Part 2

Each of these systems involves two kinds of functions: first, the placing of the offenders on probation or parole; second, the supervising and aiding of the offenders while on probation or parole. The first function, which is judicial, is discharged, in cases of probation, by the trial court or judge; and in cases of parole, either by the committing court or more commonly by the institutional authorities or a special body known as a board of parole. This paper does not discuss the first function, that is to say, the placing of persons on probation or parole. It confines itself to the second function--the supervising and aiding of offenders after they are put on probation or parole. The judge, the institutional authorities, or the parole board writes the prescription, but the long period of nursing and helping the patient to convalesce is borne by the probation or parole officer. This latter work is carried on, in cases of probation, by the probation officer, and in cases of parole by the parole officer. Theirs is the duty of watching over those on probation or parole, and of befriending, counselling, admonishing, and otherwise aiding them to become orderly, useful citizens.

The purposes of probationary and parole oversight, as well as the duties of probation and parole officers, as has already been intimated, are substantially alike. Whether a person is on probation from a court, or on parole from an institution, the same kind of inquiries must be made from his relatives, friends, neighbors and employer in order to ascertain whether his conduct is satisfactory; and the same sort of moral influences and constructive measures must be brought into play to overcome his evil habits and to inculcate ambition, right motives and proper conduct. Both probation and parole officers should maintain the same sort of friendly, helpful attitude toward those under their care, and should use similar case methods.

When we pause to consider the resemblances of these two systems, and that practically the same things are being done by these two sets of officers, does it not suggest the possibility and desirability of a closer relationship between the two systems? The query naturally arises--Why not use the same officers for both duties? This brings us to the principal question which this paper will discuss: Should the relationship between probation and parole officers be one of entirely separate and independent action, or one of co-operation; or should both probationary and parole oversight be carried on by the same set of officers?

This question has not received the attention it deserves. Persons interested in the extension and improvement of probation, and those interested in the development of parole, have been so much occupied in establishing and strengthening the one system or the other, that they have not taken time to be sufficiently concerned about the desirable relationship between the two systems. The probation system in most places has developed, under permissive legislation, more or less sporadically, as a local experiment or expedient. The probation officer, or officers, in any one court have usually had no legal or organic relation to the probation work in other parts of the state. Like Topsy, the probation system has just “growed.” State-wide uniformity and co-ordination have been an after-thought. As for the parole system, its growth has been equally uneven, sporadic and for the most part without any comprehensive, well-articulated plan. One institution and then another has gradually adopted parole methods and employed parole officers, but without much, if any, regard for other parole systems or for the probation system. Year by year these two systems have grown up side by side, and the numbers of probation officers and of parole officers have increased. There are now nearly 1,000 paid probation officers in the United States, and the number of parole officers is probably in the hundreds and still multiplying. It is undoubtedly only a question of time before both of these systems will come into general use throughout the country. Is it not pertinent, therefore, for probation and parole workers to take account of stock and compare notes, and to inquire whether these two systems should not develop a closer relationship.

Before discussing the relationship that should exist between probation officers and parole officers, it will be well to consider how each set of officers should be organized to secure the best results. Suppose we consider first, the probation system. That organization of probation officers is best which best promotes (a) the supervising of the actions of persons on probation; (b) the improving of their conduct and condition; and (c) the informing of the court as to whether those on probation observe its conditions and are entitled to remain at liberty. In the time at my disposal I can only state rather dogmatically some of the essentials which in my judgment the probation system should possess in order to fulfil these purposes.

First, those who act as probation officers should possess the right personal qualifications. They should be intelligent, devoted, firm, sympathetic, tactful, discreet, observant, energetic and resourceful. This is demanding a great deal, but it is the price of success.

Second, the probation officer should sustain the right time relations to those on probation. Long probationary periods with frequent interviews are necessary. Perfunctory reports by probationers to the probation officer are insufficient. The officer must visit the homes and environments of his probationers often, and labor with them long enough and earnestly enough to produce real effects. A paid probation officer as a rule should not be expected to look after more than about fifty new cases during a year, or at any one time. Volunteers should have no more cases than their free time permits them to attend to adequately, which is usually not more than one or two. The overloading of probation officers with more cases than they have time to attend to, is disastrous to efficiency.

Third, each probation officer should have the right space relations to those on probation. He should be on the spot to discover personally what his probationers are doing, and to attend to their needs. Therefore he should limit his work to a relatively small territory. In most places the service of each probation officer is wisely confined to a single court, or to a single city or county. In Ohio, Indiana, and certain other states, however, the adult probation law provides for itinerant probation officers, attached to state penal or reformatory institutions, and required to travel considerable distances in order to visit those on probation scattered in different parts of the State. Such traveling officers are probably compelled to rely largely on written reports and “absentee treatment,” and their work must be correspondingly unsatisfactory. Effectiveness in probation work requires that the area covered by each probation officer shall be small, and that the officer shall live in the community where he works.

Fourth, probation officers in different courts, so far as possible, should avoid overlapping each other’s territory. New Jersey, New York and certain other states have organized the probation service in rural districts with the county as the unit area, and with one or more paid probation officers available to serve in all courts throughout the county. Were each court of a town, village or small city to have its own probation officer, the officers as a rule would be without enough cases to occupy their time, and they would be underpaid and inexperienced. In all probability some would be paid on a fee basis, which is objectionable. Through the use of county probation officers the workers are more expert, and the quality of the work is uniform throughout the county.

Fifth, there should be in each state some state board or commission empowered to inspect, supervise, improve and co-ordinate the work of probation officers throughout the state. Three states--New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont--have state probation commissions, and bills for the establishment of similar bodies were introduced this year in the legislatures of Illinois and Pennsylvania. These commissions do such things as these: they collect reports from probation officers, inspect their work, study methods, recommend improvements and uniformity, supply forms for records, hold conferences of probation officers and of judges, aid in securing the appointment of proper officers and the appropriation of proper salaries, publish statistics and literature, investigate complaints, bring about co-ordination among courts and officers in different parts of the state, and promote desirable legislation. Such commissions, or in the smaller states a probation bureau in some other state department, can be of the greatest value in extending and strengthening the probation service.

Turning next to the organization of the parole system, I ask your judgment as to whether these five principles should not hold equally with respect to the organization of parole officers.

In the first place, we will undoubtedly agree that parole officers like probation officers, should be selected with special reference to their personal fitness for the work. They should have a social sense, and be bent not on spying or intimidating, but on helping. For the same reasons that the dilletante and the policeman fail in probation work, such persons will fail in parole work.

Second, the parole officer should be spared from having more cases assigned to his care than his time permits him to attend to as he should. If fifty probation cases are usually enough to occupy a probation officer, an equal number of parole cases is probably as many as the average parole officer can properly look after at any one time.

Third, the parole officer, like the probation officer, should work in a comparatively small area. This condition is met by the parole system of few institutions--chiefly by those which parole their inmates only in the immediate vicinity of the institution. The parole officers doing parole work for state institutions are usually attached to a single institution, and are expected to look after persons paroled from that institution to widely scattered parts of the state--sometimes throughout the entire state.

For instance, in New York State (which has an area of 47,620 square miles) Sing Sing Prison has one parole officer supposed to cover the entire state for that prison, and Auburn and Clinton Prisons each have a parole officer supposed to do likewise for his respective institution. During 1910, from the eleven state correctional institutions for adults and training schools for children, there were released on parole 3,435 persons. To look after these 3,435 persons as well as those continued on parole from the preceding year, the state employed only 16 parole officers. Each officer served for only one institution. The only state institutions in New York which do not use traveling parole officers are Elmira and Napanoch Reformatories for young men. Persons paroled from these two reformatories to live in New York City are placed under the oversight of agents of the Prison Association or other organizations; those paroled from these two institutions to live in Buffalo are put under an agent of the Charity Organization Society, and those paroled to other localities are placed under the surveillance of police officials. It has been intended, however, to employ traveling parole officers for these two institutions, and for this purpose a civil service examination has been held. Persons paroled from the other nine state institutions, as a rule, are placed under a traveling parole agent attached to the respective institution. The areas covered by these different traveling parole officers range from a few counties to the entire state.[2]

A parole officer required to travel over wide areas cannot know local conditions; he cannot see those on parole often enough; he cannot keep track of their actions; he cannot aid or restrain them when desirable. What sort of supervision or reformatory influence can be exercised by a parole officer who, on account of the wide territory he has to cover, may be able to see a certain John Smith, who is on parole, only once in every two, three or four months? Some parole officers do not see those under their care even as often as this. The officers are forced to rely on written reports, which in many cases are utterly undependable. Parole work at long range and by mail order is necessarily defective and unsatisfactory. Furthermore, the use of traveling officers means large traveling expenses. Each parole officer should preferably confine his work to a single city or single county.

Taking the country as a whole, I fear that the chief criticism to be made of the organization of parole systems is that most parole officers are expected to cover too large areas and to look after too many cases.

This brings us to the fourth principle which we noted as wise to follow in the organization of probation work, and which it would seem, should apply also in parole work. We should avoid unnecessary overlapping. If only one parole officer is needed in a community, why have several? Under the present system in New York State, if each of five institutions--(each with its own parole officer)--paroles a person to the same locality, it would be necessary from time to time for five different parole officers, each attached to a different institution, to go to that locality, each officer to see and inquire about a different person on parole. How much simpler and more effective it would be to have one officer in that vicinity who could look after persons paroled to there from any and all institutions. Volunteers cannot be depended upon; we must have paid officers. Each institution, however, cannot provide a special paid parole officer in each locality. Economy would require that so far as possible all institutions use the same parole officer.

Now if it is wasteful and undesirable to employ two or more probation officers to serve in a territory where one could do the work, and if it is wasteful and undesirable to employ two or more parole officers to serve in a territory where one could do the work, why should we employ in a given area one probation officer to supervise persons on probation, and one or more parole officers to perform practically the same kind of work with respect to persons on parole, provided the work of all these officers could be done equally well by only one officer? In most communities there are not enough parole cases to make it practical to employ a parole officer to deal exclusively with parole cases. In fact, most small places have few, if any, persons on parole at a given time. The local city or county probation officers are already there, and could generally take over such parole cases as require their attention. Except in the few very large centers where there may be enough parole cases to require the entire time of a parole officer, the most rational way, in my judgment, of securing the desirable oversight of those on probation and parole, and of avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort, is to use the local probation officers for both sets of offenders.

Let me summarize very briefly some of the facts already stated, and point out also one or two additional reasons why such a union seems wise. You will recall that we agreed (1) that the purposes and methods of the probationary and parole supervision are similar; (2) that the same qualifications are needed in parole officers as in probation officers; (3) that the use of local officers for parole work would secure closer and more helpful oversight of those on parole; and (4) that such a combination would avoid unnecessary travel and duplication of work and would be a source of economy. In addition (5) both probation and parole officers often deal with the same persons. An offender who at one time comes before a court to be investigated by a probation officer, or who is placed by the court under the care of the probation officer, may at another time be on parole. Furthermore, other members of his family may at times be on probation or parole. (6) It is to the advantage of the local community to have an offender who is on parole in its midst, properly supervised by a local officer. (I have not time to discuss by whom these local probation-parole officers should be appointed and paid; but since local social conditions have usually contributed to the delinquency which has resulted in the commitment of offenders to institutions and so made them subjects for parole, and since they have been sentenced by local courts, it seems as proper that the local community, if deemed necessary, should furnish the parole officer, as that it should provide its own judge or probation officer.)

This plan of doubling up these two lines of work implies of course that there shall be an adequate number of probation officers, and that they shall be of the right sort. It is probable, however, that the increased importance of the officers, and the increased amount of work, which would result from such a change, would tend to secure the appointment of a more nearly adequate number of officers. Such a plan need not of necessity make any change in the matter of reports by the parole officers, to those in authority, or in the control over the parole officers.

Now I am well aware that objections will be raised to any such scheme of combining probation and parole work in the same set of officers. Let us look briefly at certain of the objections that may be offered. (1) Naturally many institutional authorities will probably desire to appoint their own parole officers, and to have them directly responsible to the institution. Should a personal desire, however, be allowed to stand in the way of efficiency? Should not that method of appointment be followed which will bring about the best results? (2) Another objection that may be raised by some institutional authorities is that parole officers should be attached to particular institutions in order to understand properly the institutional methods and aims. What is the benefit of such knowledge, however, if the parole officers are traveling about and can see the persons on parole so infrequently that they cannot apply the knowledge? (3) Again, the institutional authorities may contend that the standards of probation officers in judging whether persons on parole should be recommitted are less strict than those of traveling parole officers. Any such difference of standard, if it exists, is more than offset by the advantages of having local officers. At any rate it is a matter which could be adjusted by properly educating the probation and parole officers. In the long run the standards of the probation officers are probably just as likely to be right as those of the parole officers. (4) In the next place a critic might ask what would be done with females on parole. Of course we all recognize that girls or women on either probation or parole should be placed under officers of their own sex. If the local paid probation officers were all men, and there were cases of girls or women on parole, the situation could be met in the same way as if there were females on probation; namely, by securing a paid woman probation officer for part or whole time service, or, if that were impracticable, by enlisting the services of one or more women volunteers. (5) Another objection would be the fear that children on probation or parole would be harmed by being mixed with adults on probation or parole. The problem of separating children on parole from adults on parole is no more difficult than that of segregating children on probation from adults on probation. Likewise the keeping of parole cases apart from probation cases is only a matter of administration. Where there are enough children either on probation or parole to warrant the employment of officers exclusively for children, this should be done.

Wherever the parole work is being well done by officers devoting themselves wholly to parole cases, or by private agencies, I would not advise any change; but in most places very positive advantages would probably accrue from using local probation officers for both probation and parole cases. In New York State we have made a beginning in the direction of such a union of probation and parole. The Legislature of 1910 authorized probation officers to serve as parole officers, and a number of institutions have begun to avail themselves of the services of probation officers.

Fifth, benefits corresponding to those of state supervision over probation officers can be had through state supervision over parole officers. Regardless of whether parole work is carried on by probation officers or by special parole officers, the state should exercise general oversight over their work. For the sake of economy, co-ordination and efficiency this oversight can well be vested in the same state body that supervises probation officers. In this connection it may be mentioned that Governor Dix of New York State has recently recommended that supervisory authority over parole officers be conferred upon the State Probation Commission, and that its title be changed to that of State Probation and Parole Commission.

The probation and parole systems have come to stay, but they must so improve their operations as to be able to stand the most rigorous examination by both friendly and hostile inquirers. The increased financial support which both systems need will come only as the systems prove that they are succeeding as they should. I doubt if the parole system can stand the scrutiny and cold analysis, which will some day be brought to bear on it, unless it operates through local officers. The most hopeful way of getting faithful, competent local parole officers in most places would seem to be through the use of probation officers. With proper state supervision over both systems there would seem to be every reason to believe that this scheme of combining probation and parole supervision can be worked out in a practical way, and to the advantage of each system.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Read at the National Conference of Charities and Correction in Boston in June, 1911.

[2] The nearest approach in New York State to the desirable restriction of the work of parole officers to a small area, is found in the parole work of the House of Refuge on Randall’s Island. Most of the boys paroled from this Institution live in New York City. Many boys from this institution, however, are paroled to other parts of the State: and in such instances the institutional parole officers may be unable to visit them oftener than once in three months or so.

EVENTS IN BRIEF

[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of general interest, relating to the prison field and the treatment of the delinquent.]

_Adult Probation in Illinois._--Illinois has fallen into line by adopting an adult probation law. The measure went into effect on July 1. The law was drafted by a committee of the Civic Federation of Chicago, of which Prof. Charles R. Henderson was chairman. Since opposition had developed in previous sessions of the General Assembly to proposals for adult probation, it was deemed necessary to make the statute enacted this year very limited in its scope.

Another bill which passed and which was supported by the Civic Federation, was one increasing the number of state parole officers from 2 to 7. A general revision of the Illinois parole laws was contemplated by Prof. Henderson’s committee and bills were drafted with this in view, but owing to recent decisions of the Supreme Court, it seemed inadvisable to urge any such legislation at this session.

* * * * *