APPENDIX I THE HISTORY OF THE SURVEY BY RAYMOND MOLEY Director of the Cleveland Foundation HIS survey of criminal justice in Cleveland was authorized by TH action of the Cleveland Foundation Committee on January 4, 1921. Field work was started on February 1 and was completed in June. The reports were written and revised during the summer months of 1921 and were with one exception given to the public in September and October. A total of thirty-five staff workers were employed for various periods of time during the progress of the work.1 THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION AND ITS WORK The Cleveland Foundation, which conducted this survey of criminal justice, was founded in 1914. The plan for this, the first of the community trusts, was formulated by F. H. Goff, and brought into existence by formal resolution of the board of directors of the Cleveland Trust Company. It provides a means for the distribution of bequests left by men and women interested in the social welfare of the city of Cleveland. During the early years of its existence its limited funds have been used for comprehensive studies of the life and institutions of the community. Two major surveys have been conducted by the Foundation, one on public education in 1915 and 1916 and one on recreation completed in 1919. In addition to these the Foundation has conducted and published the results of several minor pieces of research such as the Cleveland Year Book, an annual publication, and a Directory of Community Activities. The Cleveland Foundation is governed by a committee, three of the five members of which are chosen by the United States District Judge, the Probate Judge, and the Mayor of Cleveland. Two are appointed by the Cleveland Trust Company, the trustee of the funds of the Foundation. Thus a majority of the governing board are chosen by public officials and represent the public. A list of the members of the staff will be found on pages 662, 663. THE ORIGINS OF THE SURVEY The first demands for a survey of criminal justice came from the welfare agencies of the city. In 1919 the Welfare Federation had a committee on delinquency, headed by Judge Carl D. Friebolin. This committee was prevented by limited funds and inadequate equipment from carrying on effective work but it clearly demonstrated the need for more information. In December, 1919, the secretary of this committee, Professor C. E. Gehlke, of Western Reserve University, proposed to the foundation that it undertake a survey of the whole problem of delinquency, both adult and juvenile. At that time there was prepared by Dr. Gehlke an outline for a survey of the administration of Criminal Justice in Cleveland. From this first formulation the plan grew until it was decided to undertake the work which was subsequently carried through along lines laid down by the directors of the survey and their associates. A survey of such a subject and upon so comprehensive a scale cannot lightly be undertaken in any city at any time. Unless it has a reasonable assurance of the support of a very considerable body of public sentiment, a study penetrating so far into a field invested with intangible and subtle influences cannot hope to succeed. Conditions were probably as unsatisfactory in 1920 as in 1921, but the public did not so profoundly realize it. So the Foundation waited for a year for such a sentiment to appear. On November 10, 1921, Mayor W. S. Fitzgerald addressed a letter to the Foundation asking that there be considered "a general survey of vice and crime conditions to be conducted without bias of any kind and with the sole purpose of developing the facts" A week later the Cleveland Bar Association, through its executive committee, adopted a resolution requesting the Cleveland Foundation "to conduct a survey of the administration of justice in Cleveland with particular reference to the treatment of the offender, such a study to be the basis of constructive measures to improve the machinery for the administration of the law." It was resolved further that "the precise scope of the survey and the selection of its personnel be left entirely within the discretion of the Foundation Committee." With this resolution the Bar Association pledged "hearty coöperation not only in making the survey but in bringing about the adoption of the constructive measures therein recommended." These requests were followed by formal requests of the same general character from the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, the Federation of Women's Clubs, the Welfare Federation and a number of individuals and other organizations. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE A survey should be a coöperative enterprise in which the community seeks to study itself. In this task the experts who perform the technical research and the organization that sponsors it do little more than to lead the way. The community, through its group associations, must grow into harmony with the purposes of the study; it must feel its own responsibility for its own institutions, and through representative persons should be constantly informed of progress and plans. Moreover, those who are engaged in the study need constant advice and guidance from persons representing the diversified opinions of the city. To serve as an instrument of contact between the survey workers and the public, and to provide a source of practical advice, an advisory committee was formed which represented in its personnel a wide variety of interest and opinion. This advisory committee was made up of fortyfour individuals invited to serve by the Foundation Committee. This committee held meetings during the progress of the survey to hear and discuss reports of progress. After the completion of the reports subcommittees were formed from the membership of the advisory committee to read and discuss the reports. During the months of June and July no less than 25 meetings were held, in which these subcommittees went over each report in great detail with the authors. As a result of these conferences, each report was considerably altered by the author in the light of the suggestions made by the committees. The chairman of the advisory committee was Mr. Amos Burt Thompson, whose active interest in the survey was an invaluable service to the members of the staff and to the Foundation Committee. The members of the advisory committee were: Amos Burt Thompson, Chairman Mrs. A. M. Allyn A. D. Baldwin Dr. R. H. Bishop, Jr. Morris Black 医 W. L. David Dean W. T. Dunmore John D. Fackler Mrs. E. H. Fishman Judge Carl D. Friebolin David E. Green Isador Grossman Judge F. A. Henry Dr. P. A. Jacobs Dr. H. T. Karsner W. G. Lee Rev. Alexander McGaffin Rev. Francis T. Moran W. M. Pattison Dr. Henry Sanford Mrs. Katherine Stebbins Judge F. E. Stevens Dr. C. W. Stone Rabbi Louis Wolsey THE FOUNDATION COMMITTEE AND ITS STAFF The Foundation Committee maintains a permanent office staff consisting of the director of the Foundation, a publicity and editorial director, and office assistants. In conducting a survey of this kind a definite coöperative plan is followed by which this permanent local staff facilitates the work through making available to the survey directors and specialists their knowledge of people, newspapers, locations, organizations, and governmental agencies within the city, and by acting as the direct representatives of the Foundation in relations with the public. In accordance with this policy the permanent Foundation staff in this survey took no actual part in the investigation. Their responsibil ity consisted of determining with the approval of the committee the methods and the time of presenting the results of the survey to the public. This included the arranging of public meetings, writing and releasing press material, organizing committees and arranging for the publication of the reports. CONFERENCES WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS After each report had been subjected to the committee conferences above described, it was revised by its author and directors of the survey, and submitted to the public official charged by the law with responsibility for the institution surveyed. For example, the report on Police Administration was submitted to the chief of police, that part of the Prosecution report dealing with the city prosecutors to the city director of law and the chief police prosecutor, the section on the Juvenile Court and the Detention Home to the judge of the juvenile court. Each report was gone over in detail in this way, every objection or criticism by a public official of a fact in the report was submitted to the author of the report for consideration. This procedure, which has been followed in all of the Cleveland Foundation surveys, makes it possible in most cases to attain substantial agreement between surveyors and surveyed upon all questions of fact. Matters involving opinion or inference drawn from facts are made upon the responsibility of the author of the report and the directors of the survey and they alone should finally determine the contents of s |