mission show that many women who have been confirmed offenders for years have been placed on probation.

2. The police probation officers who, except for the cases of one magistrate in the borough of Manhattan, have charge of all male offenders on probation in the borough of Manhattan, possess, with some notable exceptions, few or none of the peculiar qualifications needed for their work. The extent to which their services are utilized for real probation work varies greatly, but it is our opinion that in the majority of cases these police probation officers do practically no probation work. They are simply additional court officers. An extreme case, perhaps, is that of one of these police probation officers, whose statements before the Commission show that he had only fourteen cases under his care during a period covering nine months, of whom only nine remained on probation at the date of the examination, of whom only one required visiting, and this one offender has been visited only twice, as nearly as the officer could remember. The officer was supposed to devote from one-third to one-half of each month to the visitation of those under his care. From the records of the police officers who have been detailed as probation officers, the Commission is satisfied that most of them are men who have been selected by reason of favoritism, and who, before securing this detail, have, as a rule, enjoyed other details relieving them from the more onerous duties of the ordinary policeman. The police officer, as a rule, has no expectation that offenders will reform. His chief duty is the enforcement of the law-repression, not reformation. He has little conception of what probation work means, and, as a rule, little or no aptitude for it. We are glad to state that these remarks do not apply to a few of the police probation

officers, who do excellent work. Aside from these exceptions, the Commission is firmly convinced that the detail of ten or twelve members of the police force of the city of New York to so-called probation work accomplishes no good purpose, is a waste of public funds, diminishes unnecessarily the force available for proper police work, and hinders the development of real probation work in these courts. That probation officers are under special and constant temptations and are very frequently offered money and other considerations, is admitted. In our opinion, police probation officers in these courts are more likely to be drawn into improper practices, leading to the protection of vicious characters than civilians would be.

The women probation officers in the magistrates' courts in the city of New York have up to this time received no salaries for their work. They were in some cases selected upon recommendation of charitable or religious organizations and were originally appointed to do missionary work rather than what is ordinarily considered probation work. They have labored under many disadvantages, chief among these, perhaps, a failure on the part of the magistrates to appreciate the real opportunities of the probation system, and either an unwillingness to use it at all or its indiscriminate use for many cases, to which it has no proper application. Some of them have, therefore, had very little to do so far as actual probation work is concerned; others have been overwhelmed with cases for whom little or nothing effective could be done. There has been no uniformity of method, no adequate system of visiting probationers at their homes, or securing adequate information in regard to their manner of life. The system of requiring reports from the probationers has been more or less perfunctorily administered, and many of them

have, on the slightest pretexts, been permitted to make reports in writing instead of in person. While undoubtedly good results have been accomplished in individual cases, the work, as a whole, must be pronounced ineffective. Not all of these probation officers possess the proper qualifications for such work; breadth of view, education, systematic methods are in some instances lacking.

A special inquiry was made by the Commission in regard to women placed on probation from the Fourth (Yorkville) and Second (Jefferson Market) district courts, during the period from June 1 to December 15, 1905, for disorderly conduct, soliciting or kindred offenses. The total included were as follows: Fourth district

Second district

94 47

Total....

141

Of these 141 cases, the addresses were found to be deficient or

leaving only 104 cases as to whom information could be secured.

The statements made by the women themselves concerning the regularity of their reports to the probation officer are as follows:

Fourth district.-Never reported, 44 persons, or 66 per cent.; reported from 1 to 4 times in person or writing, 10 persons, or 15 per cent.; reported regularly, 6 persons, or 9 per cent.; would not give the information, 6 persons.

Second district.-Never reported, 21 persons, or 55 per cent. of the total; reported from 1 to 4 times in person or in writing,

11 persons, or 29 per cent.; reported regularly, 6 persons, or 16 per cent.

Fifteen of the Fourth district cases and fourteen of the Second district cases stated that they had previously been arrested more than twice, and nine offenders stated that they had been arrested from eighteen to sixty-one times.

The statements made by them as to the length of time during which they had led an openly immoral life were as follows:

Fourth district.-Less than one year, 4; one to two years, 22; three years or more, 25.

Second district.-Less than one year, none; one to two years, 10; three to six years, 16; more than six years, 12.

In considering the above statements, the degree of credibility to be accorded to such persons must be borne in mind. Many of their statements, however, were subsequently confirmed by the probation officers, under examination. There can be no mistaking the significance of the fact that all of these women, with one exception, were seen either soliciting on the streets or frequenting Raines Law hotels. With few exceptions the women stated that they had not been visited by a probation officer, and that no steps had been taken to punish them for failure to report, or for resuming their professional immorality during the period of parole. It is evident that with this class of offenders probation has had little or no meaning, with possible rare exceptions. It is more than likely that magistrates have yielded to the requests of lawyers to place such women on probation when a commitment would have been for the public interests.

There are no adequate court records concerning persons placed on probation in the magistrates' courts. While the probation officers keep some records concerning the conduct of persons

under their care, the fullness of such records depending on the individual practice of the probation officer, these are not court records. The court record contains practically no entries subsequent to the release of the person upon probation, except the fact that at some future date he was committed or discharged. There is little or nothing to guide the magistrate in case of a subsequent arrest of the same offender.

The usual periods of probation are much too short to secure permanent results. This is true, practically of all probation work in this State, both of adults and of juvenile offenders, and will be considered more at length in a later paragraph.

The rotation of the male probation officer with the magistrate is, in our opinion, undesirable. It takes the probation officer to all parts of the city, places under his care offenders residing in all parts of the city, requires them to travel long distances in order to report to the probation officer, makes extremely difficult any supervision of the offender in his home by the probation officer, and interferes with a proper system of records. While we can understand the natural desire of a magistrate to be accompanied by a probation officer of his own selection, we believe this system of rotation to be incompatible with any effective development of probation work in these courts. This system also tends to convert probation officers into personal attendants of the magistrates.

The Commission regrets to report that many magistrates still continue to impose short sentences, although the natural effect of the wise application of the probation system would be to render unnecessary, except in rare cases, the use of the short sentence with its recognized evils. The practice of sending offenders to prison for five or ten days has proved of little value