot reach.

In New York city provision was made in 1904 for salaries for probation officers in the magistrates courts, by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, but inasmuch as the position had not been classified in the exempt class, the salaries could not be paid unless and until the appointments were made from an eligible list or the position exempted from competition. The Municipal Civil Service Commission adopted a resolution placing the position of probation officer in the exempt class. After consideration of the subject for some time, the State Civil Service Commission, whose approval is required to make the resolution effective, disapproved the resolution, partly, at least, for the reason that the investigation being made by this Commission would naturally include a study of this subject.

While this Commission was conducting its inquiries, the Municipal Civil Service Commission, at the request of the city magistrates of the Second Division, conducted a noncompetitive examination for probation officer under the provisions of Rule 12, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Service Rules of New York city. Under this rule, in the absence of an eligible list, the candidates may be appointed after a noncompetitive examination for a period not to exceed sixty days and not more than ten days beyond the date on which an eligible list shall be established. Shortly thereafter it announced a competitive examination for the position of probation officer and special parole officer, to be held on February 9th. This Commission addressed a com

munication to the Municipal Civil Service Commission suggesting that inasmuch as this Commission would shortly submit a report to the Legislature upon the methods of selecting probation officers and would doubtless propose legislation on the subject, the competitive examination for the position should be postponed. This the Municipal Commission declined to do. This Commission thereupon addressed a communication to the Municipal Civil Service Commission recommending that the proposed examination be in part at least oral in order to take into account the personality of the candidates, and that the assistance of experts be secured in framing the questions and rating the answers. Neither of these suggestions was accepted by the Municipal Civil Service Commission. The examination was held on the date announced; some five hundred candidates took the examination. The papers will not be rated and the results made known until some time after this report is submitted. We desire to place on record our conviction that a competitive examination held as this one was held does not afford a fair test of the qualifications of the candidates, nor a fair test of the practicability of a competitive examination for this posi tion. We have therefore included in our proposed legislation a provision that, at the request of the Municipal Probation Commission of the city of New York, any eligible list in existence at any time within one month after the appointment of such Commission, shall be canceled by the Municipal Civil Service Commission, and that in all future examinations for this position due weight shall be given to the personality of the candidates by the medium of an oral examination, and that the assistance of experts shall be secured in the framing of questions and the rating of answers.

To sum up, this Commission is of the opinion that a written examination alone affords a very inadequate test of the qualifications of probation officers, and that a written examination conducted by examiners who have had neither practical experience nor extended knowledge of probation work, is almost certain to result unfavorably. The Commission is of the opinion that a fair test should be made of the practicability of selecting salaried probation officers by competitive examination, such examination being held on the lines above indicated, namely that the assistance of persons having extended knowledge of the principles and practice of probation work be secured and that the examination be in part at least oral, so as to take account of the personality and aptitude of the candidates. If after a fair trial of the competitive system as above outlined it shall be found that the resulting eligible lists are not of such character as to be generally regarded as satisfactory by those who are concerned in the development of probation work, the Commission believes that there should then be no hesitation in exempting the position. If after a fair test the competitive examination is found to be impracticable, it is better, in our opinion, to run the risk of partisan or personal appointments than to invite the certainty of failure by making necessary the appointment from an eligible list of persons who do not possess proper qualifications for probation work. In case probation officers are not selected as the result of competitive examination, the Commission believes that such appointments should be subject to approval by some State authority. In Colorado, appointments of salaried probation officers by local authorities, are subject to the approval of the State Board of Charities. This provision appears to have worked satisfactorily for that State, and we recommend its adoption, in case

it should be found impracticable after fair trial to make such appointments from eligible lists prepared as the result of a properly conducted competitive examination.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

The recommendations of the Commission, based upon the conditions of fact set forth in this report and the opinions expressed above as to the merits and defects of existing practices, are as follows:

1. That in each city of the first class there shall be established an unpaid Probation Commission in general charge of probation work within such cities, each such Board to have the power of appointment and removal of probation officers, salaried and otherwise, and to have authority to establish general rules and regulations concerning the duties of probation officers; such general rules and regulations, however, not to supersede in any particular case any terms or conditions imposed by the court in suspending sentence in that particular case.

2. That the Probation Commission in the city of New York shall consist of seven members, appointed by the mayor, for terms of one, two, three, four, five, six and seven years, with subsequent appointments for terms of seven years each. That the presidents of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, United Hebrew Charities, and New York Prison Association shall submit a list of names to the mayor of not less than twice the number of places to be filled, from which such appointments may be made.

3. That in the city of Buffalo the Probation Commission shall consist of five members; that the presidents of the Society of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »