should have the benefit of such consideration. In the Judge Baker Foundation in Boston a large proportion of children before the juvenile court are given thorough physical examinations, their mental condition is carefully studied, and especially qualified investigators attached to the staff of the foundation gather the social data. All the information in a given case is then assembled and studied at a staff conference, and the diagnosis of the child's condition and the recommendation as to the kind of treatment needed is made by the director or his assistant.

Coordination of the trial and treatment of juvenile and family cases.The socialization of the courts dealing with children has pointed the need for the socialization of other courts, especially those dealing with family life in its various aspects. Frequently juvenile courts are given jurisdiction in cases involving adults contributing to the delinquency or neglect of children. This is held by many to be essential to successful juvenile court work.

There is a movement looking toward the coordination of the trial and treatment of juvenile and family cases, including desertion and nonsupport, contributing to delinquency or dependency, divorce, illegitimacy cases, adoption, and guardianship. The National Probation Association has gone on record in favor of such consolidation of court work touching closely the family life, holding that all these cases should be dealt with in much the same manner as children's cases. In the report of the committee of the National Probation Association on domestic relations courts in 1918, in which the case for the family court is strongly stated, the chairman emphasized the necessity for preserving the juvenile court organization. He states that "the principle of the juvenile court is the foundation upon which the family court must be constructed," and defines the relation of the juvenile court and the family court as follows:

The family court is not intended to limit or restrict the jurisdiction incident to juvenile courts. In fact, the juvenile court will become an integral part, or division, of the family court. By reason of the organization of family courts, we believe that the administration of the juvenile court will become more effective and significant and better understood not only by those connected with the juvenile court but by the public generally.

State supervision of juvenile court and probation work.-The State probation commissions of New York and Massachusetts have done notable work in supervising juvenile probation and standardizing and centralizing the work of the courts. In some other States there are supervising agencies of various types. Such activities contribute

1 Report of the committee on courts of domestic relations, in "Social Problems of the Courts," the annual report and proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1917, pp. 82-86. Albany, 1918.

2 Domestic Relations Courts. Report of the Committee by Hon. Charles W. Hoffman, judge of the Court of Domestic Relations of Cincinnati, chairman, in "The Social Work of the Courts," the annual report

greatly to the extension of the juvenile court organization, the maintenance of efficient probation service, the systematizing of the records, and the general application of the principles of the juvenile court movement.

Community cooperation.-The growth of the juvenile court has been to a great extent dependent upon the cooperation and assistance of other social agencies in the community. In many instances private effort has demonstrated the need for certain features, such as probation work, a method of detention, and child-study departments, which have later become a part of the regular organization, supported from public funds.

In many courts a definite method for cooperation with the community has been developed. Provision is made by law in a number of States for the establishment of county or other local boards which serve the court in an advisory and auxiliary capacity. In Alabama, for example, the juvenile law provides for the compulsory appointment of advisory boards for juvenile courts. The boards serve, without compensation, in a general advisory capacity. They may inspect institutions and make reports. In Minnesota the duties of the county boards of child welfare, working under the direction of the State board of control, include among others those of investigating cases, instituting proceedings, and giving the courts advice and assistance in all matters pertaining to the welfare of children.

In other States cooperating boards have been established without special statutory provision. Often State boards of charities or child welfare bureaus actively cooperate. A number of private societies doing protective work or child-placing give the courts valuable

assistance.

As the work of the juvenile court develops, some of the underlying causes and conditions of child delinquency and neglect become more evident. The results of intensive studies of individual children have indicated the varieties of provision which must be made. The need for the early recognition and treatment of abnormalities in the child's physical, mental, or moral development has been conclusively demonstrated. In this field the responsibility reverts to the home, the school, and the other social forces of the community. The adequate fulfillment of these obligations will result in the prevention of a considerable amount of juvenile delinquency and in the consequent reduction of the number of children who come before the

courts.

METHOD OF STUDY.

This study of courts in the United States hearing children's cases was conducted by means of questionnaires and correspondence. The limitations of the questionnaire method were recognized, but it offered the best means of securing general information in regard to the situation in the country as a whole, which would serve as a basis for further studies of the methods of dealing with children before the courts.

Information was sought from every court having authority to hear children's cases involving delinquency or neglect (with certain exceptions enumerated below), regardless of variations in definition. Courts in every State were addressed. The questionnaire, which was prepared by the Children's Bureau in collaboration with the committee on children's courts of the National Probation Association, and other experts in children's work, consisted of three parts, of which one was sent to judges, one to probation officers, and one to clerks. The questions addressed to judges were concerned with jurisdiction, organization and method of trial and the questions to probation officers, with methods of investigation and probation work. Those sent to clerks asked for the number of cases and the dispositions. When replies were not received, follow-up letters were sent.

It was difficult to prepare lists of judges and probation officers and sources varied greatly in the different States. In two States, lists were furnished by a State commission concerned with the supervision of probation work. Fairly complete lists were furnished in more than half the States by a correspondent of the National Probation Association or by some State board or official. In several States there was no list of judges hearing children's cases or of probation officers and no organization or official in the State kept such information currently. The names of judges for specified courts could sometimes be secured from a State manual or a tax list or from some State official. Often it was necessary to address a court without the name of the judge.

The type of court having jurisdiction in children's cases is, in general, clear from the laws of a State, but in several States it could not be determined from the law without further inquiry. For example, in four States the judge hearing children's cases was selected from several court systems in the county, but in certain counties no

1 See Questionnaire forms, Appendix B.

selections had been made and it was not possible to discover who was doing the work. In certain other States, one judge was assigned for juvenile cases from among a number of similar power. Or, again, concurrent powers were given two or more systems of courts, but not all these courts assumed jurisdiction in juvenile cases. It was frequently necessary to write to several courts in order to discover which one had assumed such jurisdiction.

Lists of probation officers were secured from State correspondents of the National Probation Association and others having special knowledge of probation and court work. Publications often gave the names of probation officers in charge. These returns were supplemented by names secured from the questionnaires addressed to judges; each judge was asked to state the number and kind of probation officers attached to his court. Some additional names were secured during the process of verification of the State analyses.

Every effort was made to avoid such misunderstandings and inaccuracies as are likely to occur in a questionnaire study. The three replies requested from each court (two if the court had no probation officer), though concerned with different phases of the work, served to supplement and clarify one another. Record forms and published or manuscript reports were secured when available, and were carefully compared with the questionnaire material. The summarizing of material was facilitated by explanatory letters sent to the bureau with many of the replies. Reports of State boards or commissions and of State institutions for juvenile delinquents and the provisions of the juvenile court laws were also studied. As opportunity offered, representative workers from various States were consulted in personal interviews, and the working summary of each State was submitted by correspondence to one or more persons in the State who were familiar with conditions.

The following courts were omitted from the study, though having jurisdiction over cases of delinquency and neglect: (1) Courts serving counties, districts, or cities, the population of which (in 1910) was less than 5,000; (2) a few courts serving counties formed since 1910; (3) justice of the peace or mayor's courts in small communities; (4) courts of appeal; (5) courts receiving juvenile cases through criminal indictment by a grand jury; and (6) courts with concurrent jurisdiction in juvenile cases but known not to be using this power. The replies received from the areas under 5,000 population showed little or no organization for juvenile court work. Most of the counties formed since 1910 were small, and information in regard to population was difficult to secure. However, 18 newly chartered counties in Idaho, comprising a large part of the State, have been included because they appeared to be doing work similar to that done elsewhere