New Subscriptions can commence with current number. Change of Address.-Always give both your old and your new address when you ask us to change.

Payments for the Paper, when sent by mail, should be made in a postoffice money order, bank check or draft, or an express money order. When neither of these can be procured, send 2-cent United States postage stamps; only this kind can be received.

Letters should be addressed and checks and drafts made payable to Juvenile Court Record, 23 South Clinton St., Chicago. Advertising Rates made known on application.

EDITORIAL

If

PROCEDURE IN THE JUVENILE COURT The attention of our readers is especially called to the article on the Boston Juvenile Court. In our opinion this is a very important question. The institutions, the probation system, the truant system, and all of the different agencies, are simply adjuncts of the Juvenile Court proper. The court is the hub of the entire situation. the court has sufficient power, and is a court of inherent, unlimited and general jurisdiction, there can be little, if any, controversy over the constitutionality of its various acts. All that will be required with such a court is that the statute be followed strictly. The court, being of such a character, will necessarily see that it has jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter, and that all persons interested in the proceedings are properly before the court when any order is entered. This does not mean that the person in interest should be physically before the court at each session. Yet we advise that every time an order is entered changing the status of the child, one or other or, preferably, both parents should be present.

It may appear to the probation officers and to the people who are enthusiastic in the work that there is more or less red tape, but when we consider the care and attention that is given to civil matters; that the horse, or the cow, or the pig, or chattel of any kind, can only be transferred in accordance with the law, and that when a dispute arises in these various matters the court in all its solemnity listens to both sides to determine who is entitled to the property, surely then we should be willing to devote similar attention to our boys and girls. The person who does not want to give such time and attention, and who fails to recognize the rights of parents and children,

will do more injury in the work than good. The proselytizer, the person who is imbued with the idea that he is holier than his fellowman, should devote his time and. attention to other fields. The Supreme Court of Utah, in expressing its views on such procedure, in the case of Mills vs. Brown, 88 Pacific Reporter, p. 609, said:

"The difficulties complained of were due more to the respondent than to the law. To administer juvenile court laws in accordance with their true spirit and intent requires a man of broad mind and almost infinite patience, and one who is the possessor of great faith in humanity, and thoroughly imbued with that spirit. Those who come and are intended to be brought before the Juvenile Court must be reached through love and not fear. The purpose in bringing them before the court is to lead them away from and destroy their propensities to vice; to elevate, not degrade; to reform, not punish them. Their parents likewise must be met and dealt with in the same spirit. They should be directed in a proper spirit and not, as this record discloses, be met with defiance. The conditions surrounding them may be due as much to lack of information and misfortune as to viciousness. The judge of any court, and especially of a Juvenile Court, should, therefore, be willing at all times, not only to respect, but to maintain and preserve the legal and natural rights of men and children alike. Respondent, as this record discloses, either has no regard for, or is misinformed in respect to the rules that the experience of past generations has evolved for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of all. Like most laymen, but seemingly without their good judgment, respondent seems to regard these rules as mere technicalities to be brushed aside as obstructions in the pathway of what is termed 'common-sense justice.' He seems to be a willing convert to the theory that he is better, if not wiser, than both law and rules of procedure, and that he may thus disregard either or both at pleasure. While juvenile courts cannot and are not expected to be conducted as criminal or other courts usually are, the judge should still not wholly disregard all wholesome rules in an attempt to establish guilt which he suspects, or, worse yet, merely imagines.

"Most of the rules of evidence and procedure were established and their observance is necessary to curb the propensities of the inquisitor; and it no doubt would subserve the best interests of all if the most important of these rules were observed by respondent in his investigations. The fact that the American system of government is controlled and directed by laws, not men, cannot be too often nor too strongly impressed upon those who administer any branch or part of the government. Where a proper spirit and good judgment are followed as a guide, oppression can and will be avoided."

This is a clear announcement of the law. Judge Brown evidently was impressed with the idea that he was conducting the court according to law. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with him. As a result, the Utah Juvenile Court Law was held unconstitutional, and law-yers who were versed in the principles of the law redrafted the law in such a way that it has met constitutional requirements.

CHICAGO.

The physicans of Chicago, as well as others interested in children, are aroused by the case of little Annie Epps, who at the age of ten years has given birth to a child. A child mother at this age is declared by hospital authorities to be without precedent. In response to inquiries, a careful review of the records of the case were made by hospital physicians, and the records disclosed that the mother was born December 13, 1899, and therefore reached her tenth birthday last December. The child mother was brought to the county hospital last January by Juvenile Court Probation Officer Gertrude B. Smith. Dr. I. A. Abt, a specialist in children's diseases at Michael Reese Hospital, in speaking of this case says, "I have known instances of maternity in girls nearly as young, but these were in an oriental country or in the tropics." The child's father is unknown, and the little mother refuses to give the authorities any information on the subject.

During the year ending March 31st, a total of 1,038 boys and

TOLEDO.

The Police Department of this city are hereafter intending to co-operate with the Juvenile Court officials to prevent young girls less than seventeen years of age from frequenting wine rooms and saloon cafes. Juvenile Court Judge O'Donnell has stated that probation officers frequently find girls of tender age in such places and when drawing the attention of the patrolman on the beat to the matter, the latter was usually reluctant to act, claiming that he did not care to take a chance on the girl in question being under seventeen. This is the age at which the limit of the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court is set. Safety Director J. J. Mooney has conferred with Chief of Police Knapp upon the subject, and hereafter patrolmen are instructed to arrest, on information of any probation officer, any girl appearing to be under seventeen who is found in such a place, and to detain her male companion unless he is personally known to the officer. These instructions apply to all volunteer probation officers as well as the regular salaried officers of the Juvenile Court.

various charges. Of these 514 were placed on probation, 118 were let go on suspended sentence, 218 were committed to variors institutions and 244 were discharged.

DENVER.

At the annual meeting of the National Congress of Mothers, which will be held next June at Denver, delegates will assemble from nearly every state in the Union, presenting important developments which have arisen since the previous congress. The Mothers' Congress lays particular stress on educative measures and steps to prevent social decline, as well as work along the lines of the dependent and delinquent child. The Congress believes that children are the Nation's greatest asset and plead for conservation of the child. Much is to be expected from such an important conference, which is endeavoring to correct many of the faults of the public school system, as well as striving to put modern institutions caring for the child upon a proper basis, that of a family spirit.

PHILADELPHIA.

The attention of the authorities of Philadelphia has of late been drawn toward a new evil among young boys of this city. Quite a few young boys in certain sections of the city have been in the habit of sniffing the fumes of ordinary gasoline. More boys have acquired this habit than there are known to be using other drugs. Youths are sometimes found apparently under the influence of liquor, and until recently the fact that this condition was caused by sniffing gasoline was unknown. The commen method of using gasoline in this manner seems to be in saturating a handkerchief or piece of cloth with the liquid, laying same over the nostrils, and inhaling until the boy is left in a drunken stupor. Some of them, it is said, also rub their faces with the oil, and lie down to enjoy the pleasant dreams that are said to follow this application. Probation officers declare that many small thefts are committed by the youngsters in order to procure money to purchase gasoline with.

Prison Congress

Announcements have been made of the eighth meeting of the International Prison Congress, which will be held at Washington, D. C., October 2-8, 1910. According to Prof. Charles R. Henderson of the University of Chicago, American member of the International Prison Commission, the congress' executive body, twenty-five foreign governments have already accepted the invitations to send delegates.

The governments which have already named representatives are England, Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Cuba, Colombia, Hayti, Honduras, Costa Rica, Salvator, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Liberia, China, Greece, Chile, Switzerland, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, Austria, and Turkey.

The South American nations, Turkey, and China will send delegates for the first time. The Chinese visitors will be Hsu Chien, Hsu Shih Ying, Chin Sheo Cheng, and Li Fang. The Turkish government has sent the name of Saadeddin Bey, and Spain has nominated Señor Don Eugenio Silvela y Corral.

Among the other persons who will be present at the congress are Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise of England, Prof. Bozidar Markovitch, Servia; Prof. Adolphe Prins, Belgium; M. Fred Woxen, Norway; Alexander G. Skouses and Typaldo Bassia, Greece; Prof. Simon van der Aa, Holland, and Stephen de Khrouleff, the Russian councilor of state.

"In each case the delegates will be the guests of the Federal Government on the invitation of the Department of State," said Prof. Henderson. "The congress has never had such a wide delegation at any meeting, As it was established on the initiative of an American, it is fitting that the coming meeting should be the greatest.

"The four chief topics to be considered are criminal law and procedure, the institutions of correction, the prevention of crime, and the care of neglected children and youths. The congress has no legislative power, but its discussions, arguments, and decisions have influenced criminal law and the treatment of prisoners throughout the world."

Each one of us has a particular bias for probation work, due largely to the prevailing local conditions affecting the organization of our courts and the system under which we operate. Making all allowances for divergent view points on this basis there is still a remarkable difference of opinion relative to the handling of cases of probation officers. This is doubtless due to the fact that the Juvenile Court in all its functions has not yet come to a well defined state of development. Our work is so experimental that it is difficult to get a concensus of opinion on any one of the many factors which go to make up the whole program of Juvenile Court work.

Most of us who see children constantly coming before the Court will probably grant that roughly they may be divided into three groups:

First-Those children who are merely so unfortunate as to have been caught, who are quite like most other children in the community corrected by other means than the Court, and who should need at most a word of warning or an educational penalty which will bring them clearly to their obligation in relation to specific offenses.

Second-The larger and really unfortunate class of children who are the victims of general bad social environments, or of defective homes in which there is divorce, separation, inefficiency or a parent missing by death.

Third-That class of children in whom there is something individually wrong; either actual physical defectiveness, or some fundamental lack of moral appreciation.

We should certainly agree that probation as a method is most applicable to children of the second group; that the first group needs temporary correction as a rule, and that the third group. generally speaking, needs either institutional treatment of a very different method than the ordinary care under probation. There seems to have been a lot of nonsense in Juvenile Courts about promiscuously putting children on probation regardless of the limitations of the probation method. Cases which are likely to respond to the probation method can be very readily determined in advance, providing the children, before their hearings, have been carefully investigated. The supervision of neglected children is, of course, a distinct function of the Court work which I am not discussing. The problems of neglected children are so much the problems of the Charity Organization Societies and of the general social conditions of the poorer neighborhoods that they are quite divorced from methods with delinquent children.

The probation process, in essence, is a process of education by constructive friendship. It presupposes an intense personal interest; it presupposes a perception of a child's needs in such a way that the child may be most securely set upon his feet by throwing about him every constructive force which the community has to offer. It means carefully, intelligently and thoughfully giving him those opportunities in such a way that he will meet them gladly; it means introducing him by one way or another to those activities which will enable him to spend his entire time rightly. By intense personal interest almost any youngster can be led tactfully to the playground habit, to the reading habit, to habits of thrift and industry, and to a healthful interest in developing all the powers that go to make up a good normal youngster as compared to the half perverted and misguided street urchin. This process does not require theories; it does not require book knowledge. It should never

be in any degree sentimental, patronizing or amateurish. It requires sympathy, tact, good humor, patience and above all a thorough knowledge of the needs of child life and the manifold ways in which to meet them.

Thecries in dealing with children are usually poor implement. When I first went into the Juvenile Court work fresh from settlement training, I was beset with a theory that there were a good many youngsters with the hereditary taint of criminality. I had been reading Lombroso, and in addition I had had an unfortunate experience with a group of extreme cases betore the Court during the summer and I was convinced that they represented the usual run. It took me a very little while to distinguish the fact that the percentage of cases which are beyond normal methods of education is very small, but some boys suffered from my theory. We have Judges with the theory that if a country home could be found for every bad boy in the community, he would be reformed. We have heard probation officers and Judges contend that if a bad child's adenoids were removed he would likely make a model citizen. These theories, of course, recognize partial truths, but any one of them carried by itself into wholesale practice, as has been done, works havoc with the normal common sense point of view.

It will be seen that the conception of the probation process which I have set forth, carries with it criticism of several probation methods, to conduct examinations systematically, that especially that which may be termed collective probation, that is, the interviewing of a considerable number of boys together at one time, by a Judge or an officer of the Court. Such a method belies the very essence of probation itself, for it puts at a premium that personal interest, that perception of individual needs and that constructive effort for both child and family which must characterize successful work. Some of the courts of this country which have come most widely into public notice have this unfortunate characteristic in their probation work. The picture of a number of boys of questionable habits and tendencies associated together, and, as in one instance cited by the New York Probation Commission, actually coming to Court in droves to play games with the probation officer, is revolting to any ideal of constructive probation.

In the same way it will be seen that the method of probation I have described can find nothing to justify the district system of assignment of children to officers. Where the city is districted and a probation officer may have in one district all children from the 15 or 16-year-old tough, and the little truant of 8 or 9, to the neglected family and the delinquent girl, individual work with the personal equation must be at a premium. It is ridiculous to assume for a moment that a woman officer in such a district is adapted to handle a matured boy as well as little children or girls, or that she can for a moment get the results that are attained under the system of assigning chil dren to an officer solely on the basis of that officer's particular adaptability to certain classes of cases. Bigness of cities is the usual excuse for the district and personal assignment systems, f usual excuse for the district system, but it would seem that there is no city so large but that it could provide, by a combination of the district and personal assignment systems, for having perhaps larger districts with a man and woman officer in each. This would give some choice in assignment and prevent some of the more crude situations we have today. There is no excuse at any time or any place for delinquent girls hav

ing to come in contact with men officers, but under the district system, as it is uniformly practiced of there are any men officers at all, this must be unavoidable.

*

It would seem in a Court well administered that the work of the probation officer should be carefully specialized. All investigations should be made by a person, or persons, who do nothing else-in order, in the first place, that the investigations for the Court should be as nearly uniform as possible, and in the second place that the regular officers who are caring for children may be relieved of the very irregular and trying work of investigating. The requirements under the district system that the person who investigates should afterwards care for the child is, of course, conpatible with the ideals of the district system. There is no other argument for it except in the statement that the person who originally investigated should afterward supervise as an economy of effort and of knowledge-ignoring the usual fact that but a small percentage of children, less than one-third of ali those investigated, are placed on probation by the Court. Indeed, there is a great lack of economy in such a method. Besides the assignment of investigations to special officers a good probation office force should have competent clerical assistants in order that probation officers may give their full time to the work in which they are of greatest value. Probation work is exhausting enough without the necessity of attending to clerical details. A good office system organized on a business basis, with fuli and well indexed records is absolutely essential. In the office at St. Louis we were able to get such a system by having representatives of several of the office filing systems call en us and give us the benefit of their advice and criticism-of course in the hope that they would be favored with an order. It was the result of such suggestions and the perception of men so carefully trained in business, that our system was organized on a basis which eliminates waste of time and effort and reduces office routine to a science.

Furthermore in the specialization of probation office work the adjustment of the number of men and women officers to the number of children in the care of the probation office should be as carefully made as possible. Most probation forces show an undue preponderance of women officers-many more than the number of smaller boys and girls in the care of the Court will justify. It is certain that the older boys, 12-16 years, who form the majority of cases in most of our Courts, need men officers. We have heard various estimates of the number of children which any one officer can competently handle--anywhere from 50 to 125. It has been my experience that one officer working constantly, having no other duties but those of supervising children on probation or parole, can handle without difficulty, about 100 cases of delinquent children. When neglected children are cared for, the number must be proportionately reduced, for almost uniformly the problems of neglected families take much more time and service than those surrounding delinquent chilaren. An officer with 100 cases in his care at one time, has these cases of course in all different stages of development. With the average probation period of about ten to twelve months, which seems a reasonable length of time, an officer with 100 children would be discharging eight or nine a month and taking on that many new cases. The new cases would require frequent reports and a number of visits to the children's home and school and would take considerable time; the cases almost ready to discharge from probation, would be taking less and less time— possibly only a visit or two a month before the close of the probation period.

It seems essential from the point of view of good probation work that the probation period should be absolutely indefinite, and that the frequency of visits and reports should correspond as nearly as possible to the progress of the case. bation systems are organized on the theory that if a probation

Some pro

officer checks up all his children once every week or two weeks an effective method has been devised. This seems to be a most unwarrantable assumption, for it must be the experience of any successful probation officer that there are some children who need to be visited or need to report every day during some stage of their development, and that there are many others who, after a little careful over-sight, need to be seen as seldom as once a month.

Regarding the relative virtue of reports and visits to the home, it is safe to say, I am sure, that none of us would countenance the reporting of girls or very little boys at the Juvenile Court. For such children to report, in itself, can be of little benefit. The little boys would not understand its significance, and girls, as a rule, benefit by quite different methods than having to be held accountable at a certain time and place for their conduct. The older boys do appreciate what it means to come to visit their probation officer with a report of their progress at school, with a report of their parent's opinion of their progress at home and to explain in confidence and friendliness, just exactly how they have been spending their time. The responsibility thus placed on a boy is a distinct educational factor in his relations with the Court. Where this educational factor is made the basis of the promiscuous reporting of a number of boys collectively, it cannot be too strongly condemned; worked out wisely, on an individual basis with the backing of school and home, it is the very essence of the successful probation method.

In this connection it would seem that the functions of the Judge as probation officer could not be altogether successful.' At best the Judge only receives reports of boys, exerts his persona! influence for betterment and relies largely upon the probation officer's investigation as to the truth of statements made and as to progress at home and at school. Such two-fold interest is likely to be confusing to the boy and it certainly offers no inducement to the probation officer, not taking sole responsibility, to try many methods with heart and soul. In most courts Judges have enough to do without undertaking individual probation work.

*

A map hanging on the wall of our probation office showing by a dot the location from which every child in the Court during the year comes, is a direct indicator of the fester spots in the community. By such tangible evidence and by the constant reactive influence of the probation officers in the constructive work of the community-in the establishment of boys' clubs, in the enlargement of the functions of settlements, in the constant suggestions regarding the betterment of social conditions-in all these the Juvenile Court has a strong and telling influence.

One object of the Court, we should grant, is to prevent as many children from coming before it as it may, providing the children of the community are being properly cared for. Whatever the Court may point out through its probation officers as a means of preventing children from coming before it is a service to the community. In the city of Boston, careful specialization in the public schools by which truant children and school offenders are placed in special rooms and given special training, and brought to the Juvenile Court only on certificate of an Assistant Superintendent as a last resort, has decreased materially the number of truants and school offenders brought to the Boston Court. The recognition of the preventive powers on the part of the schools must be one of the chief features in eliminating many of the delinquents who now come into our courts. The preventive work of the attendance officers of every School Eoard is but an intimate corollary of the Juvenile Court work. It is only by such processes as these, by the careful interrelation of the Court and constructive agencies of the community, by the best system of protection for children in and out of Court, that we can standardize the child-life of our communities and finally make for the Juvenile Court just such an effective instrument of social reform as it was intended to be.

The Dangers of Probation.

Speakers: Hon. Harvey H. Baker, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Boston, Mass.; Hon. William H. DeLacy, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Washington, D. C.

Discussion opened by Hon. Homer Folks, President of the New York State Probation Commission, and Hon. Ben B. Lindsey, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Denver, Colo., (if present). Wednesday, May 18, 2:30 p. m.

(No formal papers.)

The Present Status of Probation.-Homer Folks.

Symposium on Juvenile Probation.

(A) Methods of Probationary Oversight of Children.

1 Establishing and maintaining proper relations with the child.

2 Establishing and maintaining proper relations with the

child's home.

3 Securing the co-operation of school authorities, employers, and other persons and agencies.

4 Methods of keeping informed about the conduct and condition of probationers.

5 Medical examination and oversight.

6 Constructive moral and social influences.

7 Methods of dealing with unsatisfactory conduct and violations of the probationary conditions.

8 Restitution as a factor in reformation. Discussion opened by Miss Jessie M. Keyes, Juvenile Court, Columbus, Ohio; L. H. Weir, Juvenile Court, Cincinnati, Ohio; Maurice Willows, Juvenile Court, Birmingham, Ala.; Dr. E. L. Mathias, Kansas City, Mo.; T. L. Lewis, Juvenile Court, Cleveland, Ohio; Clarence E. Fitzpatrick, Juvenile Court, Boston, Mass. Thursday, May 19, 10 a. m.

(No formal papers.)

Symposium on Juvenile Probation (continued.)
(B) Organization of a staff of Probation Officers.

1 The functions of a chief probation officer.

2 How to determine the number of probation officers needed; salaried and volunteer.

3 Personal assignment versus the district system.

4 The relative number of men and women probation officers required.

5 Oversight of volunteer probation officers.

6 Should preliminary investigations be made by probation officers who also exercise supervision over children, or by special investigators?

Discussion opened by John H. Witter, Juvenile Court, Chicago, Ill.; Mrs. E. C. Runge, Juvenile Court, St. Louis, Mo.; Roger N. Baldwin, Juvenile Court, St. Louis, Mo.; Miss Alice B. Graydon, Juvenile Court, Indianapolis, Ind.; Miss Minnie Low, Juvenile Court, Chicago, Ill.; Gertrude Grasse, Secretary, Brooklyn Juvenile Probation Association.

(B)

The Probationary Treatment of Women.

1 Preliminary investigations in cases of women defendants. 2 When is it advisable to apply probation to women guilt, of sexual immorality?

3 Special precautions and efforts needed in supervising women probationers.

Discussion opened by Mrs. Sophie C. Axman, Probation Officer, Court of Special Sessions, New York City; Miss Frances L Leitch, Probation Officer, Court of Special Sessions, New York City; Mrs. Martha P. Falconer, Probation Officer, Juvenile Court, Philadelphia, Pa.; Mrs. William W. Armstrong, Probation Officer, Police Court, Rochester, N. Y.; Miss Anne V. Roome, Probation Officer, City Magistrates' Court, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Miss Maude E. Miner, Secretary New York Probation Association, New York City.

Monday, May 23, 9 a. m.

Joint session with the children's section of the National Conference of Charities and Correction. Topic, Juvenile Courts. Paper by Bernard Flexner, of Louisville, Ky.

Discussion by Hon. Harvey H. Baker, of Boston, Mass.; Hon. William H. DeLacy, of Washington, D. C.; Hon. Julian W. Mack, of Chicago, Ill.; Hon. Harry D. Jewell, of Grand Rapids, Mich.; Hon. W. F. Shock, of Topeka, Kan.; Mr. John H. Witter, Chief Probation Officer of the Chicago Juvenile Court, and Mr. Arthur W. Towne, Secretary of the New York State Probation Commission.

Monday Afternoon, May 23, 2:30 p. m. (No formal papers.)

Symposium on The Judge's Relation to Probation Work. (A) Practice and Procedure in Juvenile Courts. Discussion opened by Hon. Harvey H. Baker, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Boston, Mass.; Hon. George H. Williams, Judge of the Juvenile Court, St. Louis, Mo.; Hon. H. S. Hulburt, Judge of the Juvenile Court, Detroit, Mich.; Hon. Timothy D. Hurley. Editor of the JUVENILE COURT RECORD, Chicago, Ill.

(B) The Judge's Part in Probation as a Reformatory Agency. 1 How closely can the judge be expected to keep informed about the conduct from time to time of persons on probation?

2 To what extent can the judge determine the detailed methods of the work of probation officers?

3 Is it practicable for the judge to determine the conditions to be observed by each probationer?

4 How to deal with serious misconduct on the part of probationers.

5 What factors should enter into the determination of the period of probation?

Discussion opened by Hon. Julian W. Mack, Judge, Circuit Court, Chicago, Ill.; Hon. E. E. Porterfield, Judge of the Juve