boys paroled from our private institutions such as the New York Catholic Protectory which takes the same class of boys as the House of Refuge, and they do supervise the boys when discharged, but I have often found fault for not getting after the boys soon enough to ascertain whether he goes to school or not when discharged. The question is, does he do that, and I think the institution ought to have the opportunity to ascertain if the promises which were conditions of discharge are being kept, then when the boy is started regularly and his parents or guardians are normal people we let him alone, but there ought to be enough supervision to make certain that the boy did begin regular normal life. This business of following up boys and men is all wrong, but I think the institution owes it to itself and society to see that the promises made are fulfilled in the beginning, and of course we must assume that if the boy is well disposed the parents will do their part.

THE CHAIRMAN: I, for one, certainly disagree with Mr. Crapsey. I don't see how any man can supervise 400 boys and know what they are doing. I speak from an experience of seventeen years in institutional work, and I believe I know the boy not only inside the institution but outside; I want to know what the boy is doing while on parole. I will admit our institution does not and cannot supervise the boy as he should be supervised, and I am willing to go on record that no man, whether it be in the rural districts or in the city, can properly supervise and do constructive work with 400 boys.

SECRETARY CHUTE: Some of the points which have been raised can be bought together somewhat. Now, I think that the statement of Dr. Crapsey that the visits of the probation officer or parole officer - and I think their work is practically identical

are looked upon as an interference in the boy's life is wholly wrong. That strikes at the root of our probation work. The visits of a good probation officer or parole officer to the families of boys or men on probation do not interfere with his life if carried out in the proper way, and they are not so considered. I know from experience and investigation in the State that probationers welcome the visitation of good probation officers. The same thing

would apply to parole officers if they made visits. They are help ful to the probationers and are not necessarily suggestive of evil ti either the persons on probation of parole or to their friends, relatives or families.

Probation and parole come very closely together, as many boys and men are first probationers and then are placed on parole and then probationers again sometime. I was reading the other day that in one of our smaller cities the judges had instituted the plan of taking men convicted of public intoxication and who, are victims. of the disease of intoxication, and instead of putting them on probation they send them to the county jail for a few days to sober up and get the alcohol out of their system; then they put them on probation. Of course, that is parole after having served time in jail, but they need the same care as they would if they had not spent a short period in jail.

We hardly need to discuss the fact that persons on parole need supervision and need just as much supervision as probationers. We all believe we cannot give our probationers enough supervision and certainly the persons on parole are not given enough supervision with only twenty-five parole officers in the State and these covering overlapping territories. I believe that the solution has been suggested for sometime in this State. When it was first suggested that probation officers should handle parole cases in their districts, there was a good deal of opposition. I think that opposition has been dying away. I find that probtation officers not only are handling parole cases, but would be glad to handle more if they had time; the argument that probation officers haven't time in our cities to handle parole cases is no argument against their doing so. There should be more probation officers so they could handle cases in their localities. In urging that solution we might overlook the importance of the institutions keeping in touch with their cases. They should keep in touch with them, but I think they could do it through the local probation officers, and I believe it is going to work out in that way as it has in some other states. In Vermont probation and parole are correlated and the same officers handle parole and probation cases throughout the State. I believe that is the only practical solution and it is going to come. I don't think there should be any general differences of opinion among

L

the officers, probation or parole, here present, on the proposition that probationers and paroled persons need practically the same supervision and care and all the help we can give them.

MRS. MAX TAHLHEIMER, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, SYRACUSE: I was very much impressed this morning to hear from almost all the speakers about the overcrowding of the probation system. It reminded me of the street car that always seems to have room for one more. I have at present a number of persons on parole and I find they are very much easier to handle than those on probation, they have had the restraint of prison or institutional life; they seem to have learned the method of following their officer. There should be co-operation between the probation and parole officers. It is our duty to do whatever we can to help those who come to us in one way or the other.

MR. MOUNTENEY: It seems to me it would be impossible to have supervision over such a large number as Dr. Crapsey has under him, and for one, had such a large number been given me I would be hard pressed to find a way to do that work satisfactorily. I received two cases from Great Meadow Prison. They were paroled first to the Captain of Police and he turned them over to me, telling them that they must seek out the county probation officer. Be it said to the honor of those men, they sought me out. I went into Valhalla and found them in an Austrian saloon and went without a probation officer's badge or any authority to be there at all. I am getting no little pleasure in my dealing with those two men. They learned something in prison as Mrs. Thalheimer has suggested; they learned that certain men had certain authority, and they come to me as cheerfully, more cheerfully perhaps, than anyone else comes to me and they answer questions cheerfully; I believe they feel I am their friend as much as any person. I think we can do a certain amount of parole work and I am figuring on the day when we shall have an adequate force of women and men officers in Westchester County and when one officer can be delegated to take charge of the parole

cases.

MR. EVERSON: This idea of merging probation and parole came up in New York City recently. The idea of merging probation and parole is a very good one. At the present time, however, it seems to me as if it was rather inopportune. Both probation officers and parole officers have more cases than they can attend to. The authorities who appropriate the money for those two kinds of work think: "Well, now we can merge these two things; put them together and it won't cost any more than it will to run the probation system." That is he practical way in which the financial authorities look at it. It would not only have precluded the establishment of the proper probation and parole system, but would have ruined our present probation system. So in considering this question, let us be practical and be sure that we have these systems on a proper footing or be sure we have a plan of merging which will not injure either of the two systems.

I would like to speak on the possibility of having the records of the probation officer forwarded to the institution in case probationers be committed to institutions. I would suggest that each institution furnish to each court from which they receive children, a supply of blanks with proper spaces for all the information wanted about the child when the child enters the institution.

MR. MANNING: Relative to the placing of children on parole under probation officers. When we abandoned the idea of four walls please do not misunderstand me; four walls are necessary for a certain type of delinquents and I approve of a certain class of boys being confined in a walled institution - but the plan and intention of our institution in abandoning four walls was that these children were the result of circumstances; that they had never lived as normal boys live, and that the State of New York was to provide a normal home for them with the view that if they lived under normal conditions they would be normal boys. The biggest percentage of our boys are the result of misdirected energies. We have two types, the wornout American family, physically and mentally degenerated, and another type which are, to use a term quoted in Dr. Crapsey's report to me, "progressive criminals". - boys who are absolutely normal in every respect, mentally and physically,

but have lived in the wrong environment. We bring them into our institution and classify them. We place homeless boys with homeless boys, and we operate thirty-one small institutions from a central plant with the home life developed to its highest point. It is not an uncommon thing for the boys to cry when leaving the school.

An assertion is made by many authorities that the boy has lacked kindness; he hasn't had the proper treatment at home. The boy has lacked discipline; he has lacked justice. He has been allowed to drift into his home at two or three o'clock in the morning and if the father came in and felt like knocking the boy around the room he did so; the boy has been killed by the lack of justice, not the lack of kindness; he has been killed with kindness misdirected; he has been allowed to do exactly as he pleased; there is no discipline as fine as discipline in a well regulated home.

We send out these blanks immediately after application has been made for the release of the boy:

Will you kindly take this blank to the Judge of the Court, and ask him to sign it and return it to me at once?"

"Dear Sir: This is to certify that the home of..

a proper place to which be returned.

son

is

may

The parents or guardians have agreed to see that this boy has proper employment or that he attends school, if he is of school age. They have also agreed before me to properly clothe and care for him. It is understood by the parents that failure on their part, or on the part of the boy, to live up to the above mentioned conditions, will be sufficient reason for the boy to be taken from their custody and placed elsewhere or returned to the school." Signed by the Judge of the Court.

Then there is the letter signed by the Pastor of the Church, as follows:

son

"Dear Sir: This is to certify that the home of.... is a proper place to which may be returned. The parents or guardians have agreed to send this boy regularly to Mass and to the Sacraments, and if he has not attained the proper school grading in accordance with the Educational Law, the parents have agreed to send him to school regularly."