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

St. Vincent de Paul, Federated Jewish Charities, and Charity Organization Society shall jointly submit a list of names of not less than twice the number of places to be filled, from which such appointment may be made.

4. That the mayor of each city of the second class shall appoint an unpaid Probation Commission of fiye members, appointments being made for terms of one, two, three, four and five years, and subsequent appointments for five years.

5. That each Probation Commission in a city of the first class shall appoint two chief probation officers, one of whom shall be the chief probation officer for adult probationers, and, under the general direction of the Probation Commission, shall have general charge of the work of all other probation officers in such city having adult probationers under their supervision; and the other of whom shall be the chief probation officer for juvenile probationers, and, under the general direction of the Probation Commission, shall have general charge of the work of all other probation officers in such city having juvenile probationers under their charge; and as many salaried assistant probation officers in each department as it may deem necessary. That the salaried probation officers appointed for audit probation work shall, while so assigned, receive under their supervision only adult probationers, and that the salaried probation officers appointed for juvenile probationers shall, while so assigned, receive under their care only juvenile probationers.

6. That each Probation Commission in a city of the first class shall have power to appoint and remove volunteer probation officers who may be agents of the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Humane Societies, or officers or agents

of any charitable or benevolent institution, society or association, or private citizens.

7. That in cities of the second class each Probation Commission shall have power to appoint and remove a salaried chief probation officer, and may appoint salaried assistant probation officers, and may also appoint unpaid probation officers who may be officers of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or of any charitable or benevolent institution, society or association, or private citizens: Provided, however, that any such Board, in its discretion, may appoint two salaried chief probation officers, one of whom shall have general charge of the probation work for adults and the other of probation work for children.

8. That in all counties not containing a city of the first or second class, the county judge shall appoint a probation officer; that in such counties, containing a city of more than 25,000 inhabitants, such probation officer shall receive a salary to be fixed by the county judge but not to be less than $600 per annum nor more than $1,200 per annum; that in other counties the county judge shall determine whether the probation officer shall receive a salary, and if a salary is paid, shall fix the amount thereof, but not to exceed $600 per annum. This will require salaried probation officers in the counties of Broome, Cayuga, Chautauqua, Chemung, Dutchess, Jefferson, Niagara, Orange, and Ulster, containing the following cities, respectively: Binghamton, Auburn, Jamestown, Elmira, Poughkeepsie, Watertown, Niagara Falls, Newburgh and Kingston, all of which, according to the State census of 1905, have a population in excess of 25,000. That the county judge shall have authority to appoint unpaid probation officers, who may be private citizens or officers