8. How much do we know of the boy's environment, associates, interests; how much should we know; how can we best help in the choice of these? Leader: Bernard J. Fagan, Probation-officer-in-charge, Children's Court, Manhattan. Speaker: Dr. John W. Davis, Director, Bureau of Attendance, New York City. Discussion opened by probation officers: Joseph S. Medler, Children's Court, Brooklyn; D. F. Ryan, Children's Court, Bronx; Morris Marcus, Children's Court, Manhattan; Patrick Mallon, Children's Court, Brooklyn. Sub-topics: FRIDAY, APRIL 30 ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION Work with Women and Girls 1. Employment-methods of securing it. What employments are suitable; which should be discouraged? 2. Recreation - beneficial and harmful. 3. The protection of girls on the streets and in public places. 4. Holding parents to their responsibility in improper guardianship cases. 5. Girls who have comfortable and respectable homes who nevertheless go wrong. 6. The treatment of the sub-normal girl. 7. How can the co-operation of father, mother, other relatives and friends be best obtained? 8. How much do we know of the girl's environment, associates and interests; how much should we know; how can we help in the choice of these? 9. Methods which have been found successful in reforming or improving the immoral girl or woman. Leader: Mrs. Mortimer Menken, President, Sisterhood of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue. Discussion opened by probation officers: Mrs. Julia M. O'Connor, Children's Court, Manhattan; Mrs. E. A. Hardoncourt, Magistrates' Courts, Second Division. 1. Methods which have succeeded best in dealing with and influencing the non-supporting husband. 2. Cases which have failed and the reasons. 3. Finding the cause of family disagreement. From whom should information be sought? 4. Reconciliations between husband and wife; when should they be sought; how can they be brought about? 5. How often and when should the probation officer visit the homes of probationers and how may such visits be made of the greatest practical value? 6. How can the probation officer help and advise regarding the management of household affairs; the expenditure of the family income? 7. How can the probation officer aid in making the home more attractive? 8. Under what circumstances and with what precautions should the probation officer seek charitable aid for the family? 9. How can we help parents to exercise their responsibilities toward their children? Leader: Frank L. Graves, Magistrates' Courts, Second Division. Speaker: Francis McLean, Secretary, American Association of Societies for the Organization of Charity. Discussion by probation officers: William J. McElroy, Magistrates' Courts, First Division; Mrs. Sallie A. Heineman, Children's Court, the Bronx; Daniel J. White, Children's Court, Manhattan; Miss Anne V. Roome, Children's Court, Richmond; Lionel Julian, Magistrates' Courts, Second Division. FRIDAY, MAY 7 GENERAL MEETING Needs and Hindrances in the Development of Effective Probation Work Remarks by the Chairman. Charles L. Chute, Secretary of the State Probation Commission. Addresses. Judge Louis D. Gibbs, County Court of Bronx; Arthur W. Towne, Superintendent, Brooklyn Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. General Discussion. (The following topics as bearing upon the general topic of the evening have been suggested by various probation officers for discussion. The probation officers are urged to bring up for discussion. other matters in relation to their work which may have caused difficulty. A free and helpful discussion is anticipated.) Suggested Topics: 1. The part taken by the probation officer in the right selection of probation cases. 2. The distribution of cases among officers serving in the same court. 3. Office organization; the centralized plan. 4. The relation of probation officers to volunteer workers. 5. How may the reporting of probationers be made most valuable? 6. The length of probation periods. 7. Treatment of violations of probation. When should a warrant be asked from the court? When should commitment be recommended? 8. Judicial commitments of the feeble-minded. 9. Are any changes in the laws governing probation desirable? 10. Meetings and organizations of probation officers. 11. How can the State Probation Commission be of more assistance to the probation officers in New York City? PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH SERIES OF NEW YORK CITY CONFERENCES ON PROBATION, HELD IN THE CITY HALL FIRST SESSION Thursday Evening, April 22, 1915 MR. CHARLES L. CHUTE, SECRETARY OF THE STATE PROBATION COMMISSION: Our first speaker and the chairman of the evening is Dean Paul Fuller, whom many of you will recognize as an old friend of probation work. I will now turn the meeting over to him. HON. PAUL FULLER, FORMER DEAN, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: This new committee on arrangements, to which the Probation Commission has turned over the meeting, did me a great honor by calling me here. I am sensible that this is a recognition of the sympathy I have in this movement and I am well aware I have been able to give it little else. I can find nothing to say except to assure you that probation has already justified itself. In its very infancy it has shown its power for good; it has survived that perilous, seething period of experiment, and it has come to stay. How rapidly it will grow, how efficient it will become, how many it will rescue from the wilderness of wrong-doing into which one false step may plunge them, must depend largely upon the entire cooperation of the probation officer with the judge and of the judge with the probation officer. I have no fear of the latter; sometimes I have a little fear of the former. You have the best assurance of this cooperation and interest in the presence here to-night of Judge Swann, whose long experience on the bench has taught him to temper judgment with mercy without overturning the scales of justice. HOW THE PROBATION OFFICER MAY BECOME A MORE EFFECTIVE AID TO THE COURT HON. EDWARD SWANN, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS: I will address myself to-night more to probation as it has reference to the adult offender than to probation with reference to the juvenile delinquent. While the methods probably would dovetail very much one within the other, nevertheless the subject is too vast and important for treatment in one night. Probation has three branches, or if Caesar were to express it, he would say, all probation is divided into three parts. The first part is the most important, and that is the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation is for the purpose of making a diagnosis of the case, and therein lies the future success or failure of that particular parole. A physician has to make inquiries, in fact, cross-examine his patient in order to discover and make a diagnosis of the disease. The probationer turned over to you and put in your hands is morally diseased. Very frequently he has committed crime more than once, and has been convicted at least once, but that does not always mean he is a first offender. It seems an opinion prevails among the youth of the city that they are entitled to commit at least one crime and not go to prison. Scarcely a week passes but I receive letters from young men and women who are pleased to call themselves "first offenders," but upon investigation, I find they are not first offenders and that they have been for a series of months, perhaps several years, committing crime, but it is the first time they have been convicted. That does not constitute a first offender in my opinion and I never proceed on that theory. We might permit one who has fallen through sudden temptation to step aside twice, but certainly not a series of times. When the matter is turned over to the probation officer, the first thing is a preliminary examination. You, as it were, might be styled the physician to the diseased morals of the young man. It is necessary to make a very thorough investigation of his character, past history, and past performances, and if you fail in that regard, then your future work is apt to be a failure. If it is a hit or miss style you apply to the preliminary investigation, you render very little service to the judge. You will remember I have been requested to address this audience with reference to the greater efficiency of the probation officer with reference to the good he may perform for the judge's sake and as an adjunct to that extent of the bench. I find that some probation officers content themselves, and I am going to speak plainly, by only going to the city prison and asking |