The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary CHILDREN’S BUREAU G R A C E A B B O T T , Chief THE CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT By H E LE N R A N K IN JE TE R Bureau Publication N o. 104 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1922 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis OWING TO LIMITED APPROPRIATIONS FOR PRINTING, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS BULLETIN IN LARGE QUANTITIES. ADDITIONAL COPIES M AY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D . C. AT 15 CEN TS P E R C O P Y https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis t* 3 b > '7 U. <t <I t » 'f- CONTENTS. Letter of transmittal_____________________ ____________________________________ Editor’s n ote______________ ___ t____ _______________________________________ * * i Origin and development of the Cook County juvenile court.___________ _ The jurisdiction of the court____________________________ __________ ______ __ n § m Character of the court and area covered____________ ________ ____________ n Classes o f cases___________________________ ________________ ’ ’ ___ _ ^ Jurisdiction over children accused o f committing serious offenses___ -------------- _____ Age groups— -------------------------------------------------------------Jurisdiction over adults_______________ __________________________________ 14 ig jg The administrative problems of the court________________ {_4_________ ______17-25 Number of children brought into court_________________________________ 47 ____ lg Problems relating to the delinquent child-________________ " Problems relating to the dependent childj____ >________________________ 21 Organization of the court_______________________________ oaoa The judge--------------------------- ------------ 1 ___ __________ ____ __________________~ 26 Woman assistant to the judge to hear cases of delinquent girls_____ The probation department_____ _____________ _ _______ _______ _____ ______ Appointment and discharge________;_________ ___ ________________ __ _ N um ber________ Salaries _________________________ j_____ ^_______________ ___ 30 Organization______________l.______ „ ______ (____ ____ __________________ Police probation officers_____________._____ _M.____ ____ ________ _____ Records and reports___________________ Annual reports__________ _________________ ______________ ______ ___ Case records________________________________ _____ M ____________ ___ Other records and forms___________________________ Preliminary procedure_____________________________ ._____________ ________ ___ Complaint and petition___________ _____________________ u_________________ Investigation__________________________ ____ __ _______________ ;________ ____ _ Dependent children____________________ Delinquent girls___________ ___________________________________ ________ Delinquent boys______________ _______________ ___ ;____________________ Police probation officers’ investigation______________________________ Other investigations_________ ~.l_________________ _____________________ Adjustment of cases without court action______________________________ Physical and mental examinations____________ 27 28-33 2« 2g gg g2 33-34 gg gg. g4 35-48 gg gg- ^ gg gg gg 40 41 40 4g D eten tio n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------49-56 Detention policy___________ >_________________________________ ,________ ______ 4g 50 Number o f children cared for in detention hom e-— — __________ ___ Overcrowding_________________________________________ g* Equipment of the juvenile detention home___ ______________________ Reception of children_____________________________________________ The daily routine-____________ Dietary--------------------- ■------ '_________________ ________________________________ Clothing------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g4 gg gg gg m https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 53 IV CONTENTS. Page. H ea rin g s____________________________________ ____________________________________57-62 Summons_________________________________________________________ _________ 57 Time and place------------------------------------------- •------------------------------------ — — 58 Procedure________________________ ,— - r- ----- *--------------------------- ?-------- — f— 59 Cases o f dependent children-------- !1.------S ------------j.— — ----------------------- v 60 Cases o f delinquent girls----------------------- -------,— -------- --------- -— %— -----61 Cases of feeble-minded children------------ ?---------------------- ■------------ $ ---------- ^ 62 Aid to mothers cases-------------------------------- ------------------------— -------- ----------62 The court order_____________________________ »-------------------------- -------------- - - - — 63-90 Dismissal and continuance—--------------- --------------------- — - — — ------------ 63-68 Dismissed and continued generally---------- --------------------- — - - — - — 63 Continued for a definite period------------ -— 1-1-— 1-1— _• 65 ' The final order.________________________r ----------------------- - — 1 a ---------------- 68-90 71 P rob a tio n ___________________________________ 1— --------------— — Appointment of guardian----------------------------------------- ------------ ------------78 Commitment to child-placing societies------ tl_------ .1.------ — —-----------84 Commitment to hospitals and schools for defectives— ! ---------------85 Deportation----------------------------------------- -— -— ---------- — ----------------- -— 85 Commitment to institutions---------- L ------------------------------------85-88 Dependent children---------------------’>-------------------------¡2-------- -— i— 86 Delinquent boys-------------------------------------------------- — ---------- 87 Delinquent g ir ls--------------------------------- ------------- ------------------------88 Transfer to the criminal court----------------------------------------— - -----------88 Other procedure in cases of delinquent ch ildren !-— ------------------90 Subsequent relationship of the court, the child, and the,custodial agency- 91-99 The court and the guardian----------------- i------------------------------------------- — — 92 The court and the institution-------------------------------------------------------------------- 93-97 Institutions for delinquent children________ — — — _1_1— ---------93 Institutions for dependent children____________ — !---------------------94 Recovery o f children who escape from institutions-------------------------------97 Following up the dependent child and his fam ily_____ ___*____jmzi____ 98 Cooperation with other agencies----------------------------------------------------------------- 100-107 Social agencies____________________________________ 100 Relationship to other courts----------------------------------------------------------------------103 List of references to Illinois statutory sources____ ____ 22Ji____ S i ____ f 169 ■ In dex_____________________________________________________________ — ------- a ,— 111 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. U. S. D epartm en t C of L h il d r e n ’s abor B , u r eau , W ashintg on, May 1, 1922. Si r : There is transmitted herewith a report on the Chicago Juvenile Court by Helen R. Jeter, one of a series o f studies now being made by the Children’s Bureau. It is believed that this description of the organization and methods o f operation o f the oldest and one o f the largest juvenile courts in the country will be o f special value to all students o f juvenile delin quency. In planning the investigation and writing the report Miss Jeter had the assistance and counsel of Prof. S. P. Breckinridge, o f the University o f Chicago, who also edited the report. Respectfully submitted. G r a c e A b b o t t , Chief. Hon. J a m e s J . D a v i s , Secretary o f Labor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Sh EDITOR’S NOTE. •* The following study o f the Cook County, 111., juvenile court, the oldest o f the juvenile courts organized under express statutory au thority, was made during the period between January 1, 1920, and June 30, 1921. Miss Helen R. Jeter, now assistant in the graduate school o f social service administration o f the University o f Chicago, formerly o f the Chicago School o f Civics and Philanthropy, with the assistance o f various investigators, collected the material and wrote the report. The sources drawn upon for the study were the records o f many cases covering the whole history o f the court, selected at random; the careful summarizing o f 95 cases heard by the court during the first two weeks of January, 1920; a study o f the statutes under which the court has developed ; the annual reports o f the court, o f the chief probation officer, and o f other county officials, ordinarily contained in the “ Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111.” ; and interviews with the officers o f the court, o f the Juvenile Detention Home, and o f the Institute for Juvenile Research. T o all o f these grateful acknowledgments are made. The report, o f course, could not have been prepared without the consent o f Judge Victor P. Arnold or the helpful*and sympathetic cooperation o f the chief probation officer, Mr. Joseph L. Moss. The Illinois Legislature met in the winter o f 1921. In preparation for that session the director o f the department o f public welfare o f Illinois appointed a committee o f persons interested in child welfare work for the purpose o f “ setting forth a program o f adequate child care, o f correlating efforts of existing boards and departments in the interests o f children, o f codifying the laws relating to children, and establishing throughout the State minimum standards o f child wel fare.” 1 Judge Arnold was an active and helpful member o f that committee, and during the session o f the legislature he gave effective support to a revision o f the aid-to-mothers law,2 granting to the court more ample powers in the matter o f making allowances under 1 Report of the Department o f Public W elfare o f Illinois, Children’s Committee, De cember,, 1920, p. 3. 3 Laws of Illinois, 1921, p. 162. V II https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Viii TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. that act and providing for an increase in the fund now known as the mothers’ pension fund. On June 6, 1921, Judge Arnold, for five years judge o f the juvenile court, was reelected by a substantial majority, thus assuring the court o f community confidence and support in the development of a program which will make possible the elimination o f some o f the administrative difficulties which, as this report indicates, have reduced the efficiency o f the court in the past. S. P . B https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r e c k in r id g e . THE CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COOK COUNTY JUVENILE COURT. Before the enactment of the juvenile-court law in Illinois children who had violated the law were dealt with exactly as adult persons charged with crime with respect to arrest, detention, and trial. Illinois had been admitted to the Union as a common-law State in 1818. The age of criminal responsibility was therefore 7 years, until the enactment o f the criminal code in 1827,1 which raised the age to 10. The child of 10 or more might, however, still be consid ered a criminal, and this provision2 remains unchanged to the pres ent time, though its importance has been considerably affected by other enactments. Judge Merritt W. Pinckney, formerly judge o f the juvenile court, described the situation of the child of 10 or more prior to July 1, 1899, in the following language: W hen a law of the State was violated the State demanded vindication, the same vindication from a lad of 12 as from an adult of 25. Punishment, not reformation, was the first fundamental thought of our criminal jurisprudence; punishment as an expiation for the wrong and as a warning to other possible wrongdoers. The lad of 12 years was arrested, put in jail, indicted by the grand jury, tried by a petit jury, with all the formality o f the criminal law, and if 12 men, tried and true, found that he had violated some law, then the great Commonwealth of Illinois, through the judgment of the court, visited its punishment upon him .3 The only point at which the treatment o f the juvenile criminal differed from that o f the adult was the form that such punishment might take. As early as 1831 certain exceptions are found in the method o f punishing minors. An act4 o f that year providing for the establishment o f a State penitentiary stated that persons under 18 were not included in the terms of that law, but were still to be dealt with under the criminal code o f 1827.5 1 “ An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any crime or ^nisdemeanor.” Revised Law s of Illinois 1827, p. 124, sec. 4. 2 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 38, sec. 283; 3 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1913, p. 216. * Laws of Illinois 1 8 3 0 -3 1 , pi. 103, sec. 43. e This meant considerably lighter sentences for persons under 18. The act of 1831 imposed sentences varying from 7 years to life imprisonment in the penitentiary, while the criminal code o f 1827, which was still to remain in operation for young persons, imposed sentences of whipping, fines, and imprisonment, usually not over 3 years, for the same offenses. (Revised Laws o f Illinois 1827, p. 124, secs. 29, 46, 47, 48, 50.) 1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. In 1833 the criminal code included for the first time the provision that “ persons under 18 shall not be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for any offense except robbery, burglary, or arson; in all other cases where a penitentiary punishment is or shall fie provided, such person under the age o f 18 shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for any term not exceeding 18 months at the dis cretion o f the court.” 6 This provision remained the only statute modifying the treatment o f minors until 1867, when provision was made for the establishment o f the first State reform school.7 This act provided8 that “ A ll courts o f competent jurisdiction are hereby authorized to exercise their dis cretion, in sending juvenile offenders to the county jails, in accord ance with the laws made and provided, or in sending them to the reform school.” The school was established for boys under 18, while girls o f that age throughout the State, as well as boys in Cook County, were committed to the reformatory already established in Chicago. Persons under 18 could no longer be committed to the penitentiary for arson, burglary, or robbery, but commitment to county jails for these and other offenses was left to the discretion o f the courts. In 1874 the law concerning jails and jailers was amended by the addition o f a provision9 requiring that minors should be “ kept sepa rate from notorious offenders and those convicted o f a felony or other infamous crime.” In 1891 the State reformatory was divided into two departments, one for boys between 10 and 16, the other for boys between 16 and 21.10 The act passed at this time required that boys under 16 con victed of an offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail or penitentiary be committed to the reformatory, although those guilty o f minor offenses might still be punished in county jails. The statute authorizing the establishment o f the Illinois Home for Juvenile Offenders was enacted in 1893 and provided for com mitment to the home, at the discretion o f the court, o f girls between the ages o f 10 and 16 who were convicted o f offenses punishable by imprisonment in ,a county jail or house o f correction.11 In 1895 this law was amended to include offenses punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.12 Thus, until the enactment o f the juvenile court law in 1899, the* delinquent child between 10 and 16 was subject to all the criminal 0 Revised Laws of Illinois, I 833, p. 209, sec. 158. 7 Ibid., 1867, p. 42. 8 Ibid., sec. 16. B Hurd’s Illinois Revised. Statutes 1874, ch. 75, sec. 11. 10 Law s of Illinois 1891, p. 52, sec. 9. n Ibid., 1893, p. 23, secs. 16 and 17. 12 Ibid., 1895* p. 295. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF TH E COURT. 3 processes applicable to adults so far ,as arrest, detention, and trial were concerned and could still be committed to a house o f correction or to a county jail at the discretion o f the court, except for more serious offenses, for which he was committed to a State reformatory.13 For the care o f dependent children, provision had been made by “ An act to provide industrial schools for girls ” in 187914 and “ An act to provide for and aid training schools for boys” in 1883.15 These acts provided for the incorporation o f industrial and training schools to receive dependent children under 18 who were committed to their care by the county court and for whose support the county might pay a certain amount. The schools were subject to State supervision but received no State appropriations. Cases were brought to the attention o f the court by petition, and a jury o f six was required to pass upon the question of dependency. The validity o f the earlier o f these two acts was attacked in 1882, on the following grounds: (1) That the institutions created under the act were really penal institutions, and, therefore, that commitment was a punishment resulting in the restraint o f liberty, and that the procedure, therefore, violated various constitutional safeguards such as trial by a jury o f 12 ; (2) that the institutions might be sectarian within the meaning o f the constitutional prohibition against pay ment o f public funds to sectarian institutions; (3) that the liability for the support o f dependent female children could not be placed upon the county. None o f these objections was, however, sustained by the court. The second o f these arguments was the basis for an action brought in 1917, but its validity was again denied.16 Thus the earlier law was upheld.17 The validity o f the second act has. never been attacked. These acts still remain in operation and were not affected by the passage o f the juvenile court law except that jurisdiction in de pendent cases was bestowed upon the circuit as well as the county courts in other counties than Cook, in Cook County being restricted to the circuit court. The so-called juvenile court act of 1899, under which the juvenile court o f Cook County was established, was the culmination o f nearly 10 years’ discussion and experiment on the part o f social agencies and of persons interested in child welfare. As early as 1891 the 13 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1897, eh. 118. 14 Law s of Illinois 1879, p. 309. 16 Ibid., 1883, p. 168. 10 Dunn ,v-.. Chicago Industrial School,, 280 111. 613. 7 Petition of Ferrier, 103 111. 367, and County of McLean v. Humphreys, 104 111. 378 Art. V II I, sec. 3, o f the State constitution provides that “ neither the general assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help sustain or support any school controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. Visitation and A id Society of Chicago18 introduced into the legisla ture a bill designed to give an authoritative basis for the work of that society by providing for the commitment o f children to the care o f organizations o f the same general character. The bill, however, failed of passage.19 It dealt only with dependent and neglected chil dren and, had it been passed, would have solved only part o f the problem. One o f the first efforts in behalf o f delinquent children was made about 1893, when a school for the boys in the county jail was started by a private citizen and was later taken over, supported, and estab lished on a fairly permanent basis by the Chicago Woman’s Club'.20 Not the least important o f the results o f this experiment was the •public interest aroused in the number o f children confined in the county jail and in the condition of these children. An effort soon developed to secure a special law dealing with the treatment of de linquent children; and in 1895, after a study o f the probation system established in 1878 in Massachusetts for both adults and children,20« a bill was drafted at the instance o f the Chicago Woman’s Club, con taining provisions for a separate court and for a probation staff. The question o f its constitutionality was raised, however, and the bill was abandoned without being introduced in the legislature. During the next few years the Chicago Woman’s Club continued to support the school in the county jail, established manual training in the house o f correction, and secured separate housing for boys committed to that institution. Considerable discussion o f the various problems connected with the care and treatment of the young offender in Cook County was carried on in the press and in public meetings during this period. In 1898 the questions o f the reform o f court procedure and o f a probation system were among the subjects discussed by the Illinois State Conference o f Charities, and at that time Dr. Frederick W. Wines, the veteran prisoner reformer, formerly secretary o f the Illinois State Board o f Charities, declared: W e make criminals out of children who are not criminals by treating them as if they were criminals. That ought to be stopped. W hat we should have in our system of criminal jurisprudence is an entirely separate system o f courts for children in large cities who commit offenses which would be criminal in adults. W e ought to have a “ children’s cou rt” in Chicago, and we ought to have a “ children’s judge,” who should attend to no other business. W e want some place of detention for those children other than a prison (reference made 18 Hurley, T. D . : “ Development o f the juvenile court idea,” in-Charities, Vol. X I , p. 423 (Nov. 7, 1 9 0 3 ). 19 For draft of bill, see Hurley, T. D . : Juvenile Courts! and W h at They Have Accom plished. The Visitation and Aid Society, Chicago, 1904. 20 M ost of these facts regarding the early history of the Illinois juvenile court move ment are drawn from Lathrop, Julia C . : “ Development of the probation system; in a large city,” in Charities, Vol. X I I I , p. 344 ff. (Jan. 7, 1 9 0 5 ). 200 Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, 1878, ch. 178, p. 146. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURT. 5 to the New York system o f detention); A thing we want to borrow from the State of Massachusetts is its system of probation. No child ought to be tried unless he has a friend in court to look after his real interests * * * In such cases in Massachusetts the judge sends a probation lawyer to investigate the conditions of the home and all the circumstances surrounding the case .21 The Illinois State Board o f Public Charities, the Illinois Federa tion o f Women’s Clubs, the Chicago Bar Association, the Chicago Board o f Education, and the Illinois State Conference o f Charities, all interested themselves in the passage o f the act entitled “ An act to regulate the treatment and control o f dependent, neglected, and delinquent children,” 22 which was signed April 21 and went into effect July 1, 1899. This law contained the essential features o f later juvenile-court legislation. In it were provisions (1) for the separate hearing23 of children’s cases in a court having chancery rather than criminal jurisdiction; (2) for the detention o f children apart from adult offenders; and (3) for a probation system. It was, however, weak at many points, and its administration had often to be supplemented by private effort. A number of amendments24 intended to cure the various weaknesses of the original law have been adopted, and the present organization and practice of courts acting under the statute are the result of a gradual development that is probably not yet com plete. The present' study deals with only one o f those courts, namely, the Cook County court sitting in Chicago. That court operates under such provisions of the act as are o f general application and under other provisions applying to counties o f more than 500,000 population—that is, to Cook County. The'first session o f the Cook County court was held on July 1, 1899, and at that session, Mrs. Alzena P. Stevens, a resident o f Hull House, volunteered to serve as probation officer.25 The act had au thorized the creation of a probation staff for the probationary care o f delinquent children, but it was also specified that such officers should not be paid from public funds.26 The framers o f the act had acquiesced in this program for two reasons:25 First, because they feared lest the prospective cost involved in the payment of proba tion officers might defeat the b ill; and, second, because probation officers if paid from public funds might be selected on a political basis. The salaries o f Mrs. Stevens and four or five other volunteer officers were raised for the first few years by private subscription. 21 Fifteenth Biennial Report o f the Board of State Commissioners of Public Charities of the State o f Illinois (1 8 9 8 ), p. 336. “ Law s of Illinois 1899,, p. 131. 23 Section 3 required a special court room in Chicago. 24 The law of 1899 was am ended: 1901, p. 1 4 1 ; 1905, pp. 151 and 1 5 2 ; 1907 p 7 0 ; and 1911, p. 126. 25 Lathrop, Julia C . : “ Development of the probation system in a large city,” in Charities, Vol. X I I I , p. 345 (Jan. 7, 1 9 0 5 ). 28 Law s of Illinois 1899, p. 131, sec. 6, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. In 1904 those interested in the support of these probation officers incorporated as the Juvenile Court Committee,27 and by that time the number o f officers had increased to 15, o f whom 4 were men and 11 were women. Besides these officers, representatives o f various social agencies, such as the Illinois Children’s Home and Aid Society (nonsectarian Protestant), the Visitation and A id Society (Roman Catholic), and the Bureau of Personal Service (Jewish), were commissioned as probation officers. Individuals interested in particular cases were also appointed as volunteer probation officers. Moreover, in 1899 the mayor o f Chicago at the request of the judge o f the juvenile court directed that two police officers from each station be detailed as probation officers.28 In 1905,15 probation officers were being paid by the Juvenile Court Committee, and about 20 police officers were assigned to work with the juvenile court.29 In that year an amendment was adopted30 pro viding that in counties of more than 500,000 population (i. e., Cook County) the judges o f the circuit court might determine how many probation officers were necessary, such officers to be appointed in the same manner and under the same rules and regulations as other offi cers o f the county and paid under authorization o f the board of county commissioners. The legal status o f the probation staff, however, was not even then determined. The amendment o f 1905 had placed payment in the hands o f the board of county commissioners, and appointment “ in the same manner as other county officers ” was understood to mean certification by the county civil service commission. For six years the law was interpreted in this manner, and the number o f proba tion officers paid by the county was increased from 23 in 1905 to 37 in 1911. In that year a newly elected county administration at tempted to bring political pressure to bear upon the probation staff. A campaign o f abuse was waged in the public press—attention was called to cases which, it was claimed, had resulted disastrously; probation officers were pictured as “ child snatchers ;” and the work o f the juvenile court was rendered extremely difficult. The county civil service commission joined in the attack through a pretended 27 Am ong the early officers of this committee were Mrs. Joseph T . Bowen, the Very Rev. Dean Summer, Father Andrew Spetz, Dr. Rabbi Joseph Stoltz, Mrs. Charles M. W alker, Mrs. George R. Dean, and Mrs. W m . Thomas. In 1909 the name was changed to the Juvenile Protective Association of Chicago. The association continued its financial assistance to the court until 1908. Since that time it has been concerned exclusively with community problems affecting delinquency. 28 Testim ony of Judge Pinckney in Breckinridge and. A b b o tt: The Delinquent Child and the Home, Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912, p. 240. 29 The number was at first about 2 0 and was increased to 3 0 in 1908. See Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1 9 0 3 -1 9 1 1 . 80 Law s of Illinois 1905, p. 151. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURT. 7 investigation o f the court. These attacks failed to command public confidence, however, and finally the board o f commissioners o f Cook County was prevailed upon to appoint a committee o f five citizens to make an impartial investigation.31 On September 28, 1911, before the report o f the committee had been completed, how ever, the president of the county board o f commissioners suspended the chief probation officer and filed with the county civil service com mission charges against him, alleging “ incompetency, lack o f execu tive ability, and neglect o f duty.” The hearing on these charges extended over a period o f three months and included an investiga tion o f the work o f the probation department, o f the detention home, and o f the industrial schools to which dependent children were com mitted by the court. On January 6, 1912, the civil service com mission decided adversely to the chief probation officer and dis missed him. He appealed the case, with the result that that por tion o f the act providing for the selection o f probation officers by the county commissioners was held unconstitutional32 as a violation o f the principle of separation o f powers laid down in Article I I I o f the Illinois constitution. The right o f the court to be free from interference in the selection o f its officers was thus recognized. Probation officers were declared to be assistants to the court, per forming judicial functions, and as such to be chosen only by popular vote or appointed by the court itself.32® The selection o f probation officers was thus left in the hands o f the judges o f the circuit court; they agreed to delegate that selection to the judge o f the juvenile court, who had suffered greatly from the political attack on the work o f the court. He devised at this time a substitute for the civil service test that has worked admirably and is still in use. .Since that time probation officers have been appointed by the judge on the basis o f competitive examinations, held from time to time under the direction o f a committee o f citizens33 chosen by the judge because o f their unquestioned special fitness for the task and their public spirit. Since 1912 five such examinations have been held, two for chief probation officer, one in 1913 and another in 1918, and three for assistant probation officer, in 1913, 1916, and 1919.33® This 81 The members of this committee were W illard E. Hotchkiss (chairm an), Saul Drucker, Rev. C. J. Quille,, Rev. August Schlechte, and Mrs. James E. Quan. The com mittee reported in January, 1912. The report is entitled “ The Juvenile Court of Cook County, 111. Report of a Committee Appointed under Resolution o f the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Aug. 8, 1 9 1 2 .“ 82 W itter v. Cook County Commissioners, 256 Illinois, 616. See also People v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 273 Illinois, 110. The report of the citizens’ committee shortly after showed no grounds for this decision o f the civil service commission. 32« T his decision did not affect the position of clerical assistants, who are still appointed under civil service regulations. 88 The first committee was composed o f members of the Juvenile Court Committee that had chosen and paid probation officers before the amendment of 1905. 880 A fourth examination for assistant probation officer was given in 1922; https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. device has served to protect the judge from political pressure and to maintain the quality o f the probation service. Again, in 1917, the status o f the probation officers was attacked through a bill to enjoin the county treasurer from paying the salaries o f any o f t'he probation staff. The bill was dismissed for want of equity by the superior court o f Cook County, but appeal was allowed to the appellate court o f Illinois, and for more than a year, pending decision, the payment o f salaries by the county treasurer was made possible only by the guaranty o f funds by private citizens and by a special act o f the legislature.34 Finally, on June 14, 1918, the appel late court o f Illinois35 confirmed the decision of the lower court, and the status o f probation officers was once more assured.36 The constitutionality o f the juvenile court law itself was attacked in 1912 by an appeal37 from a judgment o f the Cook County court declaring a child to be dependent and appointing a guardian under the act. The supreme court, though it reversed the decision o f the court in the particular case, upheld the law at every point at which it was attacked.38 The law o f 1899 had contained no provision for the detention of children except one prohibiting commitment of children under 12 to a jail or police station and giving authority to place a child awaiting trial in “ some suitable place provided by the city or county.” 39 Since neither the city nor the county had at first a suitable place, the task o f providing one, like that o f paying probation officers, was undertaken by private initiative. The Illinois Industrial Association assumed the care o f boys awaiting hearing on delinquent petitions, the city and the county each paying half the board o f the children.40 Dependent children were detained, when necessary, in a room o f the Cook County Detention Hospital. In 1903 the Juvenile Court Com-* mittee took over the care of all children and established a detention home at 625 West Adams Street. The expenses were paid in part by this committee, but the larger share was borne by the city and the county.40 The establishment consisted o f an old residence in which dependent children were housed and a remodeled barn for delinquent boys. The delinquent girls were detained in an annex to one of the police stations, where older women were also confined. A t first the deten tion home was placed under the care of a police officer, and little 84 L aw s o f Illinois 1917, p. 536. T his law safeguards a public officer from, personal liability for the disbursement of funds in emergencies of this kind. 35 Gilbert et al. v. Sweitzer, 211 Illinois App. 438. 36 See p. 30 of this report for discussion o f salaries of probation officers. 37 By a w rit o f error, Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23„ sec. 190d. 88 Lindsay v. Lindsay, 2 57 111. 328. 39 Law s o f Illinois 1899, p. 131, secs. 5 and 11. 40Lathrop, Julia C . : “ Development o f the probation system ," in Charities, Vol. X l i l p. 346 (Jan. 7, 1 9 0 5 ). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURT. 9 amusement and no schooling were provided. In 1906, however, the city board o f education assigned a teacher for the instruction o f de linquent boys.41 In 1907 a law was passed42 authorizing the establishment of a detention home by county authorities on vote o f the people o f the county; but without awaiting a popular vote, the county and the city entered into a cooperative undertaking to erect a juvenile court building on Ewing Street, accommodating both the detention home and the juvenile court rooms.43 This building is still occupied as a detention home, but in 1913 its crowded condition led to the removal o f the court to the county building, where other courts are held.44 A third important development in the Chicago juvenile court re sulted from the enactment o f the funds to parents and aid to mothers laws,45 which added to the earlier work o f the court a class of cases involving principles' o f public relief and requiring a complicated administrative machinery. The first of these acts, the funds to par ents act,46 was a brief amendment to the juvenile court law authoriz ing in certain dependent cases the granting o f relief by the court. That amendment read as follow s: I f the parent or parents of such dependent or neglected child are poor and unable to properly care for the said child, but are otherwise proper guardians and it is for the welfare of such child to remain at home, the court may enter an order finding such facts and fixing the amount of money necessary to enable the parent or parents to properly care for such child, and thereupon it shall be the duty o f the county board, through its county agent or otherwise, to pay to such parent or parents, at such times as said order may designate, the amount so specified for the care o f such dependent or neglected child until the further order of the court." In 1913 a more elaborately drawn aid to mothers law superseded the amendment o f 1911. This law not only defined the group o f eligible families to whom grants might be made and fixed conditions under which those grants might be enjoyed but also provided for a special tax to be set aside as a special fund for mothers’ pensions.48 «■ Thurston, H . W . : “ Ten years o f the juvenile court of Chicago,” in The Survey VoL X X I I I , pp. 656, 662, and 663 (Feb. 5, 1 9 1 0 ). || ^ L a w s of Illinois 1907, p. 59. Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23 sec 271 _ t nnUal^MeSSage o f W illiam Busse, president of the board o f commissioners of Cook County, in Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1907, p. 29. 44 The building a t 202 Ewing Street (now 771 Gilpin Place’) h a s ’ now become in adequate for the detention home and is soon to be replaced. See p. 53 46 H urd’s. Illinois Revised Statutes 1919. ch. 23, sec. 298 J * L,awsl of Illinois 1911, p. 126. 1 TO. * See also Hurd’s Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23 sec. 9 ° f I11.in0is 1? 11, sec. 29 8 fol. The financial provisions. 88005°— a -2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 126, Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 28, 10 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. The courts held in 1915, however, that this act did not increase the total amount o f the county taxes the county was authorized to spend but merely reduced the amount available for other county expendi tures.49 The county board therefore appropriated annually for mothers’ pensions less than the actual amount o f the special tax fund. In June, 1919, however, the law was amended so as to authorize an increase in the total volume o f county expenditures and to provide an adequate fund that should be available exclusively for mothers’ pensions.50 Various aspects of the practice of the court, chiefly those o f an administrative nature, will be discussed in the following chapters. It has perhaps been made clear that at no time during the court’s existence have the conditions under which it functioned been en tirely satisfactory. It has suffered from open political attack, from legislative caution and legislative blundering, from the hostility o f other administrative bodies, and from public indifference. These difficulties should be kept in mind throughout the following dis cussion. v. Chicago, Lake Shore & Eastern R. R. Co., 270 111. 477. The law was amended June 21, 1919, to provide for a tax of four-tenths of 1 mill on the dollar in counties of over 300,0 0 0 population and w as further amended nine days later to provide for a tax o f four-fifteenths o f 1 mill to correspond w ith a change in the assessed valuation from one-third to one-half the cash value o f the property. (See I>aws of Illinois 1 9 19, pp. 7 8 0 -7 8 1 , and pp. 7 8 1 -7 8 2 , and Hurd’s Illinois Revised 49 People bo Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sea 313.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. CHARACTER OF THE COURT AND AREA COVERED. The juvenile court law o f Illinois created no new or special courts, but in all portions of the State except Cook County conferred jurisdic tion in cases arising under the law upon circuit and county courts. In Cook County, which constitutes an entire and single judicial circuit, original and exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the circuit court alone.1 The juvenile court sitting in Chicago is thus technically the juvenile court o f Cook County, and is a division or branch o f the circuit court o f the county. As such its territorial jurisdiction covers besides the city o f Chicago a considerable outlying territory that is both suburban and rural in character. In this outlying district are 5 incorporated cities from 2,000 to nearly 25,000 in population, and about 70 villages o f from a few hundred to 19,000 population.2 The suburban district covers an area o f about 733 square miles and con tained in 1910 a population, urban and rural, o f 219,950.2 From the point o f view o f administration such territorial jurisdiction presents many difficult problems.3 CLASSES OF CASES. The jurisdiction exercised by the juvenile court includes three classes o f cases. The first is composed o f those over which the juris diction is original and exclusive under the juvenile court law. These are cases o f delinquent children, dependent or neglected children, apd mothers’ pension cases. A delinquent child, as defined by t^e statute,4 is a boy under 17 or a girl under 18 who violates any law o f the Statef; is incorrigible, know ingly associates with thieves, vicious or immoral persons; without just cause and without the consent of its parents, guardian, or cus todian absents itself from its home or place o f abode, is growing up in idleness or crime; knowingly frequents a house o f ill repute; know ingly frequents any public shop or place where any gaming device is operated; frequents any saloon or dram shop where intoxicating 1 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 171. 2 Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, Vol. II, Population, p. 445. 3 See p. 32 of this report for organization o f work in outlying districts, * Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, secs. 170,, 298. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. liquors are sold; patronizes or visits any public pool room or bucket shop; wanders about the streets at night; habitually wanders about railroad yards or tracks or jumps on any moving train, or enters any car or-engine without authority; uses vile, obscene, vulgar, profane, or indecent language, or is guilty o f indecent or lascivious conduct. A dependent or neglected child5 is a boy under 17 or a girl under 18 who, for any reason, is destitute, homeless, abandoned, or depend ent upon the public for support; has not proper parental care or guardianship, habitually begs or receives alms; is found living in any house o f ill fame or with any vicious or disreputable person; or has a home which by reason o f neglect, cruelty, or depravity on the part o f the parents, guardian, or any other person in whose care it may be, is an unfit place for such child; and any child under 10 who is found begging, peddling, or selling any articles or singing or playing any musical instrument for gain upon the street, or giving public enter tainments or accompanying any person so doing. In these cases and in aid to mothers cases as well,6 the jurisdiction is technically exercised over the child. Actually, however, the entire family is brought under supervision. The second class o f cases is that in which the juvenile court exercises jurisdiction as a branch o f the circuit court. The jurisdiction is there fore not exclusive- These are cases of truants under the parental schools act, feeble-minded children, children given in adoption, and illegitimate children. Under the parental schools act,7 providing for commitment o f ha bitual truants to such schools, jurisdiction is conferred upon the county and circuit courts o f the State. In Cook County, under an agreement o f the circuit judges with the county judge, this jurisdiction is exer cised by the juvenile court alone. Truant officers are, however, ap pointed by the board of education and subject to that authority, and the only real contact o f the juvenile court with the truant child is the hearing in court. Jurisdiction under the adoption law 8 may likewise be exercised by the county or circuit courts o f fhe State. All such cases filed in the circuit court o f Cook County are, by agreement, heard by the judge of the juvenile court. W ith the exception o f the judge, then, no officers o f the juvenile court have any legal authority over cases involving only adoption. In the case o f a delinquent or dependent child, how ever, a petition may be filed under the juvenile court law praying the appointment o f a guardian authorized to consent to legal adoption, s Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 169. The 1899 law defined as delinquent only one who violated a law of the State or a local ordinance. The amend ment of 1905, p. 152, included the present definition. 6 Hurd’ s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 298. 7 Ibid., ch. 122, sec. 144. * Ibid., ch. 4, sec. 1. The county judge has entered into no agreement on this subject. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TH E JURISDICTION OF TH E COURT. 13 and the court in which adoption proceedings are pending may accept the consent o f the guardian appointed without fifrther notice to par ents or relatives.9 This amounts to the juvenile court’s hearing all the evidence in the case, the court before which the case is pending enter ing the formal decree. Investigations are conducted by probation officers, but adoption proceedings are not included in the legal records o f the juvenile court. The act to provide for the care and detention o f feeble-minded per sons places jurisdiction in the circuit, county, and municipal courts o f the State.10 When, therefore, a delinquent or dependent child brought before the juvenile court appears to be feeble-minded, the judge may adjourn the proceedings under the juvenile court law and conduct the hearing on a petition under the act for the care and de tention o f feeble-minded persons.11 This means that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over feeble-minded children only incidental to their being brought into court as dependent or delinquent children. For the sake o f securing prompt action, the investigation depart ment brings into court on a “ feeble-minded ” petition children called to their attention whom they think not only dependent or delinquent but feeble-minded as well, and children in a situation involving de pendency are brought by the same process by social agencies before the court. No agreement has been made by the circuit, county, and municipal courts to concentrate these cases in the court o f the juvenile court judge, and cases o f feeble-minded children who are not de pendent or delinquent are heard by other courts. A recent amendment to the bastardy law provides that the juvenile court shall “ with other courts o f competent jurisdiction ” have juris diction over all cases arising under the act.12 The State’s attorney has, however, refused to prosecute such cases before the juvenile court, and the court has not then exercised jurisdiction over this class o f cases.13 Bastardy cases are tried before the domestic-relations branch o f the municipal court under authority o f the law which created that court.14 Juvenile court officers, however, investigate and present in the court o f domestic relations bastardy cases in which the mother is under 18 years o f age or in which the court has already obtained 9 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 183 10 Ibid., ch. 23, sec. 324. 11 Ibid., sec. 341. sec 4 he amendment was passed in 1919- Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 17, “ Since the election of June 6, 1921, this opposition seems no longer an obstacle The judge has up to the present writing (Dec. 1, 1921) taken no action to claim this juris- , ,, . ------ k i j wic v u c u i l arnix o*i County, the superior court of Cook County or the criminal court of Cook County ” see Hosking v. So. Pac. Co. 243 111., 320, and P. v. Olson, 2 45 111., 288. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. 14 jurisdiction over the family through other elements o f dependency or delinquency. JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN ACCUSED OF COMMITTING SERIOUS OFFENSES. Under a provision o f the juvenile court law defining a delinquent child as a boy under 17 or a girl under 18 who “ violates any law o f this State,” 15 the juvenile court is apparently given jurisdiction in all cases of children within those ages, however serious the offense with which the child may be charged. The law provides, moreover, that if a child is taken before a justice o f the peace or police magis trate, “ it shall be the duty” of such justice or magistrate to trans fer the case to the juvenile court.16 This jurisdiction has, however, never been acknowledged by the prosecuting authorities, and a con current jurisdiction is exercised by the criminal court o f Cook County in the trial o f children charged with serious offenses. The chief probation officer, in his annual report for 1920, made the fol lowing statement: 17 During the past year there have been a number of cases in which, follow ing the filing of a petition in the juvenile court and while the case was still pending, an indictment has been voted by-the grand jury, followed by a hear ing in the criminal court. The interesting thing is that after weeks and months o f delay, during which time the child was held in the county jail, the criminal court has in each of the cases either referred the case to the juvenile court for disposition or has entered an order placing the child under probation to the adult probation department. The probation orders could have been ar rived at with quite as much force and by a much simpler process under the juvenile-court law. The attitude of State’s attorneys in the past has usually been that juvenilecourt action in cases in which crimes were committed has been only through the suffrance of the State’s attorney; that in any cases which he chooses to characterize as “ serious,” he might take action in the criminal court. This situation is one which it is hoped may be settled at an early date by a ruling of the criminal court or by a supreme-court decision. In the case o f a 16-year-old boy, for example, who, early in 1921, was charged with the theft from a bank o f $700,000 worth o f bonds, a petition was filed in the juvenile court. The State’s attorney, however, is reported to have said in answer to a proposal that the case be heard in the juvenile court, “ This is a criminal case, and the boy will be tried in the criminal court, regardless of his age. And I believe in speedy trials, too.” 17a The grand jury was therefore directed to take up the case, and two indictments were voted, one charging embezzlement-, and the other larceny. The result o f the 16 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sea 169. 18 Ibid., sec. 178. 17 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111.,, 1920, p. 243. 170 Chicago Daily Tribune, Feb. 20, 1921. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis T H E JURISDICTION OF TH E COURT. 15 trial in the criminal court was a failure o f the jury ,to agree, and a motion was granted for a new trial.17® The judge made no claim to exclusive jurisdiction either in this or in other cases to which the chief probation officer refers. This inactivity on the part o f the judge is due undoubtedly to a doubt on his part as to the interpreta tion the supreme court would put upon the law should the issue be squarely raised and to a hesitation to sacrifice a young person to the confusing and demoralizing experience o f being handled by two sets o f authorities. His view o f what the law should clearly state is expressed in a report made by a committee appointed in 1920 by the director o f the department o f public welfare and signed by the judge with other members o f the committee18 to the effect that “ the circuit, county, and juvenile courts be given original and exclusive jurisdiction in all cases coming within the act entitled ‘An act to regulate the treatment and control o f dependent, neglected, and delinquent ch ildren/” AGE GROUPS. The juvenile court law provides that all persons under the age o f 21 shall be considered wards o f the State and shall be subject to the care, guardianship, and control of the juvenile court.19 The law then proceeds in its definition o f the dependent and delinquent child to include any boy under 17 and any girl under 18. Thus jurisdiction attaches only to the earlier ages,.but once obtained may be exercised until the child becomes 21.20 As a matter o f fact, it is not the policy o f the court to exercise this jurisdiction in the cases o f boys between 17 and 21. That is, when ever a boy o f 17 or 18 already on probation commits a new offense, it is the policy o f the court to allow him to be proceeded against in the criminal cou rt21 rather than to attempt again to deal with him. The officers o f the court are o f the opinion that i f probation under juvenile-court officers has not been effective when the boy was younger, it is not likely to be effective as the boy grows older. na second trial came to an end M ay 19, 1922, w ith a second failure of a jury to agree. Chicago Daily Tribune, M ay 20, 1922. 18 Report of the Illinois Department o f Public W elfare Children's Committee (December, 1920, p. 10.) 19 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, see. 169. 20 The Hotchkiss committee in 1912 apparently supported this interpretation and urged that the age of obtaining jurisdiction be raised to 2 1 : “ The committee feels that the provisions o f the juvenile-court law should be .amended so that any person under the age of 21 years,, regardless o f previous contact w ith the court, may be brought into the juvenile, rather than the police court. A t present we have the anomalous situation of a boy o f 19, who has never been brought before the juvenile court, arrested and forced to associate in the police court with the w orst criminals in the community, while a boy w ith a long record in the juvenile court, evades police jurisdiction by virtue of this court record. In other words a premium is placed on getting a juvenile court record.” — (Juvenile Court of Cook County, Illinois— Report of a Committee appointed under Resolu tion of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, p. 25.) 21 This may be the boys’ court— a branch o f the municipal court— a lower court deal ing with misdemeanants if the offense be committed outside Chicago, or the criminal court o f Cook County. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 16 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. JURISDICTION OVER ADULTS. The juvenile court has no jurisdiction over adults except in so far as an order may be entered requiring a parent to contribute to the support o f a dependent child committed to an institution. In such cases the court may enforce its order by requiring deductions from wages and by punishment for contempt o f court. This lack o f juris diction over adults will be discussed at a later point.22 22 See p. 103. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF THE COURT. , In order that the administrative problems o f the juvenile court may be understood it is necessary to supplement the definitions of the various types o f cases placed under its jurisdiction and to know the number o f children brought into court, the relative numbers in the various groups, the conditions in the home and in the community making it necessary for them to be brought into court, and the differ ences among the various groups that demand differences in the method and treatment. It is difficult, for various reasons, to discover these facts, but certain data have been assembled for the purpose o f illus trating the nature o f the court’s problems and the weight of its burden. NUMBER OF CHILDREN BROUGHT INTO COURT. During the first 21 years of the court’s existence—that is, prior to July 1, 1920—79,000 children were brought into court.1 It is im possible, however, to determine without laborious tabulation the num ber o f children who have been handled by the court in each o f these years. The total number during the period is the only information that can be given regarding children as distinguished from cases, since the statistics published by the court deal with cases rather than with children. A child may be brought before the judge several times in the same year and may be counted three, four, five, or pos sibly six times as a case, the number o f repetitions varying consider ably with the class o f case. Thus, it must be remembered that when ever figures from the annual reports o f the court are quoted in the following pages they represent cases, not children. From a social point o f view this is unfortunate, since it would be desirable to know the facts in* their relationship to child life in general. From an ad ministrative viewpoint, however, the case is perhaps more signifi cant, since it represents a certain amount o f machinery set in motion each time a child is before the court. Table I shows the numerical importance o f the various types o f cases heard by the court during the five-year period from December 1, 1914, to November 30,1919. 1 This figure was obtained from the docket numbers. I t is customary to give the same number to a child even if he is brought into court again after a release. 17 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 18 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. T a b l e I.— Class of casej cases heard by the juvenile court, 1915-1919} Cases heard by the court. Class of case. Number. 37,881 15,143 10,631 2,327 9,470 310 Per cent distri bution. 100.0 40.0 28.1 6 .1 25. (T 0.8 1 Compiled from figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1915—1919. F or 1920 the figures are as fo llo w s : Delinquency, 2 ,5 5 0 ; de pendency, 1 ,2 6 2 ; truancy, 556 ; aid to mothers, 3,245 ; feeble-minded, 58. For 1921 they are : Delinquency, 2,415 ; dependency, 1,292 ; truancy, 648 ; aid to mothers, 1,429 ; feeble minded, 69. As to the problems especially characteristic o f these separate groups, the annual reports o f the court give little information other than the ages o f children, the disposition o f cases, and the offenses o f delinquent children. No attempt will be made here to describe the children'included in the groups o f cases under the acts covering aid-to-mothers, truant, and feeble-minded jurisdiction.2 PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE DELINQUENT CHILD. With regard to the delinquent children, a study of the delinquent wards o f the court during the first 10 years o f the court’s existence found that the problems o f the delinquent child were primarily problems o f immigrant adjustment, o f poverty, o f the broken, the degraded, and the crowded home, o f school and neighborhood neg lect, and only secondarily and to a very slight extent, o f the un manageable child in the midst of favorable circumstances.8 Among the cases of'delinquent children by far the greater num ber are boys. Table I I shows for the five-year period, 1915-1919, 11,799 cases o f delinquent boys and 3,344 cases o f delinquent girls. The greater number o f boys is in part the result of different methods o f investigation which will be discussed at a later point, and in part due to the method o f reporting cases rather than children, since the boys tend to repeat oftener than girls. It is, also, a matter o f difference in character o f offense, as the girls are seldom brought to » For mothers’ pension cases, see Abbott, Edith, and Breckinridge, S. P . : Administra tion of the Aid-to-Mothers Law in Illinois. Children’s Bureau, Publication No. 82, W ash ington, 1921. For cases o f truant children, see Abbott, Edith, and Breckinridge, S. P . : Truancy and Nonattendance in Chicago Schools. University of .Chicago Press, Chicago, 1917. For mental defectives, see Healy, W illia m : The Individual Delinquent. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1 9 1 5 ; and M ental Conflicts and Misconduct. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1917. * Breckinridge, S. P., and Abbott, E d ith : The Delinquent Child and the Home, Chapters II I —X , Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 TH E ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF TH E COURT. court for childish pranks or gang depredations but nearly always for serious immorality, which necessitates immediate and vigorous action. While the law names no lower age limits for juvenile-court juris diction, the State schools for delinquent boys and girls can receive no children under 10 years o f age. A ll children under that age are therefore treated as dependent rather than delinquent, unless the child’s experience has been such that he can not be placed with dependent children. For this reason Table II, which presents the ages o f delinquent children, shows only one case o f a delinquent child under 10 years o f age.4 T a b l e II. — Age, by sex of child; delinquency cases heard by the juvenile court, 1915-1919.« Delinquency cases heard by the court. A g e of ch ild . B oys. Q 10 .............................................................................................................................. 11........................................................................................................................................ 12........................................................................................................................................ 13....................................................................... ................................................................ 14........................................................................................... . ......................................... 15....................................................................................................................................... 16....................................................................................................................................... Î 7 .................................... ; ................................................................................................. 18............................................................................................... ....................................... 19 ...................................................................................................................... P e r cen t d istrib u tio n . N u m ber. G irls. ■ 11,799 3,344 3S0 697 1,104 1,517 2 ,4 1 5 2 ,683 2 ,973 c 59 C1 1 36 55 120 236 501 787 855 730 c 21 c 2 B oys. 100.0 G irls. 100. ( ¡0 3 .0 5 .9 9 .3 1 2 .9 2 0 .5 2 2 .7 2 5 .2 0 .5 (» ) 1 .1 1 .7 3 .6 7 .1 1 5 .0 2 3 .5 2 5 .6 2 1 .8 0 .6 ( 6) ° Compiled from figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 191 5 -19 1 9 . For 1920 the figures a r e : Boys, 1 ,9 1 2 ; girls, 638. For 1921 they a r e : Boys, 1 ,7 5 4 ; girls, 661. 6 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. « Jurisdiction obtained at prior hearing before juvenile-court age limit was reached. A difference in grouping of boys’ and girls’ cases might be expected from the difference in age limitation defined by the law— 16 for boys and 17 for girls. The wider range exhibited by the girls’ cases is therefore o f no significance. There is, however, more concentration toward the upper age limit than in the case o f the boys. Table I I shows, for example, that 31.1 per cent o f the boys were under 14, while only 13.5 per cent o f the girls were so young. This again is in * part the result o f the differences in the character of offense, as shown by Table III. 4 I t is not possible to say definitely, but for this child it is probable that a dependent petition was substituted at a later date for the delinquent petition. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. T a b l e III. Offense, by sex of child; delinquency cases heard by the juvenile court, 1915-1919.a Delinquency cases heard by the court. Offense. Number. Boys. Total.......................... Stealing.................. Incorrigibility.................. Malicious mischief.. Assault..................... Immorality........................ Miscellaneous offenses............... Girls. Per cent distribu tion. Boys. Girls. 11,799 3,344 100.0 10Q.0 8,067 1,900 605 509 234 484 397 1,387 5 19 1,467 69 68.4 16.1 5.1 4.3 2.0 4.1 11.9 41.4 0.1 0.6 43.9 2.1 C o u n tT Pi n d l f i l S iflqSiQreS For ^ 0 9 « ytuarSflending Nov- 3 0 - Charity Service Reports, Cook they* are ^B oy s,^ 1/T54 t giris^ 6 6 L ° gUFeS " * = B° yS’ 1,912 ; girls’ 6 38' Por 1921 The offense, as given in this table, is never stated in the records as a formal charge against the child ^ but, as pointed out in the report o f the chief probation officer, “ is the conclusion o f the- statistical clerk after reading the complaint in the history sheet for each case. 5 The results shown in the table are therefore open to ques tion because o f the vagueness o f the terms, the possible variation in classification, the method o f classifying when there are two or more offenses, and the inadequacy of the history sheet itself. Neverthe less, the general results compare fa irly’closely with those presented in “ The Delinquent Child and the Home,” 6 in which the classifica tion was based on a careful reading o f the whole case record and in which attention was given to a child accused o f two or more offenses. The differences in the results, moreover, may be largely due to the classification by children in one table and by cases in the other. Stated in general terms as they are, the list includes offenses o f varying degrees o f delinquency. Under the head o f stealing have been grouped all the offenses that the court has separated into lar ceny, burglary, and robbery, as well as particular kinds o f theft, such as the taking o f automobiles or mail or stealing from railroad cars. Burglary, larceny, and robbery, however, may be used to de scribe a great many offenses connected with the taking o f property, from the theft o f a newspaper at the door to taking merchandise worth several hundred dollars from a store. This group of offenses * against property is the most important class o f offenses among the boys and contains 68.4 per cent o f the cases. The list o f the girls’ offenses presents a marked contrast to that of the boys: Nearly 44 per cent o f the girls were brought into court for * Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1919, p. 263. * Breckinridge, S. P., and Abbott, E d ith : The Delinquent Child and the Home, p. 39, Charities Publications Committee, New York, 1912 (see special discussion pp. 27—3 0 ). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TH E ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF TH E COURT. 21 “ immorality,” meaning always questions o f sex experience. An other 41.4 per cent were brought in for “ incorrigibility,” a term used whenever possible in girls’ cases to avoid accusation o f immo rality, but very often indicating either suspected immorality or the danger o f its development. PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE DEPENDENT CHILD. Very little information regarding the problems of the dependent child is available, except for age, number o f times in court, and dis position o f cases. The annual reports o f the court give only an in adequate classification o f home conditions. The problem is often a complicated one; and yet only one circumstance, such as a “ drunken father ” or “ feeble-minded mother,” is set down for each child. It as, however, entirely possible to have in the same family a combina tion o f factors, such as both a drunken father and feeble-minded mother. Moreover, no extensive study o f case records of dependent children has ever been made. It is, therefore, impossible to state with assurance what children constitute the group termed “ de pendent.” The ages o f dependent children are shown in Table IV . Among these children no appreciable differences are found between the age distributions o f the girls and o f the boys. The table is therefore presented for both sexes combined. T a b l e IV. — Age of child; dependency cases heard by the juvenile court, 1915- 1919.a Dependent cases heard by the court. Age of child. Per cent. Number, distribu tion. Total, 10,631 100.0 Under 7 years. 7 years, under 14. 14 years, under 16 16 years and over. 4,137 5,661 699 134 38.9 53.2 6.6 1.3 It appears that during the five-year period 1915-1919 more than one-third, 38.9 per cent of the dependent children, were under 7 years o f age; more than one-half, 53.2 per cent, were 7 and under 14; and very few, only 7.9 per cent, were 14 and over. This is in marked contrast to the group o f delinquent children, none o f whom were under 9 and a large majority o f whom were 14 and over—68.9 per cent o f the boys and 86.5 per qent o f the girls.7 7See Table II, p ..!9. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. The juvenile court law uses the two terms “ dependent ” and “ neglected ” as applicable to the same group o f children. It might have been possible to assign certain clauses in the definition imply ing destitution to a “ dependency” classification and others imply ing the presence o f degrading influence to “ neglect.” Had this been done, a study o f the records might more easily have revealed the relative numbers o f the two groups. Such a classification has not been made, however, and it has been the custom o f the court to call all the children brought in under this section “ dependent.” How far the court is concerned with cases involving poverty only, it is therefore impossible to say. The group o f children o f widowed mothers who formerly might have formed a large part o f the group o f dependents are now, o f course, cared for by the aid-to-mothers division 8 o f the court. It was never the policy o f the court, however,, to break up a family on account o f poverty only ; such examination o f the records as has been made indicates that the pension group is a group o f children different from those treated under the dependency clause, the only type o f case involving destitution alone handled under the dependency definition being that o f the child both o f whose parents are dead or permanently incapacitated and whose relatives are too poor to assume the responsibility for his care. And this seems to be a rare type o f case, for the situation is usually compli cated by the incompetence or the neglect o f the relatives or of the neighbors who assume the care o f children left alone by the death or incapacity o f their parents. Such a case of neglect, for example, was that of four children, three girls and a boy, aged 16, 14, 10, and 6, all the victims of active tuberculosis. The parents were both dead, and the children lived with a young married sister. But her husband worked irregularly, and she was careless about their illness and failed to see that they, went regularly to the free dispensary for treatment. Another case illustrating the fact that with destitution are often found elements of degradation is that of two girls, l o and 8 years old, and a boy of 13, whose parents were both in a State hospital for the insane. An older sister assumed responsibility for them, but she was only 24 years of age, was divorced, and was suspected o f being a prostitute. The 15-year-old girl, lacking the con trol and help needed, became delinquent before the court’s attention was again called to the family. In some cases illness combines with poverty to prevent the parents from fulfilling their responsibilities to their children. Such a case was that o f four children, all under 13. of tuberculosis, and the father, though himself able to because of tuberculosis, was trying to keep the family it was necessary for him to go to a sanatorium and The mother had died work only irregularly together. In the end to allow the court to make provision for the children. . s “ Mothers’ pension division ” since enactment of amending law, June 29, 1921. nois Law s, 1921, p. 162. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Illi TH E ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF TH E COURT. 23 When both parents are living, it is often some neglect on their part that brings the child into court. The neglect, however, may be quite unintentional and the result o f ignorance or o f sheer inability to meet the situation. For example, in the case of two Lithifanian children, a girl of 11 and a boy of 8, the mother was a paralytic and had been in the county hospital for months. The father worked in the steel mills 12 hours a day. The children had not been in school all year and were alone all day, doing whatever housework was done. Perhaps the commonest form o f neglect is the desertion o f the children by one or by both parents. Neither the deserted wife nor the unmarried mother is eligible to aid under the aid to mothers law. A mother whose husband deserts, leaving her to support several small children, may be able for a time to hold the family together, but if sickness comes or a time o f unusual strain, the only course open to her may be to place the children in an institution, and for this purpose she appeals to the court. The child o f the unmarried mother frequently becomes “ dependent ” in the same way. I f the mother is dead, the father finds it even more difficult than the mother to take the place o f both parents. Leaving the children with relatives often seems the easiest solution o f the problem, but it is not always a satisfactory solution. Such a case was that of a 12-year-old dependent girl found living with her maternal grandmother and aunt in a house of prostitution. H er mother was dead; her father had married again and had other children. He had allowed the grandmother to keep the little girl. H e seldom saw her, and he knew nothing of the conditions in the home. When the mother has died, the father sometimes attempts to meet the needs o f the family by employing a housekeeper. This often leads to friction with the older children and' sometimes to irregular sex relationships. It is not then surprising that many fathers who are not very vigorous, despair o f finding a way out and, lacking a keen sense o f responsibility, desert the home and abandon the chil dren to the mercy o f the community. The burden in these cases may fall on older children who are still too young to be expected to assume the cares o f a large family, or who already have families o f their own. The court is often called upon to assist in the adjust ments necessary in situations o f this kind. One father, for instance, deserted six children a few years after the mother’s death. H e had a housekeeper for a time, who lived with him as his wife, but the children objected, and he finally left home. The 22-year-old married son, who had tuberculosis, was trying to care for a sister of 15 and three brothers of 12, 10, and 8 ; but his wife’s illness made it necessary for him to ask the court to find homes for the children. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 24 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. Desertion on the part o f the mother is probably less common than on the part o f the father. There is, however, no reason to believe that if left alone the mother assumes the double burden more wil lingly than the father whose wife has left him. The mother who deserts is usually one who runs a^sfay with another man, leaving the children with their father. The situation that the father must meet is more difficult than that caused by a mother’s death, for his sense o f responsibility is naturally weakened by her defection and by the feeling that he is after all not entirely to blame for what may happen to the children. In the case of five children under 14 whose mother deserted, nothing seemed possible but to distribute the children among relatives and institutions. So far the cases cited have illustrated a comparatively simple form o f neglect, that caused by the desertion o f one or both parents. More difficult to handle are those cases in which the parents are either incompetent through physical or mental defect or are actually so de graded as to be a menace to the well-being o f the children. The presence o f mental defect and of tuberculosis is frequently the domi nating factor in the situation. A mother of nine children was found to have a mental age of 11 years. Tw o' of the younger children had glandular tuberculosis, but all the social agencies who had been interested in the family had found it impossible to impress upon her the necessity for sending the children to the dispensary. An 18-year-old daughter was mentally subnormal and became delinquent. The 17-year-old son was in court several times for stealing and was finally committed to the house of correction for burglary. The. 13-year-old boy was a truant and stole property from the school. The home was dirty and disorderly. The father seemed no more competent to manage the family than the mother. It is often particularly difficult in the absence o f vigorous control by the health authorities to enforce parental responsibility for the health o f the children. A deserted mother who had pulmonary tuberculosis in such an advanced stage as to be a menace to the health of her three children, aged 7, 5, and 1, finally consented to go to a county sanatorium, where the children were also to be treated for glandular tuberculosis; but when the ambulance arrived she managed to escape, taking the baby and deserting the other two children. Somewhat special cases are those in which parents try to dispose of their children in return for money. In one case, an Italian mother was deserted by her husband just before the birth o f her second child. The first child was only 14 months old, and she allowed the doctor to give the second baby away. Complaint was made to the court that the baby had been given to a colored woman who kept a disorderly house. The baby was placed for a time in an institution, then given back to the mother. Later, however, the mother gave the child to the same w om an'on https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TH E ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF TH E COURT. 25 her promise to pay $500. Needless to say the mother never received the $500; but the baby had been removed from the court’s jurisdiction, and months of effort on the part of the court failed to locate the child. From the citation o f these cases it will be seen that the problem of the dependent child is a problem into which enter a number o f com plicating and interrelated factors—destitution, sickness, mental de fect, moral degradation, desertion, ignorance, incompetence, and neg lect. It is the problem o f the juvenile court to break the vicious circle o f poor inheritance, lack o f training, and social neglect that often characterize the experience o f the parents and to lift the dependent children out o f circumstances that cause suffering and deprivation or that may lead to delinquency. 88005°— 22------3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT. THE JUDGE. The judge o f the juvenile court is one o f the 20 judges o f the circuit court of Cook County. As such, he is elected by popular vote for a term o f six years and is selected as a judge o f the juvenile court by vote o f all the circuit court judges o f the county. He re ceives a salary o f $12,000 a year, paid half by the State, and half by the county. The selection may, by law, be made “ at such times as they shall determine,” 1 but it has been the practice o f the circuit court judges in Chicago to continue to select the same person as judge o f the juvenile court as long as he remains in office or as long as he can be persuaded to serve. During the 20 years o f its exist ence only four judges have presided regularly over the juvenile court.2 A number o f other judges, however, have presided over the court temporarily. "When the judge o f the juvenile court is on vacation, ill, or necessarily absent from the bench for some other reason one o f the other judges o f the circuit court hears juvenile cases. Since 1919, moreover, when the work became too heavy for one judge, the judge o f the juvenile court has devoted one week in each month to the hear ing o f contested cases and to special administrative work and during that week another judge sits in his place. That judge is from another circuit and was designated by the supreme court, and so far as pos sible he acts in all cases in which the judge o f the juvenile court can not be present. When he is unable to sit, other judges have to be called in, and they are designated by the circuit court. The hearings, naturally, are noticeably different when one of the judges less experi enced in juvenile court work is on the bench. In general, however, the presiding judge is'disposed to recognize that he is sitting only as a substitute and to rely upon the probation department for guidance or to continue the more difficult cases until the judge o f the juvenile court returns. i Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 171. * Hon Richard S. Tuthill, who served from July 1,. 1899, to June 30, 1905, and from July 1 *1907, to June 30, 1 9 0 8 ; Hon. Julian W . Mack, from July 1, 1905, to June 30. 1 9 0 7 ; Hon. M erritt W . Pinckney, from July 1, 1908, to June 30, 1 9 1 6 ; and Hon. Victor P. Arnold, from June 30, 1 9 16, .to the present time. 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT. 27 The duties o f the judge are both administrative and judicial, but whether or not he takes an active part in the administrative affairs o f the court depends somewhat upon his own inclination, for he is given power by law to intrust to the probation department all ad ministrative duties. That it is possible for him to retain the direc tion o f general policies is shown by the testimony o f Judge Pinck n ey3 before the county civil service commission. When, however, the judge is called upon to hear more than 8,000 cases in a year, an average o f 30 cases a day, 5 days in the week, it is obviously impos sible for him to attend to administrative details. In practice, then, the judge is responsible for the formulation o f important general rules o f administration, and the actual carrying out o f policies is left to the probation staff. The personality and the high qualifications necessary for a judge o f the juvenile court have often been stressed. Judge Mack, formerly judge o f the Chicago court, in speaking of the training neces sary for the judge, says: The public at large, sympathetic with the work, and even the probation offi cers who are not lawyers, regard him (the judge) as one having almost autocratic power. Because of the extent o f his jurisdiction and the tremendous responsibility that it entails, it is, in my judgment, absolutely essential that he be a trained lawyer, thoroughly imbued with the doctrine that ours is ‘ a government of laws, not o f men.’ H e must, however, be more than this. H e must be a student o f and deeply interested in the problems o f philanthropy and child life as well as a lover o f children. H e must be able to understand a boy’s point of view and ideas of ju stice; he must be patient and willing to search out the underlying causes of the trouble and to formulate the plan by which, through the cooperation, ofttimes of many agencies, the cure may be effected.” 4 The Chicago court has been particularly fortunate in its judges, who have been remarkably free from political influence and have fulfilled as nearly as can be expected the conditions mentioned above. The judge now sitting is said to have an extraordinary patience, sym pathy, and capacity for inspiring confidence. It is said that his decisions are rendered after a hearing so fair, gentle, courteous, and firm that they seem to all parties inevitable and conclusive. WOMAN ASSISTANT TO THE JUDGE TO HEAR CASES OF DELINQUENT GIRLS. The juvenile court law makes no provision for the appointment o f a woman to hear cases o f delinquent girls. The difficulties o f hearing 3 Breckinridge, S. P., and Abbott, E d ith : The Delinquent Child and the Home, Ap pendix II, Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912. 4 Mack, J. W ., “ Legal problems involved in the establishment of the Juvenile court,” in Breckinridge, S. P., and Abbott, E . : The Delinquent Child and the Home, Charities Pub lication Committee, New York, 1912, p. 198, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 28 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. girls’ cases in open court, however, led the judge in 1918 to recommend to the county board the creation o f a probation officer’s position which might serve such a need. The judge was given authority to appoint a woman, who is known as assistant to the judge but has the legal status o f a probation officer. The woman appointed was a lawyer who had been for a number o f years public guardian. She has served as assistant to the judge from 1913 until the present time. As pro bation officer she has no power to render a decision in any case, but issues an opinion in the form of a recommendation to the judge, which in practice is rarely reversed. The adoption o f this policy gave rise to certain criticism, however, and in 1915 complaint was made to the grand jury that cases were decided by the assistant, who was sitting 44without warrant o f law and holding a “ mock court.” The result was, nevertheless, a cordial indorsement o f the plan, for after hearing many witnesses and after an investigation o f the administration o f the court by a committee o f its members, the grand jury reported to the criminal court o f Cook County5 that, while it was incompetent to pass upon the legality of the work o f the assistant to the judge, it felt th a t44it would be highly desirable to amend the juvenile court act so as to remove all doubt as to the powers and duties o f the woman assistant to the presiding judge. * * * It desires, however, to commend in the strongest terms the idea that cases o f delinquent girls should be held, as at present, as privately as possible before a competent court.” THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. Appointment and discharge. Probation officers, as before stated, are appointed by the judge o f the juvenile court on the basis o f competitive examination. In gen eral no minimum educational requirements are specified, but the com mittee in charge o f the examination may refuse to recommend anyone who fails in the particular examination to give evidence o f a certain educational standard. While this method o f selection and appointment has been strictly adhered to, there had, until October 4,1921, been no similar provision for facilitating the discharge of officers who eventually prove to be unfit for service. It is, o f course, a defect of many civil-service sys tems that the provision for the discharge o f incompetent persons is ineffective. The civil service law usually contains a provision for dismissal after a formal hearing on a specific charge o f misconduct or incompetency. The Chicago court has established no substitute for this civil-service method. Hence, the exercise of his unquestioned power o f dismissal brings upon the judge the entire odium resultBCharity Service Reporta, Cook County, 111., 1915, p. 224. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ORGANIZATION OF TH E COURT. 29 ing from the dismissal, and he may hesitate, for various reasons, to dismiss incompetent persons.6 As a matter o f fact, only one dismissal and one suspension upon a charge of incompetency have occurred since the dismissal o f the chief probation officer in 1911. Number. The number o f probation officers is determined each year by the circuit judges. At the present’ tim e7 the staff numbers 145 persons— 17 civil-service appointees, 26 police probation officers paid by the city o f Chicago, and 102 probation officers paid by the county. Among those designated as probation officers are the woman who acts as assistant to the judge, hearing cases o f delinquent girls, and the chief probation officer, who is responsible for the direction o f the entire staff. Under him are a deputy chief probation officer and 5 assistant probation officers who act as heads o f the investigation division, the family supervision division, the delinquent boys’ divi sion, the child-placing division, and the aid to mothers’ division. Eighty-three assistant probation officers are assigned to these various divisions. Eleven others are assigned to special work and would not ordinarily be considered probation officers. They include a psycholo gist working with the Institute for Juvenile Research, the secretaries to the judge and to the assistant to the judge, a nurse connected with the court dispensary, four court reporters, two interpreters, and an officer whose function is to see that orders o f the court for payment o f support are enforced. The 17 civil-service employees are clerical assistants. O f the 90 officers who carry on the work usually regarded as pro bation work, 75 are women and 15 aré men. Twenty-six were ap pointed before 1913 and were reappointed without further exami nation when the portion of the law under which they had been ap6 On Oct. 4, 1921, however, the following actions on the part o f the chief probation officer were authorized : Suspensions.— The chief probation officer to have authority to suspend any assistant probation officer for a definite period without pay, not to exceed 30 days, by notifying the officer of his suspension either verbally or in writing, and a t the same time submitting to the judge of the juvenile court a written statement reciting the name of the em ployee, the date o f suspension, the period thereof and the cause therefor, and in case the suspension is to be followed by charges, a request for discharge or removal. The officer shall have the right to appeal to the judge within 5 days o f the date of the suspension. Removal and discharge.— In ease request is made for removal or discharge of any assistant probation officer, written notice of the filing of charges against the officer shall be given to him stating specifically the facts alleged to constitute the cause for removal. A w ritten reply to the charges may be made by the officer to the judge within 5 days. Causes for rem oval or discharge.— '(1 ) H as violated a law ful and reasonable depart mental order publicly posted in the department. (2 ) H as failed to obey a lawful and reasonable direction made and given him by his superior officer where such failure amounts to an act of insubordination or serious breach of proper discipline, or resulted or might reasonably have been expected to result in loss or injury to a child. (3 ) That he fails to perform properly the duties of his position. The fiscal year ending Nov. 30, 1921. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 30 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. pointed was declared unconstitutional; the other 64 have obtained their positions by passing one o f the competitive examinations held by the court itself. Salaries. The juvenile court law provides for the payment o f the salaries o f the probation staff by the county board o f commissioners. This means that the amount o f the salary is determined by the county board, although the number o f officers is determined by the circuit judges and appointment is in the hands o f the juvenile court judge. The payment o f all salaries depends, o f course, upon appropriations o f the county board o f commissioners. Thus, as in the case o f funds for mothers’ pensions, the juvenile court is dependent upon a sepa rate and at times hostile department o f the government for the pro vision o f funds to establish a competent and sufficient force o f pro bation officers. The complaint is frequently made that the court can not get better trained officers, particularly men, because the sala ries paid do not measure up to those in allied professions, nor in some cases to those having a more political character. The salary o f the assistant to the judge is at present8 $5,500 a year; that o f the chief probation officer, $3,300; o f the deputy chief probation officer, $2,400; o f heads o f divisions, $2,196; o f district officers, $1,788, out o f which “ field expenses ” are paid.9 To be sure, the salaries o f heads o f divisions and district officers compare favorably with the salaries o f private case-work agencies doing similar work. For ex ample, the district superintendents o f the United Charities receive from $1,680 to $2,000 and visitors from $1,080 to $1,680. But these positions are largely held by women; the positions are notoriously underpaid, and those organizations, too, suffer from excessive u labor turnover.” Organization. The organization o f the probation department is necessarily some what complicated. The chief probation officer is the administrative head o f the department responsible for carrying out such policies o f the organization as have been agreed upon with the judge for the general supervision o f the entire staff, for securing cooperative rela tions with other agencies, etc. The deputy chief probation officer assists the chief probation officer in the discharge o f his administra tive duties and in the general supervision o f the work o f the proba tion officers. In addition, the deputy chief probation officer acts as chairman o f the committee that investigates all cases of dependent 8 Fiscal year ending Nov. 30, 1921. 9 Two o f tlie officers who have charge o f farm, placements receive $19 per month extra for field expenses. Tickets to outlying districts are furnished to any of the officers and paid for as office expenses. Ordinary carfare is, however, paid by the officers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 ORGANIZATION OF TH E COURT. and neglected children befpre they are brought into court, receives all applications for the release o f delinquent children who have been committed to institutions, and handles the correspondence in the cases o f nonresident children who are brought to the court’s attention. O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F T H E P R O B A T IO N D E P A R T M E N T . Judge. Assistant to ju ig e — Woman lawyer. Police probation officers’ division: 26 officers (paid by city of Chicago). C hief probation officer, r*. Deputy chief probation officer. Investigatlon division: Fam ily supervision division: Probation for d e lin quent boys’ division: Childplacing division: Aid to mothers division: 14 officers. 30 officers. 15 officers. 8 officers. 21 officers. Probation Clerical assistofficers ants, on including special 7 stenog Work: raphers, 5 typists, and 5 clerks. 11 officers. The assignment o f the probation officers to the various divisions is generally based upon the principle o f specialization o f function, although as will be seen from the later discussion there are many points at which this principle can not be applied. The investigation division with 14 officers has charge of the investigation o f all com plaints made directly to the court. The family supervision division includes 30 officers who supervise dependent children and delinquent girls placed on probation in their own homes. The delinquent boys’ division with 15 officers is responsible for the probation o f delin quent boys; the child-placing division with 8 officers secures family homes for dependent children and delinquent girls removed from their own homes but not committed to institutions; and the aid to mothers division with 21 officers investigates and supervises all mothers’ pension cases. The accompanying chart indicates the or ganization o f the probation department.10 Within the divisions the work is organized in the main along territorial lines, with each officer responsible for the cases in a given district. This system, however, is not uniformly followed. In the investigation division, for example, one officer has developed such skill in handling cases in which delicate moral situations are in volved that all such cases are now assigned ffc) her; in the family supervision division two officers devote all their time to follow-up work with the families o f children committed to manual-training and industrial schools; and in the delinquent boys’ division two officers have entire charge o f farm placements. 10 Chart from Charity Service Reports, Cook County, Illinois, 1918, p. 20G brought up to date). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (figures 32 T H E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT* In addition to the two interpreters mentioned, whose work is in the courtroom, the probation staff includes officers speaking Polish, Hungarian, Italian, German, Lithuanian, and most o f the Slavic dialects. Under the district system a foreign-speaking officer is assigned to a district in which his language is prevalent. This does not mean, however, that all foreign-speaking officers supervise only foreign-speaking families or that all foreign families are assigned to officers o f their own nationality. O f the five negro officers, how ever, four work exclusively with negro families. A ll the territory in the county outside the limits of the city o f Chicago is included in the regular probation districts with the ex ception o f four towns lying to the north. In one o f these the secre tary o f the associated charities acts as truant officer and also takes charge o f all dependent and delinquent cases. She is paid by the town and is commissioned as a volunteer probation officer by the juvenile court. The truant officer in another town and the town ship supervisor o f the poor in each o f the other two act as volunteer probation officers. A ll these officers take charge o f all police cases, bring children to the detention home, and oerform all the functions o f the regular county probation officers. Except in these towns, cases outside the city o f Chicago which are reported to the court by police officers are investigated by officers o f the investigation division. Most such cases, however, have already been dealt with by justices o f the peace and are formally transferred by them to the juvenile court. Children in these districts are placed on probation to the regular probation officers o f the juvenile court. Police probation officers. The police probation officers form a distinct division o f the pro bation staff. The chief o f police has assigned 26 o f these officers paid by the city- to the juvenile court. They work under the immediate direction o f one o f their number; but inasmuch as they receive com missions as probation officers from the juvenile court, they are also brought under the supervision o f the chief probation officer. In 1899, when the judge of the juvenile court requested the assignment o f police officers, such officers .met a very real need that could not have been met otherwise. Whether or not it is wise to retain them now that higher standards of work have been developed and better trained officers have been secured by the court is open to question. Two reasons, however, fo%perpetuating the system are: First, the volume o f work which is very great in proportion to the size o f the staff: second, the fact that complaints, particularly o f delinquent boys,1will probably always be made at police stations, and it is well to have a certain officer from each station assigned to handle juvenile cases so that he will receive some supervision from the probation office and become familiar with juvenile court procedure. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis * O R G A N IZ A T IO N OF THE COURT. 33 The police probation officers are assigned to police districts and within those districts perform soipe o f the functions o f the regular juvenile court probation officers. Their duties, however, are now nar rowly restricted. They receive complaints filed at police stations, in vestigate the cases-involved, file petitions and appear in court with the children to present the case. They are not allowed to do any pro bation work, and cases continued under supervision are always as signed to the regular probation officers. The police probation o f ficers wear citizen’s clothes and are not to be confused with the uni formed police force of the city, although they are under the authority o f the chief o f police. The principal importance o f their work lies in the more intelligent handling o f juvenile cases in the police stations and in the elimination o f the uniformed police officer from the juvenile court room. Their work will be described at greater length in the section dealing with methods of investigation.11 RECORDS AND REPORTS. Annual reports. The chief probation officer and the matron of the juvenile deten tion home report annually to the board o f commissioners of Cook County. # These reports are published each year with the reports o f other departments o f the county government in the Cook County Charity Service Reports and separate reprints are issued as well. The annual report o f the chief probation officer contains a brief summary o f the progress made during the year, the plans for the future, numerous statistical tables, and in some years a history o f the court. In 1919, 38 o f the 70 pages o f the report were devoted to statistical tables. The character o f this statistical information has improved within the last few years, at least from the point o f view o f accuracy, though errors are still not uncommon. The material selected for presentation is not, however, always that o f the greatest value to persons interested in the condition o f the children who be come wards of the court. Tables such as those showing home con ditions and offenses are compiled by statistical clerks after hasty reading o f parts o f the case records. These tables fail by their simplicity to give a picture o f the very complicated conditions exist ing and are, therefore, likely to be misleading. The summary tables o f children placed on probation and committed to institutions for each year since 1904 fail to agree with the figures given in other. tables presented and seem to be o f little value. Finally, the tables present information only for cases, never for children. Case records. The records o f the juvenile court include not only legal papers but social records giving as completely as possible the information 11 See p. 40. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 34 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. that the court has obtained with regard to the child and the family. The legal papers, including the petition, the summons, the steno graphic report o f the hearing, and the judge’s order regarding dis position, are in charge o f the clerk of the circuit court and are filed in the vaults o f the county building. They are public records open to any interested citizen. The records of the probation department, however, the social records, are private records for the use o f the court and are open to outsiders only upon the order o f the chief probation officer. This order is usually granted to a representative o f a recognized social agency interested in a particular case. Case records for all the children in one family are kept in folder form, and filed alphabetically— delinquents and dependents in one file, mothers’ pension cases separately. Formerly a separate record was kept for each child in court, but the duplication o f reports and the cross references involved made the system too complicated for convenience. These records, dealing sometimes with three or four children o f the family, and covering considerable periods o f time, become very bulky and difficult to read. They are arranged by sections. One part, for example, may contain all the hearings for all the children £t various times, while another part contains the probation officer’s reports of the progress of the case. They are difficult to disentangle for any one child or for any one period o f time. Active case records o f dependent and delinquent children are filed together in a room devoted entirely to clerical work. Closed cases, pension records, and supervised-complaint records are kept in sepa rate files in this room. Another file contains records of runaway children picked up in Chicago whose cases are investigated by the juvenile court. Other records and forms. In addition to the case records, the court keeps two card-index sys tems—one recording the name and disposition o f every child who has ever been in court, the other a record o f every case investigated but not brought into court. Besides these, a ledger is kept, in which are recorded the cases assigned each probation officer, the charge, the dis position, and the number o f visits the officer makes to each child each month. From this ledger a monthly report is prepared for the chief probation officer and for the heads o f divisions, showing for each officer the number o f families under care, the total visits made by that officer in the month, and the number o f families not visited. These reports are used as a check upon the officers to see that the mini mum requirement o f one visit per month to each family is fulfilled so far as possible. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE. For the ordinary criminal procedure that might include, accord ing to the seriousness o f the offense, arrest by warrant, examination by a magistrate, holding to bail, possibly indictment, and finally trial by jury, the juvenile court process has substituted the less rigorous sequence o f complaint, investigation, petition, summons, and an informal hearing. A t any point in this process the child may be removed to a special place o f detention or may be left at home with out bail. , COMPLAINT AND PETITION. The juvenile court law provides that a case may be brought to the attention o f the court by a petition filed by any reputable citi zen.1 This applies to all classes o f cases; and when a petition has been filed the case must be heard by the court, no matter what the result o f the investigation. In order, then, to eliminate from the docket cases that really have no basis of fact or that could be easily adjusted without court action, the “ complaint ” system has been devised. That is, whenever “ any reputable citizen ” reports to the court a condition that, in his opinion, needs investigation, unless he insists upon filing a petition, he is encouraged to state the difficulty in an informal complaint. This gives the court an opportunity to make -a preliminary investigation, and a petition is then filed by an officer o f the court only if conditions found seem to warrant court action. It may be said that while this seems to place in the hands o f the investigation division wide powers o f discretion which the law contemplated bestowing upon the judge o f the juvenile court, any person who feels aggrieved can insist upon filing a petition. Investigation is, moreover, one o f the crucial points o f juvenile court procedure; and if a child can be saved even from so informal an experience as a juvenile court hearing and record, the use o f this device is highly desirable. The court has been hearing an average o f 30 cases a day during the last few years; the immediate filing o f a petition for every complaint would lay upon the judge an impos sible burden. INVESTIGATION. It is the function o f the investigation division to receive com plaints and to make investigations. The division is theoretically 1 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 172. 35 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 36 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. responsible for all investigations; in actual practice, however, only cases o f dependent children are handled exclusively by its officers. Some cases o f delinquent girls are investigated by officers o f the family-supervision division under the direction o f the head o f the investigation division. Cases o f delinquent boys reported directly to the court are investigated by officers o f the delinquent boys’ division, also under the direction o f the head o f the investigation division; and cases o f delinquent boys reported to the police, by far the greater number o f delinquent boys’ cases, are investigated and brought to court by the police probation officers with no report to the investigation division. Applications for mothers’ pensions are in vestigated by the aid to mothers division, and truancy cases are investigated by the truant officers o f the compulsory education de partment o f the city board o f education. When cases are brought to the court by cooperating social agen cies, the investigation by the agency is usually accepted by the court. This is particularly true o f agencies whose representatives are com missioned as volunteer probation officers, such as the Juvenile Protec tive Association and the group of Jewish social agencies—including the Bureau o f Personal Service and the Jewish Home Finding Society, o f Chicago, now organized as the Jewish Social Service Bureau. The court records in such cases are often quite scanty, and it is difficult to say how adequate the investigations have been, particu larly when the same agency is given the supervision o f the case and when the only contact o f the court officers with the case is the hearing. Dependent children. It is in the investigation o f cases of dependent children that the court most nearly realizes its standards o f work. These cases, as it has been said, are handled entirely by the investigation division. The first task of the division is the receipt o f complaints and the elimination o f all that are too trivial for attention and o f those that do not belong to the juvenile court. Anonymous complaints are not received but are turned over to a voluntary organization, the Juvenile Protective Association. Except in the case o f well-recognized social agencies complaints are not received by telephone but must be made in person at court, where they are received by a trained investigator, usually the head o f the division, who can can tell whether the diffi culty complained of is properly a matter for juvenile court concern, or whether it should be handled by some other court or agency. To pass judgment on the complaints as they are made requires a nice sense o f discrimination, a knowledge o f the resources o f the com munity, both public and private, and a familiarity with juvenile court procedure. Approximately one-half o f the complaints received https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P R E L IM IN A R Y PROCEDURE. 37 at the desk are disposed o f without further attention by the division. Complaints received by mail are carefully studied by the head o f the division and eliminated, referred to some other agency, or investi gated, as the circumstances require. A s a result of this preliminary scrutiny o f complaints, the number o f investigations undertaken is greatly reduced, and the time and energy of officers are saved for the most important work. The complaints accepted are first “ cleared” at the confidential exchange, known as the bureau o f social registration, and a record made o f all the social agencies that have known the family. The case, with the list o f agencies already registered, is then assigned to an officer for investigation. Upon receipt o f the complaint slip the officer assigned to the case makes the kind o f investigation that is made by any good case-work agency. The court is concerned not only with leaning the truth or falsity o f the allegations o f the complainant but also with under standing the whole family situation. The names, ages, occupations, and earnings, or school and grade, o f every member of the family are obtained so far as possible, ahd inquiries are made as to the names o f relatives, the date o f the parents’ marriage, length o f time in Chi cago, housing conditions, and the family’s moral status. The technique is that o f a case-work agency, and the investigation must necessarily vary from case to case. The complainant, if he has not been interviewed in the office, is always consulted first and the family itself is always visited. Information is secured from the usual sources: The school, the employer, the church, relatives, and official and social-agency records. A school record must be obtained i f the case is to be heard by the court; otherwise, the officer uses her own discretion about obtaining information from the school. The head o f the? investigation division keeps in close touch with the progress o f the investigation, reads the reports submitted in con nection with all visits made, and is at all times accessible to the officer for informal conwrences on difficult questions. No complaint can be dropped or otherwise disposed o f without her approval.2 Dependent cases are not, however, brought into court on the judg ment o f the investigation division alone. A committee, known as the dependent-case-conference committee, acts as a board o f final review. This committee is composed o f the deputy chief probation officer, the head o f the investigation division, the head o f the family-supervision division, the officer in charge o f the work with children committed to institutions, and an assistant from the State’s attorney’s office. Cases presented to the committee by the investigating officer, with the consent o f the head o f the investigating division, are subjected to 2 The number of complaints adjusted without court action w ill be discussed at a later point. See p. 42. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 38 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. a searching analysis by the case conference committee. The commit tee passes only upon cases for which the investigation division thinks court action is needed and upon cases which the Juvenile Protective Association or the Jewish agencies wish to bring into court. It is not concerned with the large number o f cases that the investigation divi sion, on its own authority, decides should not be brought into court. In this respect the work o f the committee differs from that o f a simi lar committee o f the aid-to-mothers department,3 which passes judg ment on all cases investigated by that department. A fter assuring itself that the investigation has been thorough—that is, that all neces sary facts have been secured and that they are in convincing form— the committee proceeds to consider whether the case necessitates court action. One principle is always kept in mind, namely, that children are to remain in their homes if possible. A strong reason for removal must exist i f the committee is to recommend placing children in in stitutions or in homes other than their own. Cases necessitating removal o f children from their homes tend to fall into two classes: (1) Those in which the parent or guardian is unable or unwilling to provide maintenance and care for the child; (2) those in which the parents or guardians are mentally or morally unfit to provide proper care. In considering cases o f the first type the committee goes carefuly into the income and resources o f the family. There is no disposition to make it easy for the parent or guardian to shift the burden o f support to the county and, ordinarily, even when there seems no alternative to institutional care for the chil dren, the case will not be brought into court if the committee consid ers the family able to pay for that care. Sometimes, however, even i f a parent is able to pay for a child in an institution, the case has to be brought into court because the institutions prefer the security o f an order for payment made through the court to the uncertainty o f a private agreement. I f court action is recommended because o f the parents’ neglect, the committee makes sure that the neglect is o f an obvious and unmistakable kind. For instance, the dtommittee refused to recommend filing a petition in the case o f a family complained o f because the 11-year-old girl was overworked and undernourished. It was decided, however, to carry the case as a supervised complaint so that the committee might be assured that the parents were living up to the promises they made with regard to the girl’s diet. I f the moral character o f the parents is in question, the evidence must be of a kind that would be admitted in a regular criminal court, and not mere opinion or hearsay. Whenever the filing o f a petition is decided upon, a recommenda tion for disposition o f the case is also prepared, so that the case 8 See p. 42 o f this report. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE. 39 •usually comes to the judge with a specific suggestion for action. I f commitment to an institution is recommended, the officer in charge o f the work with institutions makes sure by preliminary inquiry that there is a vacancy in the selected institution. Usually the judge accepts these recommendations and takes advantage o f these arrange ments. Delinquent girls. Cases o f delinquent girls come to the attention o f the court either through some “ reputable citizen” who makes a complaint to the court, as in the case o f dependent children, or through the police to whom complaints are frequently made or who arrest girls under various circumstances. In any case the investigation is made by the investigation division with the difference that in cases reported di rectly to the court the investigation is made before the petition is filed and an attempt is made to adjust the case without court action; whereas in the cases reported to the police the police probation officer files the petition, and the real investigation is made often after the first hearing. This means that it is impossible to spare the girl the necessity o f appearing in court or the stigma o f a delinquency record.4 The investigation is usually made by the officer in the family-super vision division in whose district the girl lives. The officer reports to the head o f the investigation division and is under her supervision. The type o f investigation made is similar to that in the cases o f de pendent children. It is concerned primarily with the circumstances o f the offense and the character o f the girl herself, but also covers the family situation. The methods used, with some minor exceptions,, are the same as those used in dependency cases. The rule that school records are to be obtained when the girl is in school is more rigidly enforced than in dependency cases. The petition may be filed with the sanction o f the head o f the investigation division without con sultation with any committee corresponding to the dependent-caseconference committee. Delinquent boys. Cases o f delinquent boys come to the attention o f the court in the same way as cases o f delinquent girls—that is, either by direct com plaint to the court or through the police; but by far the larger num ber come through the police. I f the case is reported to the court, the 4 This system of investigating cases o f delinquent girls is o f recent origin. Prior to 1919 all cases reported to the police were investigated by the police probation officers. In 1919 three policewomen were assigned to the court to investigate these cases. They worked under double supervision, that of the police department and of the head of the investigation division. In 1920 the policewomen were removed and the present method adopted. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 40 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. investigation is made by an officer in the delinquent boys’ division* under the direct supervision o f the head o f the investigation division. The reason for having this work done by the officers in the delinquent boys’ division is not only that the officers in the investigation, division have not time to investigate all cases, but also that the officers in the delinquent, boys’ division are men, and the advantages o f having men for the work witjb, delinquent boys is thought to compensate for the dis1 advantages coming from divided authority and lack o f specialization in the one field.5 This investigation, too, follows the lines described in connection with investigation o f dependency. It is an investiga tion o f the family situation by the methods familiar to case-work agencies, as well as an investigation o f the truth o f the particular complaint. Police probation officers* investigation. Most o f the delinquent boys’ cases, however, as already stated, are reported to the police; and in these cases the police probation officers make their own investigations and file their own petitions without consulting any other department o f the court. The police officers work under the direction o f one o f their own number, desig nated as the officer in charge of the police probation officers. Except in those cases in which the boy is held in custody in the detention home, they are not required to report to this officer the steps taken in the investigation or the decision reached as to treatment. In these cases a report o f the reason for detention and o f the plan for action is required. The officer in charge o f police probation officers makes a monthly report to the chief probation officer, giving the number o f cases handled by each officer and their disposition. He does not report on individual cases. There are no rules governing the process o f investigation, and each officer is free to carry on the investigation o f each case as he sees fit. He may secure the informa tion he desires by visiting the home or by calling the boy or his parents into the police station. In general, there is no attempt to make a social investigation such as that made by the investigating division, but the inquiry is limited to ascertaining the truth or falsity o f the complaint. Many of the officers, however, have worked for several years in their districts, know many o f the families, and take cognizance o f particularly bad family situations. The police probation officers do not clear cases with the confi dential exchange and make no effort to secure previous Social records o f the family. Each officer, it is true, keeps a record o f all comBA t one time a man officer was assigned to the investigation division for full-tim e work and was given the more difficult boys’ cases to investigate. This arrangement was very satisfactory to the head of the division, but because of difficulty in securing efficient men for the delinquent boys’ division, he was transferred to that division. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE. 41 plaints that he has handled, from which it is possible to discover whether a complaint has been previously made concerning a particu lar boy, but in practice the officer usually relies on his memory rather than on his record. No attempt is made, moreover, to use the files o f the court for purposes o f clearing. A minor offense o f a child already on probation is frequently dealt with by police proba tion officers without consulting the officer o f the delinquent boys’ division who has the boy under his care and is responsible for his conduct while on probation. After the complaint has been disposed o f in such a case the police officer usually reports the facts informally to the head o f the delinquent boys’ division, who makes a memo randum o f the matter and gives it to the officer on the case. Even when the police probation officer decides to bring into court for rehearing a case already on probation, he makes no special effort to notify the boy’s probation officer, and it is sometimes quite by chance that the officer learns o f the difficulty.8 The aim o f the police probation officers, as o f the juvenile-court probation officers, is to settle cases out o f court, if possible; and the great majority o f cases are so settled— 14,500 out o f 16,995 complaints received by police probation officers in 1919.7 While there are no rigid rules determining which cases should be settled without court action and which are to be brought before the court, in general the officers try to settle the less serious complaints, and particularly those involving first offenders. No established method o f adjusting cases out o f court has been developed, but in some precincts the custom has grown up of holding a conference with boys, parents, and complainant at the police sta tion in the precinct. Because o f the desire not to interfere with the boys’ school work the conferences are usually held on Saturday mornings, and in some precincts a number o f cases are settled at this time. It is obvious that these hearings may be the source of very real confusion on the part of both boy and parents as to where the authority over children has been lodged. Other investigations. The investigation o f applications for pensions under the aid-tomothers law is conducted by the officers o f the aid-to-mothers di vision. The process has been described in a study o f mothers’ pen sions in Illinois.8 It is in general the investigation o f a relief society, with more rigid rules than are common as to verification from official records o f facts relating to the death or incapacity of the father, 6 See p. 75, case Edward O. 7 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1919, p. 287. 8 Abbott, Edith, and Breckinridge, S. P . : “ Administration of the Aid-to-Mothers Law in Illinois.” Children’s Bureau, Publication No. 82, Washington, 1921, 88005°— 22-------4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 42 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. the amount and expenditure o f insurance, the marriage o f the parents, and the ages of the children. A ll applications are passed upon by a conference committee consisting o f the chief probation officer, the head o f the aid to mothers division, and the county agent or his representative. Only those cases which the committee recommends for a pension go before the court, unless the applicant is dissatisfied with the action of the division and gets some reputable citizen other than herself to file another petition. The investigations o f cases o f truant children are made by the com pulsory-education department o f the city o f Chicago, and petitions are filed by officers o f that department. The juvenile court has no other connection with this work and no other control over it than to determine whether or not the child shall be committed to an appro priate parental school. Feeble-minded children over whom the court has jurisdiction are brought to its attention because they are dependent or delinquent children. In cases investigated by the court officers the fact o f feeble mindedness is usually discovered in the process o f investigation by means o f the mental examination described below, and a “ petition in the matter o f a feeble-minded person ” is filed as the original petition. In cases investigated by the police officers or in those cases in which the petition is filed before investigation the original petition has to be dismissed and the case continued for a petition in the matter of a feeble-minded person. Although adoption cases are outside the jurisdiction o f the juvenile court as such, investigations are made by the investigation division of the court, and its recommendations are reported to the appropriate court. ADJUSTMENT OF CASES WITHOUT COURT ACTION. Frequent reference has been made to the efforts o f the officers to reduce the number o f cases brought to court—that is, to settle as many cases as possible without formal court action. Questions arise as to why this is desirable and what happens to the children in such cases. It is argued that i f a condition exists that warrants complaint by a “ reputable citizen” it is surely the duty o f the court to make the adjustment, no matter how slight the trouble, and to see to it that there is no cause for further complaint. The officers o f the court reply that court action should be avoided for a number o f reasons. First and foremost is thé wish to spare the child a court record, for the trial of dependent and delinquent cases in the same court has resulted in attaching a stigma even to dependency proceedings. In the second place, the moral effect o f a voluntary arrangement is thought to be happier than that produced by the order o f the judge, and even if that order is with the consent o f the parents, the flexibility https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE, 43 o f an informal disposition is often to be preferred to the rigidity o f a court order. In the third place, it is imperative that the overburdened judge shall not waste his time and energy on unnecessary cases. A fourth consideration is the saving o f taxpayers’ money; every case heard in court involves a certain expense. Adequate investigation of complaints o f dependent cases, moreover, often uncovers several pos sible sources o f aid and support that can be resorted to without court action. . The.number o f complaints adjusted out o f court by the investigatmn division and the police probation officers is shown in Tables V and VI. The statistics presented by the investigation division are or family complaints, and, as stated in the report, the figures must be multiplied by three or four to give the number o f cases represented. Ihe police probation officers’ figures, on the other hand, are for chil dren or individual cases, and therefore appear to be very much more numerous. The proportion adjusted without court action is some what larger in the case o f the police probation officers than o f the investigation division. T a b l e V .— Disposition; complaints investigated by police probation officers year ending Dec. 31, 1919} Complaints. Disposition. Per cent Number. distribu tion. Total. Brought into court...................... Adjusted without court action. 16,995 100.0 2 ,495 14,500 1 4 .7 8 5 .3 T a b l e V I .-D is p o s itio n ; complaints investigated by the investigation divinon year ending Nov. 30, 1919.1 Complaints. Disposition Per cent Number. distribu tion. Total. Brought into court..................................... Adjusted satisfactorily without courtaction............... Adjusted but not wholly satisfactorily........ V.'.'.W'.W PonH ,^0t+t0i com®under juvenile court" jurisdiction Pending at close of year........................... complaint s ; ^ 1 9 2 1 ^3^280?’ ^ ook c °unty, 111., 1919, p. 287. 2 ,914 100.0 679 1 ,075 254 649 257 2 3 .3 3 6 .9 8 .7 2 2 .3 In 1920 there were 2,556 The annual report from which these tables were compiled gives no explanation o f the categories used by the investigation division in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 44 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. classifying its disposition o f cases. The terms are difficult to define, for one group is not clearly distinguished from another. Further more, the classification o f cases under them will always be a matter o f individual judgment. The head o f the division explains the classification as follows: Cases “ not under the court’s jurisdiction” are those which, after slight investigation, prove to belong to other agencies. They can not be eliminated without some investigation because either the complainant is not in possession o f all the facts in the case or he is not candid in his statements. Cases “ satisfactorily adjusted” are those in which after more or less effort the officer has been able to remedy the difficulty complained o f ; and “ cases adjusted, but not satisfactorily” are those in which a difficulty is felt to be latent, although a slight temporary improvement has been effected in the situation, and court action is at any rate postponed. It should be noted that 254 cases, or about 9 per cent o f those investigated by the officers o f the investigation division in 1919, were considered to be of this nature. In the case o f delinquent boys brought before the police probation officers in the precinct police stations, although a large number o f ad justments are made without court action, no attempt is made to follow up the case with any supervision. In cases handled by the investiga tion division, however, not only is a more prolonged effort made to discover what can be done in the case, but in some cases what amounts to probation work without formal court order is done. Cases treated in this way are known as “ supervised complaints.” No statistical study o f the treatment of cases by the investigation division has ever been made and a detailed study would be beyond the scope of this inquiry. A reading o f some 25 cases at random, how ever, reveals certain common types o f service that the officers o f the investigation divisibn often render. One o f the most frequent com plaints comes from a man who through the death or illness o f his wife is left with a family o f small children for whom he is unable to care, but for whose support he can afford to pay. He needs expert advice, and this he receives from the probation officer. Perhaps she merely assists him in placing his children with relatives, or she may consult a child placing agency that makes a specialty o f such work. In the course of the investigation as to whether the case lies within the court’s juris diction a permanent settlement' may be reached. In making arrange ments with relatives, the home is investigated chiefly with reference to the financial status and moral character of the relatives. The investi gation is not as searching as that made by regular child-placing agencies. In general, where the situation is one o f dependency due to poverty alone without the elements o f neglect or degradation, the officers make the adjustment without court action, provided county https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE. 45 support is not needed and the child has a legal guardian to assume responsibility for the arrangement. Cases involving neglect or unfitness on the part o f the parents or custodians of the child are more difficult than those presenting the problem o f destitution. Here the effort o f the officer must be to effect some permanent change in the conduct o f those in charge o f the child. Her weapon is moral suasion, backed by the potential authority o f the court. A successful example of this kind of activity occurred in the case of an un married mother, who, after her confinement, wished to place her baby out for adoption and be free. The officer gained her confidence, persuaded her to take a week to think matters over, adjusted difficulties with former employers, induced her to keep the child, helped her to recover a sum of money from the father in the court o f domestic relations, and left her in the care o f an agency that specializes in finding work for women in her situation. Usually the adjustment does not come so quickly and easily. Where prolonged effort on the part o f the officer is required, the case is carried as a “ supervised complaint.” Here the work is similar to that o f the probation officers o f the family supervision division, the only difference being that the authority o f the court is potential, not actual, and that the rules for work are more flexible. While no regulations exist governing the length o f time during which a complaint may be carried, the division does not intend to allow an unsatisfactory situation to drag on for a long time. I f improve ment is not evident, steps are taken toward court action. The following case is an example of a supervised complaint: An 8-year-old child was reported as being cruelly treated by a stepmothen. The officer verified the facts by careful investigation, brought the case into the court o f domestic relations, and secured a verdict placing the parents on probation under an adult probation officer. The action of that court, supple mented by frequent visits from the juvenile probation officer, during which good advice about diet and sleeping arrangements were given, effected a change in the conduct o f the stepmother. Another type o f supervised complaint occurs when some relief agency feels that it must cease giving relief unless a woman whom it has been helping dismisses a boarder with whom she is suspected o f having immoral relations. The relief organization has no au thority to force her to comply with the request.' The juvenile court officer, however, by threatening to remove the children by court ac tion, can sometimes improve the conditions and will continue to supervise the family, the relief society agreeing to continue its assist ance. The supervised complaint ends sometimes, however, in formal court action. I f the treatment under the investigation division has been all that might have been accomplished under court order, nothing https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 46 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. has been lost, but occasionally it seems to be a matter for regret that action was not taken sooner. Such w as the case, for instance, of a 15-year-old boy who had got beyond his mother’s control and was continually running away from home. H is case was carried for six months as a supervised complaint with no apparent im provement. Then the family moved without notifying the officer and could not be located until the mother, seven months later, reported that the boy had run away taking all the money she had in the house. After several trials in a county institution and on parole, it was necessary to commit the boy to the State school for boys. Another such case was that o f a dependent girl of 14, whose mother had been dead a number of years. The case had once been in court, and the petition dis missed when an aunt in California took charge of her. Several months later, however, she was returned to Chicago, and complaint was made to the court that the relatives could not be responsible for her care. For a year the case was handled as a complaint. From October until April the girl lived with an aunt, who complained of her unruliness. From April until August she was left in the home that her father established w i t h ^ mentally deficient grandmother as housekeeper, the father working at night. Then the father gave up the attempt to keep a home, and from August until October the girl wandered about from one home to another, staying with friends and becoming more untruthful and dishonest. Part of the time she was working in a department store, and later on as a telephone operator. Finally she became definitely immoral and was brought into court on a delinquent petition. The above, o f course, are isolated cases, and it is not intended to imply that the supervised complaint always or frequently ends in court action. Nor is it certain that court action at first would have been any more successful than informal supervision. The possibility always exists, however, that it might have been more effective if 'applied promptly. The moral effect o f bringing a delinquent boy before the judge is often marked, but, on the other hand, a distracted mother who appeals to the court to control an unruly child may be discouraged by the long-drawn-out process o f the supervised com plaint. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATIONS. For the examination o f the child’s physical and mental condition by persons competent to pass judgment, special organization is o f course necessary. The law gives the court no specific power to require such examina tions. The court may, however, commit a child in need of medical care to a hospital9 or may adjourn proceedings for the.filing o f a feeble-minded petition,10 and presumably it has authority to inquire into the facts in such cases. As in the case o f payment o f probation officers and the provision for a detention home, the machinery necessary for medical and »H u rd ’ s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 177b. 10 Ibid., sec. 341. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE. 47 psychological examinations was first provided by private philan thropy. Medical examination was begun in 1902, when the Children’s Hospital Society furnished a trained nurse who was present at each session o f the court and secured hospital and medical care for every child committed to her by the court. In 1907 this service was ex tended by the society, and all children in the detention home, as well as all others whose parents would consent, were given a general medical examination.11 The work thus begun by private funds was taken over by the county commissioners in 1909.12 A t the present time a physician and dentist working part time and three nurses working full time are paid by the county and employed at the detention home. In addition a woman physician employed by the city examines delinquent girls at the dispensary maintained in the juvenile court rooms. A ll children brought in for hearing, with the exception o f cases investigated by police probation officers, are given medical examina tions. Children placed in the detention home are examined there by the attending physician. Children who are not placed in the deten tion home are examined at the court by the same physician. The examination at the court includes the condition o f the skin, glands, eyes, ears, nose, throat, teeth, and lungs. In the case o f a delinquent girl, when immorality is suspected and if the parents consent, a vaginal examination is also made by the woman physician employed by the city. Children received at1 the detention home are immediately taken to the dispensary, where a graduate nurse records temperature, pulse, and respiration, and takes throat cultures and vaginal smears. The children are then isolated until the next morning, when the attend ing physician makes a thorough physical examination. The report o f this examination and any recommendation for treatment are sent to the court before the hearing. Psychological and psychopathic examinations were first given in 1909, when the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute was established through the generosity o f a public-spirited citizen. The institute was organized for five years as a private association directed by Dr. W il liam Healy and was maintained by private endowment, though all o f its services were given to the work o f the juvenile court. In 1914 the institute was taken over by an appropriation o f the board o f county commissioners as a regular department o f the court. It was continued under county auspices until 1917, when the director13 11 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, Illinois, 1907, p. 112. 12 Thurston, H . W . : “ Ten years o f the juvenile court of Chicago,” in The Survey, Vol X X I I I , p. 6 63 (Feb. 5, 1 9 1 0 ). 18 Dr. H ealy resigned in 1917 and w as succeeded by Dr. Herman M. Adler, the present director. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 48 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. was appointed State criminologist under the Illinois Department o f Public Welfare. Opportunity thus being given to extend the work throughout the State, the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute became a State organization under the authority o f this department and im mediately under the direction o f the State criminologist. Under this plan an arrangement for cooperation between the State and the county has been made, the county continuing to contribute to the expenses14 o f the institute in return for the services rendered in examining children brought before the juvenile court. In 1920, after considerable reorganization, the name was changed to the Institute for Juvenile Research. Cases are referred to the institute by individuals and by social agencies, as well as by officers o f the juvenile court, and the court has ceased to have any control over its work. It has never been possible to have all the children examined, and the problem o f selecting those who need examination has not been an easy one for persons untrained in psychiatric and psychological work. A t one time an attempt was made to have a psychologist at court to give elimination tests to all children brought in for hear ing; but the children were found to be abnormally nervous and excited by the court hearing, and the practice was abandoned. At present all the children who are placed in the detention home even for a day are given brief tests designed to eliminate those who are definitely not feeble-minded. These tests are given by thé teachers in the detention-home school and are graded by the two psychologists employed by the Institute for Juvenile Research and stationed at the detention home. A child found by this test to be defective is given a thorough examination by the psychologist; and i f any ab normality o f behavior is observed he is also given a psychiatric ex amination by a psychiatrist either at the detention home or at the office o f the Institute for Juvenile Research. A diagnosis o f the case, together with a recommendation for treatment, is reported to the court at the hearing. 11 The county pays the salary of one psychologist, and one stenographer. these persons is not, however, confined strictly to the county. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The work of DETENTION. DETENTION POLICY. The juvenile court law provides that “ No court or magistrate shall commit a child under 12 years o f age to a jail or police station; but i f such child is unable to give bail, it may be committed to the care o f the sheriff, police officer, or probation officer who shall keep such child in some suitable place provided by the city or county out side o f the enclosure o f any jail or police station.” 1 The building erected, as before stated,2 under the amendment o f 1907 still serves as a detention home. While children o f 12 or more do not come within the prohibition, it has become customary for both the juvenile court and the police to use the detention home for children between 12 and 17 or 18 as well as for the younger children.3 Many children awaiting hearing are left in their own homes. Unless the home is detrimental to the child or unless there is reason to fear that the child or the family will disappear before the hear ing, it is the policy o f the juvenile court to leave the child in his own home without bond, relying upon the promise o f the parent or guardian to produce the child at the specified time. In practice it has been difficult to maintain a consistent policy o f detention, especially with regard to children brought into court by the police probation officers. It is difficult to obtain the figures nec essary to determine the proportion o f cases held in the detention home among all those brought before the court. The chief probation officer in his annual report for 1918 stated that not more than 15 per cent o f the children whose cases were investigated by county proba tion officers were ever taken into custody.4 Cases investigated in this way, however, form a small part o f all the cases before the court; 5 hence, it is the practice o f the police probation officers that is more important in this respect, but no statistics are available showing what proportion o f children brought in by these officers are placed in the detention home. 1 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 179. 2 See p. 9. 3 See p. 8 of this report. 4 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, IU., 1918, p. 208. 6 In 1919 police probation officers filed 2,495 petition s; only 679. the investigation 49 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis division 50 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. NUMBER OF CHILDREN CARED FOR IN DETENTION HOME. The total number o f children cared for in the detention home in each year for the two years 1918 and 1919 is shown in Table V II. T a b l e V II.— Source, by y ea rs; cases cared for in the juvenile detention home, 1918-1919.1 Source. Cases cared for in the juvenile de tention home. 1918 Total.................................................................................................................................... Police probation officers............................................................................................................. Sheriffand Federal officers........i .............................................................................................. Children returned from hospital.............................................................................................. 1919 4,636 5,104 139 626 2,648 40 53 944 84 77 25 124 694 3,024 11 88 995 60 97 11 1 Figures are for fiscal years ending Nov. 3 0. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1918 and 1919. F or 1920, 4,861 cases were reported as cared for in the juvenile deten tion home. It appears from Table V II, which presents the number o f entrances to the home rather than the number o f children cared for, that chil dren are received from a number o f different sources besides the police probation officers who bring in more than one-half and the county probation officers who bring in less than one-sixth o f the children. One important source is the juvenile court itself. That is, children are not only brought into the detention home by proba tion officers to await hearing but are returned there by court order after hearing. This may come about for either o f two reasons: The case may be continued and conditions may be unfavorable for the return o f the child to his own home, or a delay may occur in carrying out some order o f the court. The order may be for the commitment o f the child to an institution in which there is no vacancy. Feeble minded children form only a small part o f the detention-home popu lation, but such children are frequently detained for months because o f the crowded condition o f the State school for the feeble-minded. Or the order may be that the child be placed in a family home, and it may require considerable time to complete the necessary arrange ments. Children are received from officers o f institutions either after es cape from the institution, or when, for some other reason, the insti tution finds it impossible to keep them. Children returned from the hospital are those whose examination on entrance to the home showed the need o f special treatment or those who became seriously ill while detained.6 •Thus a child returned by the court or by a hospital may be counted tw o or three times during a short period o f detention. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DETENTION. 51 The average length o f stay for children of all classes was 8 days in 1917,7 but in individual cases the period might extend to 25 or 80 days. The average daily population o f the home for the last five years has ranged from 105 to 123. The number o f delinquent children detained in 1919 was 4,185; o f dependent children, 919.8 The number o f delinquent cases heard by the court in that year was 3,402; of dependent cases, 1,836. OVERCROWDING. More important than the total number o f children detained during the year is the number o f children in the home at any one time in relation to the facilities for caring for them. This problem has been before the officers of the court frequently during the last few years when the home has been often overcrowded, and it has been neces sary to leave children in unsatisfactory surroundings or to take them to police stations. The legal relationship between the court and the detention home is noteworthy in this connection. The court itself has no authority over the detention home, which was established under a separate act giving the board o f county commissioners the authority to establish and maintain a place where children could be kept instead o f being sent to jail. The institution is therefore controlled by rules and regu lations laid down by the board o f county commissioners, and neither the judge nor the probation department has any control over its management. That this division o f authority is wasteful has been recognized since 1912, when the Hotchkiss committee after its investigation both o f the court and the home reported: The real supervision over the home as over the probation department should rest with the court and the cooperation between court, probation department, and home should at all times be full and complete.9 No change was made, however, in the control o f the home, and in 1918 the situation became urgent. The boys’ quarters were particu larly crowded. Boys constitute 70 per cent o f the population of the home. The iwo larger wards, for delinquent boys, accommodate 60; but they often housed 70 boys, so that a number o f boys were without beds and some slept on mattresses on the floor, others on beds without mattresses. The same overcrowding occurred in the dependent boys’ quarters, which were intended for 32 children and often housed from 45 to 60 boys. In order to learn how much the court could help in relieving the congestion o f the home, the judge, in September, 1918, assigned an as7 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1917, p. 357. 8 Ibid., 1919, p. 292. 6 Juvenile Court o f Cook County, 111. Report of a Committee Appointed under Reso lution of the Board of Commissioners o f Cook County, Chicago, 1912, p. 45. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 52 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. sistant probation officer to work with the officers o f the detention home in investigating the causes of overcrowding, and the following analysis was submitted to the court,10 attributing the conditions o f the home to the following causes: 1. Delay in getting cases before the court for hearing because o f overcrowded calendar. This delay is ordinarily about 7 days, but during the past year has been as much as 25 or 30 days. 2. Lack of room in both public and private institutions which would enable them to accept children, both dependent and delinquent, who have been com mitted by the court. Children committed to institutions are usually held at the juvenile detention home until they can be accepted at the institution. 3. The detention of children who have normal homes in which they might re•main pending a hearing in the juvenile court. A constant effort is made to keep children in the custody o f their parents pending hearing. There is a surprisingly large number of children who will not agree to stay at home until their cases are reached and a larger number o f children whose parents refuse to ac cept responsibility for the child’s appearance in court. 4. Unusual cases, including lost children, children who have run away from their homes in other States and in whose cases correspondence is necessary, and children whose cases are continued at the juvenile court for sufficient reason and who must be detained. So far as the congestion in the home was due to a crowded court calendar or to overfilled institutions, the juvenile court was powerless to effect a remedy. Other aspects o f the problem could, however, be dealt with, and as a result o f this report certain restrictions were placed upon the freedom o f probation officers to place children in the home. A rule was made that no child should be admitted to the home without the approval o f the chief probation officer or o f the officer in charge o f police probation officers. An officer is thus no longer free to take any child to the home on his own responsibility, but must first show his supervising officer why it is not safe for the child to stay in his own home. In practice it has been necessary to modify this rule somewhat, owing to the fact that children are some times picked up at night and that emergencies arise making it neces sary to act without waiting to secure approval. At present it is, therefore, customary for the police probation officer to take the chil dren to the home and to report the matter at once to their supervising officer, who looks into the facts and releases the child if such action seems advisable. This new ruling, it seems, has had the desired result, for in his re port for 1919 the chief probation officer said: One of the outstanding things o f the year is the successful operation of a plan by which the judge places in the chief probation officer and the officer in charge o f police probation officers the responsibility for the detention or release o f any child held in the juvenile detention home pending a hearing. Parents are encouraged to take children home pending investigation and hear ing, when, in the judgment o f the chief probation officer and the aforementioned 10 Charity Service Reports,, Cook County, 111., 1918, p. 209. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DETENTION-. 53 officer in charge, the public welfare will not be jeopardized by the child’s release. All idea of using the juvenile detention home as a place where the child may be held by way of punishment while awaiting trial is done away with. The net result has been a quicker movement of the population of the home, so that at no time during the year was it necessary to refuse to admit children because of overcrowding. This condition is in striking contrast to the three previous years during which the juvenile detention home was crowded practically all the time and children were held in police stations because of lack of room in the home.11 The reduction in overcrowding has meant that it is no longer neces sary to hold children in police stations because they can not be ad mitted to the detention home, a condition to which the chief probation officer had called attention in his reports for 1916, 1917, and 1918. It has not entirely eliminated detention at police stations, however, since a police probation officer, with the consent o f his supervising officers, occasionally detains a boy in the police station i f the deten tion home refuses to receive him because he has previously escaped or proved unmanageable.12 More rarely the police officer keeps a boy in the police station if from his knowledge o f the boy he thinks there is danger that he will escape from the home. No figures are avail able giving the number o f children held in police stations in 1919. The chief probation officer, however, estimates the number at approxi mately 25. EQUIPMENT OF THE JUVENILE DETENTION HOME. The present equipment o f the juvenile detention home is not of great significance in view of the fact that the voters o f Cook County in November, 1919, approved a bond issue o f $1,000,000 for the erec tion o f a new juvenile-court and detention-home building. The erec tion o f this building has not yet begun, however, and meantime the present equipment must suffice. The present detention home is a three-story brick building, erected in 1907. It occupies three sides o f a hollow square with a central quadrangular court and an annex housing the detention-home school. The juvenile detention home belongs to the county; the school be longs to the city and is under the authority o f the board of education and under the direction o f the principal o f the public school nearest the home. The central part o f the first floor o f the main building is occupied by offices, the branch office o f the Institute for Juvenile Research, and a large reception room in which the children see their parents. The remainder o f the first floor is devoted to the boys’ and girls’ receiving wards and isolation rooms. On the second and third floors are the dormitories, playrooms, dining rooms, kitchen, and pantries. “ Charity Service Reports, Cook County, III., 1919, p. 225. 12 The authority of the officers o f the detention home to refuse any child admittance remains absolute. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 54 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. The dormitories and receiving and isolation rooms are equipped with toilets and with hot and cold shower baths. The school was completed in 1915. It is a two-story brick building connected with the main building by two bridges, one leading to the girls’ section, the other to the boys’ section. On the first floor are five classrooms, a manual-training room, and a gymnasium, and on the second floor, two large dormitories, a manual-training room, a classroom, a sewing room, and a hospital. The children are divided into five groups, each with a separate dormitory and playroom. In general, the dependents and delin quents are separated, but the smaller boys from 5 to 14 years of age are kept together. This group includes “ little dependents, truants, runaways, and trivial first offenders,” who have a dormitory of their own with 20 beds, a separate playroom, individual lockers, toilets, and 2 shower baths. This is thought to be very much better than keeping the younger delinquents with the older ones, as was formerly done. In the girls’ wing one dormitory is set aside for dependents and another for delinquents, but girls o f all degrees o f delinquency are kept in the delinquent department. A graduate nurse is on duty in the home at all times except be tween midnight and 8 a. m. In addition, a woman is in attendance day and night in the delinquent-girls ward, a man and two women in the dormitories for delinquent boys, and two women in the de pendent sections. RECEPTION OF CHILDREN. When a child is admitted to the home, important facts regarding the case are recorded. The child is then taken to the graduate nurse, who records temperature, pulse, and respiration, takes a throat cul ture, swabs the throat with an antiseptic solution, and administers a grain o f calomel, followed by magnesium sulphate. I f the child is a girl, an examination for gonorrhea is made ^as a protection to the other inmates. A shampoo and antiseptic bath are given, and the child is dressed in detention-home clothes, so that its own may be sent to the fumigator. The house physician is on duty every morning except Sunday and examines each child who has been admitted during the previous 24 hours. The doctor’s findings and recommendations are recorded on a card which accompanies the child to court and is given to the judge, who advises the parents if the child needs medical care and obtains their signature if they consent to carry out the recommenda tions. As a precaution against the spread o f disease all children are kept in the receiving wards after admission to the home until the re sult o f the doctor’s examination and the throat and vaginal cultures https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis d e t e n t io n . 55 is known. This period of isolation is usually from 24 to 48 hours. Most medical and surgical cases, including all gonorrheal infections and cases o f ringworm of the scalp, are sent to the county hospital for treatment. Certain contagious diseases and some kinds o f eye, ear, nose, and throat trouble are treated in the isolation rooms o f the home. As a precaution against the spread o f contagion the one or two days that the children are kept under observation in the receiving wards are inadequate. The incubation period o f acute contagious disease is from one day to three weeks, but owing to cramped quar ters, particularly downstairs in the receiving wards, the children are allowed to go upstairs as soon as their cultures are reported on, providing there is no evidence of disease. The attending physicians have repeatedly stressed the fact that better isolation facilities should be provided for sick children. In 1917 the home had within its walls 190 cases o f acute tonsilitis, 42 o f pharyngitis, 45 o f impetigo, 68 of venereal disease, 22 o f ringworm, 24 o f scabies, 3 o f trachoma, as well as a few very severe cases o f pediculosis and 141 diphtheria carriers, all demanding rigid quaran tine.13 In 1918, cases o f sickness among its inmates numbered 1,650.14 Thus the request for a separate small hospital building does not seem unreasonable. The teeth o f all children kept in the home over 48 hours are examined, except in the cases o f positive throat cultures. A record is made ó f conditions found and o f all work done. So far as pos sible in the limited time children are under detention, defects are remedied, and the children are taught to care for their teeth. The dentist’s services are provided only 18 hours a week, and a great deal more work is needed than can be accomplished in that short time. THE DAILY ROUTINE. Much o f the work in their own sections is done by the children themselves, thus: The delinquent children do practically all of the work in their own depart ments. They rise at 5 a. m., turn back their bedding, throw the windows open, and begin their daily duties. They scrub almost their entire department before breakfast, which is at 6.45 a. m. Immediately after breakfast they clear their tables, wash the dishes, and tea towels, scrub the dining room and make their beds. At 9 a. m., when the work is usually completed, they wash, comb their hair, and change their clothes, ready for school at 9.30 a. m. The girls, besides doing the work in their own section, assist in the preparation o f the vegetables and wash the employees’ dishes. They also scrub the dormitories o f the de pendent section and assist in making the beds of that department. The boys scrub the main hall of the dependent section and the kitchen. I f at any time the girls are under quarantine, the boys are detailed to the kitchen work:15 18 C h a r i t y . Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1917, p. 319. 14 Ibid., 1918, p. 269. » C h a r ity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1915,, p. 267. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 56 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. After these strenuous hours the children spend from 9.30 to 12 and from 1.20 to 4 in school. Children under 10 years o f age are cared for in a group by themselves, and their work is informal and social. The kindergarten room for little dependents is particularly attrac tive. Visiting and recreation hours are from 4 to 5 p. m. and from 7 to 8 p. m. Parents may visit the children during these hours five days a week. The boys play outdoors in the court under super vision, but the girls have no outdoor recreation. Time hangs heavy on the hands o f the children under observation in the receiving rooms, inasmuch as they can neither go to school nor play outdoors and have no one to direct their play in the house. The children are entertained every Friday evening with music, lectures, stereopticon views, and aesthetic dancing, and a special en tertainment is always provided on holidays. Occasionally the down town theaters present the home with tickets for some suitable play. Religious instruction is furnished for both Catholic and Protestant children by outside religious organizations. Discipline is usually left to the nurses in charge. Under no cir cumstances is corporal punishment resorted to, but occasionally when special severity seems needed, children are put on a bread-and-tnilk diet and sometimes they are placed in solitary confinement for an hour or two “ to think it over.” DIETARY. A study o f the diet made in 1917 under the direction o f a member o f the home economics department of the University o f Chicago, showed the diet' to be unsatisfactory. It was monotonous, to some extent poorly cooked, some foods were served too frequently, and the evening meal in particular was not sufficiently satisfying. A new diet was then agreed upon by the superintendent and the dietitian making the study. CLOTHING. During working and recreation hours the girls wear blue gingham dresses and the boys overalls and jumpers ; during school hours the girls wear blue, brown, tan, and white middies, and the boys khaki suits. The children are put into home uniforms so that their own clothes may be disinfected and cleaned, or possibly destroyed. A ma jority of the delinquent boys and girls enter the home so dirty that their clothing has to be destroyed at O n ce; almost all the dependent children have to be given new clothing also. Supplying a sufficient number o f new outfits has always been one o f the problems o f the home. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis HEARINGS. SUMMONS. When the investigation has been completed and a date set for the hearing, a summons is served by the probation officer, requiring the parent or guardian to be in court with the child on the appointed day. Summons, less formal than a warrant, does not constitute arrest, but failure to obey constitutes contempt o f court.1 For most cases such informal procedure is sufficient to bring all the needed persons1into court. In some instances, however, it is necessary to issue a warrant for arrest served by the sheiiff. Occasionally the hearing of a case may drag on for a considerable period o f time because o f failure to compel attendance. A social agency complained to the court that two brothers, 8 and 9 years of age, had glandular tuberculosis, that the home was neglected and dirty, and that the mother was mentally defective and refused to take the children to the dis pensary for treatment. The court had already had five years’ experience with the family because o f one delinquent girl and one delinquent boy and had re moved three other children from the home as dependents. Four children, all under 10, had been left in the home. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that the case of these two children who had never been in court before was allowed to drag on for six months before there was a real hearing, being continued six times because no one was present. No mention is made of any effort to secure the cooperation o f the father. ; The following brief statements indicate the difficulties encountered. November 24, 1919: First hearing. Mother refused to come. Case continued. December 2, 1919: Second hearing. Mother refused to come. Probation officer asked for a warrant. Case continued. December 16, 1919: Case in court. No hearing. Continued. January 6, 1920: Case in court. No hearing. W arrant never served. Case continued. January 19, 1920: Case in court. Probation officer .reported family had moved and could not be located. Case continued generally. May 28, 1920: Probation officer located family and called to serve summons. Mother denied that children were living with her. May 11, 1920: Case in court. tinued. No one present. W arrants issued. Case con July 6 ,1 9 2 0 : Seventh hearing. Children and brother-in-law present still refused to come. Case continued. Mother July 13, 1920: Eighth hearing. Probation officer reported that married sister and her husband now in the home were assuming responsibility for the children and conditions were improved. July 26, 1920: Case continued under supervision. 1 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 173. 88005°— 22------ 5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 57 58 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. September 28, 1920: Conditions greatly improved. Placed on probation. That is, although the court had the power of the State back o f it, it found itself unable for 10 months to secure the presence of a subnormal mother. It is true that the continued effort brought the married sister into the situa tion ; the burden, however, was certainly, not one that could be borne wholly by her and her husband, but rather was one that required the aid o f the com munity agency organized supposedly to deal with such situations. I f a parent or guardian is believed to have left the State or if, after reasonable effort he can not be located, the law provides for publication of the case “ once V in “ some newspaper o f general cir culation,” requiring appearance within 20 days.2 Delay is, o f course, often the result o f conforming with this, futile requirement o f the statute, incident to such publication, especially since the publication often does not occur until after the case has already been brought into court for hearing. TIME AND PLACE. The general equipment of the court has slowly expanded as the number of cases has increased. During the early days of the court, hearings were held only two afternoons a week in the circuit court room o f the old courthouse. By 1905 hearings were held two days a week— dependent children in the morning and delinquent children in the afternoon.3 From 60 to 80 cases were heard each day, and as all cases were set for the same hour, many persons were kept wait ing for the hearing in which they were interested. In that year the old courthouse was torn down, and the juvenile court was established in a room over a store on a busy street.,. In 1907, when the juvenile court building was erected, a small court room and several waiting rooms were provided, and five half-day sessions were held.4 It was not until September, 1910, however, when the judge began to give his full time to the juvenile court, that more frequent sessions were possible.5 Since that time sessions have been held both morning and afternoon, five days a week. To insure the complete separation of dependent and delinquent children different classes of cases are heard at different sessions of the court. The schedule of the court at the time the investigation was made was as follows: Three mornings a week, cases of depend ent children; four afternoons, cases o f delinquent boys; one morning, pension cases and cases o f feeble-minded children ; and one morn ing, truant cases. Conferences on cases o f delinquent girls were heard four mornings a week in a separate room. Facts are pre* Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, eh. 23, see. 173. The publication is often in serted in the “ Calumet,” a paper o f 5,000 circulation. 3 Thurston, H . W . : “ Ten years of thè juvenile court,” in the Survey, Voi. X V I I I (Feb. 5,. 1 9 1 0 ), p. 661. i Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1907, p. 111 . 8 Ibid., 1910, p. 145. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis HEARINGS. 59 sented by a woman officer to the judge in the regular court room, who satisfies himself as to the wisdom o f the recommendation formulated by the woman assistant to the judge, and renders a decision in the case. Since 1913, when the juvenile court building became too crowded for both the court rooms and the detention home, hearings have been conducted in a building erected jointly by the city and county, con taining all municipal and county courts as well as administrative departments. It is located in the midst o f a busy downtown district and, except for its central location, has little advantage to offer as a children’s court building. The juvenile court occupies a part of one floor and consists o f a court room, a small room in which girls’ cases are heard, a waiting room, a large room containing desks for proba tion officers, the dispensary, a record room, and the offices o f the judge, the chief probation officer, the investigation division,' the family-supervision and the aid-to-mothers division, the delinquent b o y s, the child-placing, and the police probation divisions. The new building which is to be erected for the detention home will also contain all juvenile court rooms and offices. Hearings, except those o f cases o f delinquent girlsj are public j but the benches on which both witnesses and outsiders sit are arranged at the back o f the room, leaving considerable unoccupied space between them and the judge, and the hearings are conducted in such a way that little can be heard except by persons interested in the case or officially connected with the court. The judge’s desk is not on a raised platform but is, with the re porter’s desk and the benches tor the jury, separated from the rest o f the room by a low railing. Only the width o f the desk, placed di rectly behind the railing, separates the judge from the child whose case is being heard. PROCEDURE. When the judge comes into the room, court is opened in a formal manner by the bailiff. The clerk then calls each case in order, and the officer who has made the investigation comes forward with the child, his parents if present, and witnesses. They group themselves around the judge s desk, facing him. The probation officer who has made the investigation or filed the petition, the police probation officer in most o f the delinquent boys’ cases, or the truant officer in truancy cases, makes a brief statement to the judge, outlining the main facts in the case, and then stands aside. He is, o f course, ready to give further information and to help in any way that the occasion demands. In general, the attitude o f the officer, and this is especially true o f the county probation officers, is that o f an impartial friend o f the child and the family and distinctly not that o f a prosecuting officer. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 60 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. After the probation officer’s statement the judge, with the case record o f the family before him, begins his questioning. When the case is that o f a delinquent or truant boy, he usually begins with the child, sometimes starting with the concrete charge and asking him what his story is, what his reasons were, and working back to his age, his work, what he does with his leisure time, and questions o f a more general nature. In other instances he works up to the charge more gradually. I f the boy has been in court before, the judge always re minds him o f it and o f what happened at that time. Perhaps the most striking thing about the questioning o f the boy compared with the examination of the accused in criminal courts is that no attempt is made to induce the child to incriminate himself, none of the questions are designed to trap him, none are asked whose bearing he will not see. The judge’s manner is friendly but never to the point o f seeming to condone the offense, and when the occasion calls for it, he may become very stern and severe. Usually the questioning of the child is followed by questioning o f the parents. A fter this, anyone else who is present is given an opportunity to make such statement as he may desire. The time devoted to a case varies from a few minutes in simple cases to possibly half an'hour in cases in which the truth is difficult to establish. In general each case is so dealt with that there is no impression o f per functoriness or of haste in dispatching the day’s work. Occasionally the boy or the complainant is represented by an attor ney, and this usually complicates the proceedings. I f a contest over the court’s action arises, the case is postponed and heard in the one week o f the month devoted to contested cases. Frequently, however, even with an attorney present no contest is involved, and the case is heard in the regular session. Proceedings in contested cases are some what more formal; witnesses are sworn, and the attorney does the greater part o f the questioning which in other cases is done by the judge. As great care, however, is taken to discover all the facts and to do what is best for the child in those cases in which neither the child nor the complainant is represented by an attorney as when one or both are so represented. CASES OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN. The procedure in cases o f dependent children differs slightly from that in delinquency cases. In the first place a jury o f six is required by the laws providing for commitments to manual-training and in dustrial schools.6 Their service in the Cook County court seems to be largely perfunctory, as the decision is arrived at by the judge and submitted to the jury for their approval, which is seldom withheld. The social value that accrues from acquainting six men who sit in «H u rd ’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 122, secs. 323 and 337. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hearings . 61 court for two weeks with the problems that confront the youth o f the city and with the policies of the juvenile court is, however, very great. A second difference in the proceedings is caused by the fact that while it is the child over whom the court has jurisdiction, it is the parents who are directly responsible for his presence in court, and it is really the parents who are on trial, although the court has no jurisdiction over them. It is natural, therefore, that the judge should begin his questions in these cases with the parents and should devote most o f his time to them. Frequently the child is not questioned at all except to establish his identity. At times also, when the facts to be brought out are not such as a child should hear, the judge directs the officer to take the children to the rear of the room. CASES OF DELINQUENT GIRLS. The real, as distinguished from the technical, hearings in delin quent girls’ cases are held in a private room before the woman assist ant to the judge. This room is in appearance a small and attractive office, having no suggestion o f a court room. No one is admitted to this room except the persons directly concerned with the case and the officers o f the court. Ordinarily, no one is present but the assist ant to the judge, the girl, her mother, her father whenever possible, the probation officer, a court stenographer who is a woman, and the police probation officer who filed the petition in those cases in which the complaint was made to the police. This officer is usually the only man present aside from the girl’s father. The proceedings are even less formal than those in open court; the hearing is in reality a help ful, friendly conference o f all concerned. I f the petition has been filed by a police officer he gives his information relating to the case; the probation officer who has made the social investigation then pre sents the facts she has learned and describes the conditions as she sees them. The girl is encouraged to state her side of the case and to express her feelings and point of view. The difficulty is discussed with the parents and the probation officer, and they are consulted with regard to the wisest plan to pursue. Every effort is made by the judge’s assistant to establish confidential relations with the girl and to make her feel that here she has a real friend genuinely in terested in her welfare. She and her parents stand close to the desk during proceedings, no strangers are present before whom she hesi tates to tell her story, and it is seldom that she fails to be more or less won by the evident friendliness o f the atmosphere. After the facts have been brought out, the assistant tries to persuade the parents to agree to what seems to her the best course of action and in any event makes a recommendation as to the disposition o f the case. The probation officer then takes the girl and her parents, with the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 62 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. legal papers, before the judge and reports to him the facts o f the case with the recommendations o f the assistant' to the judge. The judge acquaints himself quickly but adequately with the problems ; but if there are no objections on the part o f the. parent, he generally concurs in the recommendation o f his assistant. Neither the girl nor the witnesses are questioned, nor is any statement o f the case made in open court. Any parent or his representative may, however, object and demand that the judge himself hear all the facts in the case. I f that is done, the case is heard in open court in the week devoted to contested cases. That means, o f course, that the privacy with which the court has tried to shield the girl can no longer be main tained. It is very rarely, however, that an open hearing is insisted upon, for in general the parents and friends o f the girl are impressed with the fairness o f the private hearing and appreciate what the court is trying to do. CASES OF FEEBLE-MINDED CHILDREN. Hearings in cases o f feeble-minded children are conducted by the judge and a commission appointed by him as required by law.7 In practice this commission always consists o f two representatives of the Institute for Juvenile Research. Since an examination o f the child must be made by an expert before the case is brought into court, the hearing is merely a report of the result o f this examina tion, followed by a formal order for disposition. AID TO MOTHERS CASES. Mothers who are to receive pensions under the aid to mothers law must appear with their children before the judge to have their applications granted. The hearings in these cases are usually brief, as in most instances it is necessary only to ratify the action o f the committee composed o f the chief probation officer, the head of the aid to mothers division, and the county agent or his representative. 7 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 328. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT ORDER. The real test o f the value o f the juvenile court as an enduring social institution lies perhaps in the character o f treatment that is provided for the child after the hearing o f the facts o f the case. It is a comparatively simple task for the legislature to do away with the forms o f thé criminal procedure, to say that the child is not a criminal but a delinquent “ misdirected and misguided and needing aid, encouragement, help, and assistance,” 1 and as such that he shall not be punished but shall be placed in such surroundings and under such influences that he will cease to be even delinquent. But it is not so easy for the judge and probation officers o f the juvenile court to determine in each case what method o f treatment is most likely to bring about definite improvement, nor for the probation officer wlio is intrusted with the supervision o f the child to embody in concrete results whatever ideals o f probation work he may have. In the case o f the neglected child the task is even more difficult, for it then involves reorganizing a whole family and helpful cooperation often secured from the parents o f a delinquent child may be lacking. DISMISSAL AND CONTINUANCE. Dismissed and continued generally. The form that the court order may take varies with the class o f case, the legal restrictions, and the public provision for the care o f each group o f children. There are, however, two broad lines o f action that the court may take in all classes o f cases. It may as sume responsibility for the child or it may refuse to assume that responsibility. In the Chicago juvenile court practice a child is never “ discharged ” or “ acquitted,” for these terms imply that he was formally accused o f a specific offense. I f the facts brought out in the investigation or in the hearing do not reveal conditions that warrant the court’s assuming control over the child the case, may be either “ dismissed ” or “ continued generally.” A case is dismissed when the facts seem to indicate that there is no need for court action. “ Continued generally ” amounts to continued indefinitely in contrast with continued for a definite period o f time or to a specified date. A case is “ continued generally ” when conditions do not seem to warrant the supervision o f a probation officer and yet 1 Colorado Revised Statutes, 1908, sec. 597. 63 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 64 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. the judge is unwilling to dismiss the case. The orders o f “ dis missed” and “ continued generally” are alike in that neither pro vides for further work on the case. They differ in the fact that if a “ dismissed ” case is to be again brought into court a new petition must be filed, while a case “ continued generally ” remains nominally under the court’s jurisdiction and a new petition is1unnecessary. In neither case does the child receive supervision. The “ continued generally ” order may also be used as a temporary expedient when (before a case has reached the stage o f a definite order) the family moves without notifying the probation officer. In such cases, instead of entering an order o f continuance for a definite period, the judge continues the case “ generally ” to allow the pro bation officer to locate the family and to bring in the case whenever it is possible to do so. The purpose here, o f course, is quite different from that first mentioned. In Table V I I I the numbers o f cases of the various types dismissed and continued generally are shown for the three-year period 1917-1919. T a b l e V I I I . — Dismissal and general continuance, "by class o f ca se; cases heard by the juvenile court, 1917-1919.1 C ases h e ard b y th e court C o n tin u e d gener a lly . D ism isse d . Class of case. A l l cases. N u m b e r. T o t a l____ D elin q u en cy : B o y s ............ G ir ls............ D e p e n d e n c y .. . T r u a n c y .............. F e e b le -m in d e d . A id to m others. P e r cent of to ta l. N um ber. P er cen t of to ta l. 23,270 1,439 6 .2 2 , 0Q0 8 .9 7,281 2 ,1 6 4 6 ,992 1,614 192 6 ,027 683 279 381 27 11 58 9 .4 12.9 6 .4 1 .5 5 .8 1 .0 1,575 93 309 69 14 2 1 .6 4 .3 5 .2 4 .3 7 .3 1 Compiled from figures fo r fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports Cook County, 111., 1 9 1 7 -1 9 1 9 . Figures foir 1920 are ¡D ism isse d , 5 2 1 ; c o n tin u e d g e n era lly ,5 4 4 Among 23,270 cases heard by the court in the three-year period 1917-1919 only 1,439, or 6.2 per cent, were dismissed and only 2,060, or 8.9 per cent, were continued generally. The use of these orders varies somewhat with the type o f case. A id to mothers cases are never continued generally and are rarely dismissed, because the in vestigation is necessarily very complete and the pension must be recommended by the conference committee before a petition is filed. Among the feeble-minded children the fact that even 14 cases were continued generally is explained by the court as meaning “ that the whole situation o f the child was not serious enough for the court to order a commitment as feeble-minded, but that it was bad enough https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT O R D ER . 65 so that it might later become necessary to make a commitment. Under this order the court retains jurisdiction, so that the child can be brought into court without filing a new petition.” 2 Continued for a definite period. Before the court definitely dismisses the case or by some other final order assumes the care o f the child, cases are frequently con tinued for a definite period. This order may be used for two rea sons : First, because the child or its custodian fails to appear in court, sometimes even necessitating delay for publication; and, second, in the hope that the child may improve in conduct or the home conditions may be so changed as to render a final order unnecessary. Under such circumstances the case may be dismissed, and the child saved from whatever stigma may be attached to a juvenile court record. The essential difference between continuing a case generally and continuing it for a definite period is in the supervision provided in the latter case. As long as the judge orders the continuance o f a case with the definite intention o f having it brought into court at a later time, the officer who has made the investigation, unless some other officer is designated, is responsible not only for the child’s ultimate ‘ appearance in court, but for whatever developments may take place in the meantime. Children brought to court by police probation officers are never left under the supervision o f these officers but are placed, by special order, under the supervision o f some other officer, usually the probation officer for the district in which the child lives. The effect, then, of the order for definite continuance, usually stated in the case record as “ continued under supervision,” seems to be practically that o f probation. Certain administrative differ ences exist, however. Many o f the supervising officers, especially in the cases o f children brought in on dependent petitions, are officers o f the investigation division. In such cases the children receive adequate care. The work o f the division may, however, be seriously disorganized by the necessity o f caring for a great number o f supervised cases, and the practice is recognized by the chief probation officer as a violation o f the principle o f specializa tion o f function maintained in the organization o f the staff, to which he credits a considerable part o f its successful work. The relation o f the court to the problem o f the child during these periods o f continuance is one that has been very little discussed. As has been said, neither the annual reports of the court nor of the chiqf probation officer contain data with reference to it. It is, how2 Charity Service Reports, Cook County,, 111., 1919, p. 285. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 66 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. ever, evidently a relationship of sufficient importance to be o f in terest to the student of the court. The following cases, while few in number, illustrate situations that are typical o f many situations with which the court deals through this device: Virginia D., aged 15, was brought into court by her mother. She had been keeping late hours in bad company, and one night stayed out until 2 a. m. The case was continued for seven months under the supervision o f the district officer. October 27, 1919: First hearing. Virginia working without a certificate. Disobedient and defiant. To live at home under supervision. November 7, 1919: Probation officer visited. Virginia had obtained a work certificate. W a s doing office work and going to night school. November 26, 1919: Case in court. Virginia had stayed away from home all night. Found in park next morning. Said she had ridden round on street cars all night. Given another chance at home. ' December 2, 1919: Probation officer reports home conditions poor, but Vir ginia behaving better. January 19, 1920: Virginia left home. Family learned that she was staying with a family in Geneva, 111., who were at first willing to keep her, but a month later sent her home, as they did not wish to be responsible for her. March 29, 1920: Case in court Virginia working and causing no trouble. Continued to April 23, 1920. April 2, 1920: Probation officer visited. Virginia working. April 16, 1920: Virginia admits she has not been working for a week. Mother can not manage her. April 23, 1920: Case in court. Virginia again working. H as lied about her age to employer and is not going to night school. Case continued. May 20, 1920: Virginia ran away from home. Picked up by the police and taken to the detention home. June 2, 1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Virginia had been unmanageable in detention home. Placed under supervision o f child-placing division to live at M. E. Club. June 30, 1920: Case in court. Virginia had run away from club and had been immoral. Probation officer on case stated that she had never seen the girl. Committed to the House of the Good Shepherd. Harriet L., a colored girl, aged 17. Mother dead, father married again. Stepmother complained that girl had stolen money from her father and had torn up her stepmother’s clothing. Case continued five months. December 3 0 ,1 9 1 9 : First hearing. Evidences of mental defect, but father and probation officer have been unable to get her to the psychopathic institute for an examination. Case continued to January 6, 1920. January 6, 1920: Case in court. Continued for a warrant, as girl refuses to come to court or to have psychopathic examination. January 21, 1920: Case in court. Continued for report o f examination. January 28, 1920: Case in court. Psychopathic institute reports that Harriet is neither feeble-minded nor insane, but has very peculiar reactions. Girl com plains of stepmother’^ treatment. W illing to try working in a private home. Continued under supervision o f district officer. To be placed in private home. February 2 ,1 9 2 0 : Case set for hearing before Judge Arnold to confirm assist ant’s recommendation. No one present. Continued. February 21, 1920: Placed in working girls’ home. Matron refused to Keep her because she was so slovenly. Discharged from laundry because too slow. March 11, 1920: Placed in another family. Probation officer visited once. Found that Harriet was doing day work and was dirty and untidy. Her father https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE had given her money for clothes. later, but the girl was not seen. COURT O R D ER . 67 A friend o f hers was interviewed a month June 4, 1920: Case in court. No one but probation officer present. Girl was then 18. No improvement was reported, but the case was continued generally. Irene T., aged 13. Neighbors complained of her conduct and case was brought to court by police probation officer. Continued eight months. June 10, 1919: First hearing. Girl had been out o f school. Neighbors had complained that she was often alone in the house with a man who, according to her mother, was a friend of her brother’s. Mother refused to allow a medical examination, but had a satisfactory statement from her own doctor. Case con tinued, with no order for supervision. June 2 7 ,1 9 1 9 : Case in court. Truant officer testifies that absence from school accounted for by illness. Mother objects to suggestion o f sending her to a con valescent home. Case continued. Case in court four times between June 27, 1919, and January 6, 1920. Each time mother failed to appear, and the case was continued. January 6 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Irene had given birth to a child on Christmas day. A few weeks befofe this the mother had had her married at the city hall by giving her age as 16. She had paid a doctor $2 to give her the statement presented to the court at the first hearing. Case continued. January 2 0 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Irene complains that she was forced to give the child to her sister-in-law for adoption. Continuance one week to investigate the matter. January 2 7 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Irene to live at home. Child to remain with aunt. Marriage has been annulled. Irene’s brother undertakes to see that she does not live with the man again until she is 16 and can be legally married. Case dismissed. Richard R. was a dependent boy 9 years old. H is parents were divorced, and his mother worked as a housemaid in a private family. H e had been under the court’s jurisdiction since 1918 and had been placed in several homes. In 1919 his custodian complained of his bad habits and stealing and refused to keep him any longer. The case was brought to court for rehearing in Feb ruary, 1919, and was continued seven times during a period of nine months, ending in dismissal. February 24, 1919:, Case in court. • Probation officer requests continuance to see what she can do with child. March 12, 1919: Case in court. Temporary home found by Illinois Children’s Home and Aid Society. Continued. March 12, 1919: Case in court. Probation officer has found home. Continued. March 31, 1919: Case in court. Report that child is provided for until Sep tember. Continued. July 2, 1919: Case in court. Report that child is provided for until Septem ber. Continued. . September 8, 1919: Case in court. No one present. Continued. September 17, 19 19: Case in court. Boy so attached to custodian that ar rangement prolonged until January. January 6 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. No one present. Continued. January 19, 1920: Case in court. Custodian wishes to keep child. Case dismissed. The record, contains no report of any visit to this family or of the conditions in the home. It is probable that the home was approved by the Illinois Chil dren’ s Home and Aid Society. John C., a delinquent boy, 13 years old, in company with another boy had been involved in six different burglaries. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 68 TH E CHICAGO JUVEHtLE COURT. October 31, 1919: Case in court. Good borne. Parents want to' give boy another chance. Continued under supervision of district probation officer. January 29, 1920: Case in court. John placed in a farm school by probation officer and his father. Judge approves arrangement. Case continued. May 12, 1920: Probation officer learns that John had taken a large sum of money from his father and had run away from the school with several othex boys. School refused to take him back. June 4, 1920: John working in his uncle’s cigarette factory. sable. June 23, 1920: Case in court. Reports favor- John registered for a summer camp. Case dismissed. A brief summary does not wholly reveal the work o f the court, as it is impossible to note all the work done in each case. The difficulty is due, however, not only to the method o f presentation but also to the inadequacy of the court record in these cases. It is often difficult to ascertain what work the probation officer has done. Each hearing, however, has been included, and all other steps that seemed to have an important bearing on the case. The reader of these cases is struck in some instances by a somewhat hasty dropping o f the case by a « dismissed ” or “ continued generally ” at the first indication o f im provement, especially when the boy or girl is near the upper age limit, so that if the jurisdiction o f the court be lost it can not again be obtained. The published reports o f the court do not include the number of continuances, since they are not final orders. An idea o f the extent to which this order is used, however, was gained by reading a number o f selected records o f cases heard by the court during the first two weeks of January, 1920. Among 86 records of delinquent and de pendent children, 66 cases had been continued at least once. As many as 35 o f these continuances had lasted from 1 to 3 months, 20 from 4 to 10 months, and only 11 had been continued for less than 1 month. Continuances o f less than one month were for the most part necessary for technical reasons, such as changing the petition from delinquent to dependent, feeble-minded or truant, or in order to bring into court persons interested in the case. Sometimes these arrangements cause long continuances that are very difficult to bring to an end. TH E FINAL ORDER. The final order of the court does not always result in treatment that differs from the treatment under an order for continuance for a definite period. It creates a different status, however. It is more definite. The case is no longer frequently brought before the judge but can be reopened only by a new petition or a notice o f rehearing. In cases o f feeble-minded and truant children and under the moth ers’ pension law the possible methods of disposition are limited by the special character o f these cases. The methods o f disposition in such cases will be briefly indicated, and the remainder o f the chapter https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT 69 OR D ER . will be devoted to the more complicated methods o f handling cases \ o f delinquent and dependent children. Table I X shows the disposition o f feeble-minded cases for each year, beginning with 1915, that is, with the first year that the court was given jurisdiction in cases o f feeble-minded children. T able I X .— Disposition of cases, by y e a r ; cases of feeble-minded children heard by the juvenile court, 1915-1919.1 Cases of feeb le-m in d ed children heard b y th e court. D isp osition . 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 (*> 79 60 58 74 (*> (*) 39 4 4 71 4 4 1 6 51 6 4 64 52' 1 Figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1915—1919. Figures for 1920 a r e : Dismissed, 3 ; continued generally, 1 4 ; committed to State school for the feeble-minded, 41. 2 Figures not available. As might be expected, by far the greater number o f such cases are committed to the State school for the feeble-minded at Lincoln, since a feeble-minded petition is never filed until after an examina tion by the Institute for Juvenile Research and a recommendation for institutional care. The capacity o f the State school is inadequate to care for all the feeble-minded needing institutional care and as a result the court is obliged to commit only those children whose need is most pressing. Even so, the school can not receive all the chil dren committed by the court, and the detention home is frequently obliged to care for these children for months pending their transfer to the institution. Table X shows the disposition of truant cases in 1919, the first year since the establishment of the Chicago Parental School for Girls. The school for boys has been in existence since 1902. T able X .— Disposition of cases, by sex of child; truancy cases heard by the juvenile court, year ending Nov. SO, 1919} T r u a n c y cases heard b y th e court. T o ta l. D isp osition . B oys. Girls.* N u m b e r. Per cent distribu tion . 623 100.0 570 53 15 47 63 498 2 .4 7 .6 10.1 7 9 .9 11 40 61 458 4 7 2 40 1 Charity Service Reports, Cook C o u n t y , 111., 1919. Figures for 1920 a r e : Dismissed, 2 4 ; continued generally, 4 9 ; placed on p r o b a t i o n , 3 0 ; committed to parental school, 453. 2 The Parental School for Boys wan estr Wished in 1 9 0 2 ; that for girls in June, 1919 Figures for girls are, therefore, for five meAtiis only. - https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 70 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. Nearly 80 per cent o f these truant children are committed to the parental schools. Children are in fact generally brought into court by the compulsory-education department o f the city board o f educa tion for the express purpose o f commitment to the parental school. The compulsory-education department, through its truant officers, has itself the authority to visit and supervise truant children. Thus no real need for court action exists unless the child has proved too unmanageable to be left at home and must be placed in the parental school. As previously stated the only contact o f the juvenile court or its officers with the truant child is through the hearing in the court. The work o f supervision as well as that o f investigation is performed by the compulsory-education department. The order in a mother’s pension case may take the form o f “ dis missed,” “ granted,” “ increased,” “ reduced,” or “ stayed,” that' is, discontinued. In dealing with delinquent children the court is acting under the law to which it owes its existence and attacking the problem for which is was primarily created. Table X I gives the final orders of the court in cases o f delinquent children during fhe five-year period, 1915—1919. T able X I .— Disposition o f case, by sex o f child; delinquency cases heard by the juvenile court, 1915-1919.1 C ases o f d elin q u en t children. B oys. Girls. D isp osition . N um ber. P er cent distribu N u m b e r . tion. P er cen t d istrib u tion . 11,799 100.0 3,344 100.0 1,020 2,751 4,113 2,603 621 16 6 70 599 8 .6 2 3 .3 3 4 .9 2 2 .1 5 .2 0 .1 0 .1 0 .6 5 .1 425 111 1,039 1,333 330 7 2 12.7 3 .3 3 1 .1 3 9 .9 9 .8 0 .2 0 .1 97 2 .9 1 Compiled from figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1 9 1 5 -1 9 1 9 . For 1920 the figures a r e : Boys, 1 ,9 1 2 ; girls, 638. F or 1921 they a r e : Boys, 1 ,7 5 4 ; girls, 661. 2 A rehearing is counted as a new case. For both boys and girls probation and commitment to institutions are the most important orders, including 57 per cent o f the boys’ cases and 71 per cent o f the girls’ cases. A comparatively small num ber are placed under the care o f a guardian, committed to hospitals or schools for defectives, deported, or held to the grand jury for indictment on criminal charges. “ No change o f order” indicates https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT 71 OR D ER . merely that a case has been reheard but that the disposition o f the child remains the same as before. Before discussing the various methods of treatment set forth in Table XX it is well to consider a similar table dealing with dependent children; for at certain points the treatment o f dependent and de linquent children overlap, and the machinery of the court set up for one group serves also the other group. In Table X I I is presented the disposition o f cases o f dependent children during the period 19151919. T able X II.- D isposition; dependency cases heard by the juvenile court, 19151919.1 Cases of dependent children. Disposition. Per cent Number. distribu tion. Total........................................................... Dismissed....... ........................................... Continued generally....... Placed on probation..................... '. '. '. '.y.. '. '. '.. Committed to institutions........................... Committed to child-piacing societies........... Guardian appointed........................................r. ' Placed in hospitals and schools for defectives Deported................................................ N o change of order in rehearings.......... ] ! ! ! ! ! C o u n t ? Pim d f m 1921, 1 2 9 2 ' 5- i g9i 9'S 10,631 100.0 6. 0 « 5 .5 2 6 .4 4 0 .7 4 .6 12.6 0.6 0 .4 3 .2 92 f Tn fll f>y ? h p L e n d i" S ? °o v« o 3 0 Char. i t y S e r v ic e R e p o r t s , C o o k ' 1 9 2 0 t h e r e w e r e 1 , 2 6 2 c a s e s o f d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n ; in In 26.4 per cent o f the cases o f dependent children, the child was placed on probation, and in 40.7 per cent committed to institutions. Commitment to child-placing societies, appointment o f a guardian, placing in hospitals, and deportation provided for the remainder o f the group. Probation. Cases placed on probation, as shown in Tables X I and X I I , in clude 34.9 per cent of the delinquent boys, 31.1 per cent of the* de linquent girls, and 26.4 per cent o f the dependent children. The probation order means that the child may live in his own home or in the home o f relatives or close friends designated by the court, subject to the supervision of the district probation officer. The policy o f the court is to use this order whenever the circumstances are not such as to render it obviously imprudent. The court prefers to make its errors on the side o f too frequent rather than too slight use o f probation. The number o f cases in which children were placed on probation in their own homes and in family homes other than their own is shown in Table X III. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 72 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. T a b l e X I I I .— Probation, by class of case; delinquency and dependency cases heard by the juvenile court, 1915—1919.1 D ep en d en cy a n d d e lin q u en c y cases. P laced on pro b ation . C lass o f case. T o ta l. T o ta l. T o t a l................................................................................................................... D e lin q u en cy : T o liv e a t h om e. T o liv e in other h o m e s. 25,774 7,957 6 ,686 1,271 11,799 3,344 10,631 4,113 1,039 2,805 3,965 878 1,843 148 161 962 1 Compiled from figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1 9 1 5 -1 9 1 9 . F or 1920 the figures a r e : Probation at home, 8 0 6 ; in other homes, 125. F or 1921 they a r e : Probation a t home, 763 ; in other homes, 90. In more than one-third o f the cases o f dependent children placed on probation the child is placed in a home other than his own. The home in which the dependent child is placed on probation is usually that o f a friend or relative, not one that the court finds for him. The distinction should be made here between the technique o f placing a child on probation in a hoipe other than his.own and what is known as “ child placing.” The former work is under the direction o f the family-supervision division, the latter under the direction o f the child-placing division, whose chief officer is ap pointed guardian o f the child with the right to place and sometimes the right to consent to adopton. The probation order is generally used to meet problems more temporary than those met by childplacing. " Probation is handled by two separate departments o f the court— the family-supervision division and the delinquent boys’ division. The work o f supervising dependent children and delinquent girls falls to the officers of the family-supervision department and is de scribed as follows in the annual report o f the court for 1918: The task of reconstructing homes which have been found by the court to be unfit is one that can only be successfully performed by experts. It is a task in which organization and system play a considerable part, but which would fail entirely without the personal appeal o f the probation officer. Only women probation officers are assigned to this division. Visits to the home are em ployed largely to establish the necessary personal contact which makes possible many helpful relations. The work here is friendly supervision and sympa thetic help as contrasted with surveillance. Some of the things in the way of special help which the probation officers of this division are able to do are the follow ing: Finding new quarters for the family. Teaching mothers how to care for their children. Showing mothers how to buy to advantage, etc. Securing legal advice. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT O R D ER . 73 Securing medical aid. Securing employment for different members o f the family. Sending children and mothers to the country for vacations. Making outside contacts for the family with individuals and associations, such as settlements, recreation centers, etc. The average number o f families assigned to a probation officer of this division is 54.3 This statement o f kinds of service rendered represents an ideal toward which the probation department is striving rather than an actual accomplishment, inasmuch as with the large number o f cases assigned each officer it is quite impossible to secure such detailed supervision in all instances. The court recognizes the value o f super vision ; and the work o f the officers is directed by the head o f the divi sion, who reads all reports o f visits made by the officers, makes sug gestions about matters needing attention, and confers with the officers about families who present special difficulties. In addition to this an attempt was made in 1919 to secure more efficient work by the adop tion o f a set o f rules intended to serve as minimum standards for pro bation work. These rules were drafted by* a committee o f the heads of the divisions and are as follow s: 1. Read record before going out on case. 2. First visit within one w eek; report of first visit should include— (a) Tentative plan. (&) Definite statement of reason for court action and what should be accomplished by probation. (c ) Environment sheet must be completely filled out if same was not done at time case was brought into court. (d) Definite information must be gotten as to the name and address of employers o f the working members of the family as well as amount o f wages. (e) First report must be plainly and definitely marked “ first report so that same can be margined by typists. 3. Division head to specify minimum number of visits on each case per month and how frequently child itself should be seen. (а) Division head will notify officer on receipt o f first report as to this. (б ) Division head will also make such notation on the record. 4. Report of child’s progress in school should be made once a m onth; if same is unsatisfactory, matter should be taken up at once. (a) School reports will give information as to deportment, attendance, application, appearance, and any other information gleaned from teacher and principal. (&) School report should be plainly marked “ school report” so that same can be margined by the typist. 5. Every member of the family and household should be seen at least once during the probation period. 6. A t the end of a six months’ probation a summary should be made showing what was accomplished, and if the cause for court action has not been remedied, why. 3 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1918, p. 217. 88005°—22----- 0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 74 THE CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. It is the intention of the present head o f the family supervision division that cases which show no improvement after they have been on probation for a year or more shall again be brought into court. In addition to the iules quoted, which apply to all officers having charge o f children on probation, officers having supervision over delinquent girls are required to visit employers, when the girls change jobs, to verify the girls’ statements about their work and earnings and to visit the girls themselves, as well as their families, at least once a month. In cases o f dependent children it is con sidered sufficient if the family with whom the# child is living is interviewed periodically at longer intervals. Occasionally, if cir cumstances seem to warrant it, delinquent girls are directed to report to their officers at a settlement or at some similar convenient place. Delinquent boys placed on probation are under the supervision of the officers in the delinquent boys’ division, all o f whom are men. These officers are under the supervision o f the head o f that division, who directs their work in much the same way as that described above. The rules already cited apply to them as well as to the officers in the family supervision division. The work is primarily with the offending boys, but the officers recognize the importance of family conditions and, so far as possible, adjust any difficulties they may observe or call in the service o f an agency better adapted to deal with the problem. The rule is that boys be visited in their own homes at least once a month. Some o f the officers supplement their visits to the boys by having the boys report to them at stated times, usually at a settle ment house in the district. The head o f the division does not object to this practice if the individual officers think it successful, but he does not encourage officers to adopt it, as he is convinced that the difficulties connected with the practice are likely to outweigh its ad vantages. In no case are the reports to the officer allowed to take the place o f visits to the boys in their homes, but are always used to supplement the regular visits. Aside from the rules quoted above there are few regulations governing the work of the officers, but each case is dealt with as the situation seems to demand. School reports must be obtained if the boy is still in school; employers, however, are seldom seen unless the position was obtained with the assistance o f the probation officer, as it has been found that attempts to cooperate with the employer occasionally lead to the discharge o f the boy, and in more cases cause fear o f discharge on the part o f the boy and irritation on the part o f the boy’s parents. Special attention is paid to boys during the early part o f the probation period, as this is recognized as the crucial period. Depending as it does upon the varying conditions in the individual cases, it is difficult to make any general statement about the actual https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT O R D ER . 75 work o f probation. In reading a number o f cases selected at random it has been apparent that the rules o f the department are not slav ishly followed. They are, if ihese cases are typical, often overlooked, sometimes with good reason, sometimes apparently through careless ness. The following summaries o f cases o f children placed on pro bation for a considerable period of time will present a better picture o f the situation than any general statements could convey. Despite the inadequacy o f the records, some idea may be gained from these cases o f the difficulties both of the child and the probation officer. Edward O., a fatherless delinquent boy 14 years old, had been on probation for nine months when the case was read. H e was one of eight children. Three older boys were living at home and supporting the family. H e was brought into court first in 1917, when he was accused of throwing a stone and breaking a church window. H e denied the charge, and as no evidence was produced in support of the charge, the court was satisfied with his denial and the'case was “ continued generally.” Edward was next brought to court more than a year later after stabbing and wounding another boy. H is mother was working. An older brother offered to pay the costs and promised to look after the boy, but the court ordered Edward to pay $3 a week for three weeks to pay the doctor’s bill. (H e was at that time earning $10 a week, but the record does not give his occupation.) The case was continued under the supervision of a probation officer who received payments from the boy but reported no other supervision or visits. W hen the required payments had been made in April, 1919, Edward was placed on probation. The probation officer reported his first visit one month later. Edward was then, working at “ some steel com pany” as an errand boy, earning $9 a week. Three more Visits to the home were reported during the next five months, but the boy himself was not seen until October 25, when he was out of work. The probation officer sent him to the vocational bureau to get a job, but received no report and did not see him again until he was again brought into court on December 1. A few days before this the officer had visited Edward’s mother and happened to learn that the boy had stolen $5 from his mother, had run away from home, and finally had been arrested for stealing some flashlights from an automobile. A police probation officer had filed a petition. The case was continued under supervision. The subse quent history may be summarized as fo llow s: The next day after the hearing Edward reported to probation officer and was sent to the vocational bureau to get a work certificate. Got a job as errand boy at $10 a week. Three weeks la te r : Visit of probation officer to mother. Report favorable. Two weeks later: Case in court on continuance. Probation officer had not seen boy since day after hearing, but reported his conduct satisfactory and recommended probation. Court ordered probation. Three weeks later: Probation officer visited mother. Report favorable. Two weeks la ter: Vocational bureau notified probation officer that boy had been discharged for unsatisfactory work. Probation officer promised to visit but did not do so. Five days la te r : Vocational bureau requested probation officer to call at office, as boy had stolen $2 from doctor’s office while waiting to be examined. A d vised court action, but probation officer decided to have a psychopathic exami nation first, which showed a mental age of 12 y ears: that is. some retardation, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 76 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. A physical examination showed incipient pyorrhea. The vocational bureau refused a new work certificate until the boy’s teeth were in good condition, and he was sent to a dentist. When th& probation officer next visited, Edward was away on a vacation, and a month later was working. This was the last record when the case was read two months later. Anna G., a 15-year-old girl, was brought into court for immorality. She had left home and with two other girls rented a room in a hotel. She admitted hav ing had immoral relations with one man previous to this time, and her mother was willing that she should marry him, but as she was only 15, under the law of Illinois she could not be married. The case was continued during the time the man’s case was pending in the morals court, and Anna was kept for more than a month in the detention home. A t the end o f this time she was placed on pro bation, and the whole fam ily was thoroughly impressed with the fact that the marriage could not take place for five months. The probation officer made four visits during this time, but saw Anna only once. She had not passed the fifth grade and could not get a working certificate, but apparently no attempt was made to keep her in school. About the time she was 16 she began to work. The man was allowed to call, but the family were quite anxious to cooperate with the officer in looking after Anna, and there was no further trouble. She was married as soon as she was 16 and was released from probation. Mary B., a 15-year-old colored girl, was reported to the court by a school principal for writing indecent notes and for immorality. She was one o f eight children, and the home was poor and neglected. Commitment to the State school for girls was recommended by the assistant to the judge, and Mary was sent to the detention home to await the judge’s confirmation oi this recommen dation. Meantime Mrs. W ., for whom Mary had worked after school, asked the court to allow Mary to work at her house every day from 9 until 7 instead of sending her to Geneva. The arrangement seemed satisfactory to the probation officer, and the judge placed Mary on probation to live at home. When the probation officer visited less than two weeks later, Mary wanted to work in a factory because she could earn more. The family had moved, and conditions were improved. A week later when the officer called the family had decided that Mary should go back to school and graduate, as she was too young to work. A month after this the probation officer called and found that Mary was in school and was working for Mrs. W . after school. For two months Mary re mained in school, and the reports of her conduct were good. The probation officer enlisted the cooperation of a social agency working with colored families, and this agency persuaded Mary and her sister to join the Y. W . C. A. and a community club. After school was out in July the officer visited and found that Mary was staying at home during the day with younger brothers and sisters, while her mother worked. She seemed dissatisfied with this arrange ment, however, and wanted herself to go out to work. For four months after this the fam ily was not visited, and in November when the officer finally called the family had moved. Two weeks later when the record was read they had not been located. Frances L., a colored girl of 16, had been brought to court in 1917, after she had run away from an institution for dependent girls. She had stolen money from one of the girls there and had been immoral. Both her parents were dead, and she was committed to the State training school for girls. In 1919 an aunt of the girl’s asked for her release from the institution. The institution reported that the girl was mentally defective, had congenital syphilis, and was https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TH E COtrRT OBDER. 77 losing her eyesight. The court therefore continued the case for three months. A t the end of this time the report as to the girl’s condition was still unfavor able, but a probation officer reported favorably upon the aunt’s home, and the judge released Frances on probation on condition that she be given close supervision. For two months Frances remained in her aunt’s home helping with the house work. The probation officer visited twice during this time. When the officer visited the aunt the next month, Frances was in the county hospital for eye treat ment. She remained in the hospital for three months and the officer visited her aunt twice. For nearly three months more conditions remained about the same, Frances staying with her aunt and doing very well. Then the aunt reported to the probation officer that Frances was having immoral relations with one of her lodgers. (U p to this time there has been no ^mention of lodgers in the home.) The court physician reported that Frances was pregnant. Nearly two months later the probation officer visited and found that Frances had been away from home for two weeks. After several weeks it was discovered that she had been living with a man and working to support him. The case was then brought into court for hearing. Frances’s statements seemed to point to the fact that her aunt was keeping a disorderly house. When the home was first visited a man was present, but the aunt had told the probation officer that he was not living there and that she had no lodgers. She admitted in this hearing that she had had lodgers at that time. The case was continued for a week for further investigation, but when brought in again, the aunt was ill. Since Frances had no other place to go and the aunt needed her help, the court made no change o f order. The record was read a few days after this hearing. Mrs. M. asked the court to place her four children— three girls and a boy, all under 14. H er husband’s whereabouts was unknown, and she was working as a waitress earning $10 a week. During the investigation the mother w as arrested for shoplifting. She was sent to the county jail for 10 days, and meantime the children were placed in the detention home. W hile in jail the mother was given a mental examination and was reported to be feeble-minded and “ almost committable.” November 26, 1919: First hearing. The mother’s statements seemed quite contradictory and unreliable. The case was continued for publication for the father, who, according to Mrs. M., had died in France. The mother and children were placed in a charity lodging house. December 20, 1919: Mrs. M. left the lodging house and applied at a police station for lodging, saying she had no money. - December 23, 1919: Case in court. Mrs. M. still unreliable. Case continuedunder supervision of child-placing division. December 31, 1919: Mother placed by the adult probation officer of the mu nicipal court in the psychopathic hospital for observation. A ll the children taken to a rescue mission in a suburb. January 6 and 1 2 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Mother still in hospital and case con tinued. January 16, 1920: Mother called at court asking for children. H ad been dis charged from hospital diagnosed as psychopathically unfit to care for the chil dren. January 1 9 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Leona, aged 13, and lone, aged 11, committed to an industrial school for dependent g irls; Jack, aged 4, and Mazy, aged 2, to an orphanage. Adult probation officer is to be responsible for the mother. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 78 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. At this time information was received from a social agency in another city that the two younger children were illegitimate and that the mother had taken the two older ones from a home in which they had been placed. May 3, 1920: Mother asked for release o f children. W a s working in a hotel, earning $20 a week. May 7, 1920: Mother called with a man for whom she was to keep house. Probation officer consulted with sisters o f a convent who recommended the man, and probation officer approved the plan. The man had four children. May 28, 1920: Children released and placed on probation to live with mother. June 5, 1920: Probation officer visited. Home dirty. Children away. Mrs. M. sullen and resentful. June 26, 1920: Mrs. M. took her children and left her place of employment, going to the charity boarding home. July 7, 1920: Probation officer visited family at boarding home. Mrs. M. working in a hotel. Children well cared for in the nursery. September 17, 1920 : Probation officer visited. Mrs. M. not seen, but matron gave- good report. October 14, 1920: Mrs. M. called at office. Raved incoherently. Wanted court to leave her alone. October 15, 1920: Probation officer consulted matron of home, who reported that Mrs. M. had left with her children and did not say where she was going, although she had told some one she was leaving the city. Two months later, when the record was read, the family had not been located. These cases reveal the paucity o f community resources for meeting many o f the needs revealed by the court hearing. The ease with which families move from one city to another renders the task of supervision extremely difficult; there is the difficulty o f seeing the older children if they have gone to work; making an investigation on which to base a plan o f permanent care takes time. These few cases illustrate the way in which officers cooperate with the vocational bureau, with the organization intended to deal especially with prob lems among colored people, with the settlement, the Y. W. C. A., and with the members o f the adult probation department., They illus trate, too, the kind o f situation in which the authority o f the court constitutes an important factor in the exercise o f parental or filial responsibility. Appointment of guardian. Another order that the court may enter in cases both of delinquent and o f dependent children is the appointment o f a guardian. For delinquent children the provision o f the juvenile court law reads as follow s: The court may appoint some proper person or probation officer guardian over the person of such child and permit it to remain in its own home, or order such guardian to cause such child to be placed in a suitable family home.4 The provision for dependent children is as follow s: I f the parent, parents, guardian or custodian consent thereto, or if the court shall further find that the parent, parents, guardian or custodian are unfit or * Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 177. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT O R D ER . 79 improper guardians or are unable or unwilling to care for, protect, train, educate or discipline such child, and that it is for the interest of such child and the people of this State that such child be taken from the custody o f its parents, custodian or guardian, the court may make an order appointing as guardian some reputable citizen of good moral character to place such child in some family home or other suitable place which such guardian may provide for such child.8 This order is used in general in those cases in which it appears that the arrangement made must be of relatively long duration; that is, when the home is unfit and no possibility o f its improvement ap pears to be likely in the near future, when both parents are dead and no relatives are found to care for the child, and when the mother is dead and the father is unable to provide care for the child and pre fers placing in a family home to commitment to an institution. In cases o f delinquent children special consideration is given to the possibility o f the child’s making good in new surroundings. The order appointing a guardian may be stated in either o f two forms, “ with the right to place” or “ with the right to consent to adoption.” The second o f these two orders was authorized by an amendment to the juvenile court law passed in 1907 and providing that— the court may in its order appointing such guardian empower him to appear in court where any proceedings for the adoption of such child may be pending, and to consent to such adoption; and such consent shall be sufficient to author ize the court where the adoption proceedings are pending to enter a proper order or decree of adoption without further notice to or consent by the parents or relatives of such child.8 The order giving the guardian the right to consent to adoption, a stronger order than the one merely giving the right to place in a home, is used only in those cases in which it is desired to effect a per manent separation o f the child from its parents or from those who have the custody o f the child. This order, it should be noted, gives the guardian only the right to consent to adoption; no child can be adopted until a proper petition has been filed in a court o f competent jurisdiction and the fact established that the state o f affairs justifies adoption. The effect o f this order is that the parents from whom the child has been taken by court order ne6d not be made defendants in the adoption proceedings as would otherwise be required. The comparative infrequency with which the order appointing a guardian is used is indicated in Tables X I and X II . Only 5.2 per cent o f the cases o f delinquent boys, 9.8 per cent o f the cases o f delinquent girls, and 12.6 per cent o f the cases o f dependent children have been dis posed o f in this manner, in contrast with 84.9 per cent, 31.1 per cent, and 26.4 per cent, respectively, placed on probation, and 22.1 per cent, 39.9 per cent, and 40.7 per cent committed to institutions. It is, BHurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, sec. 175. 6 Ibid., ch. 23, sec. 183. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 80 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. however, an important authority for the court to possess. Such an authority would be an essential factor in a policy o f child-placing were the court ever given the resources to develop the field of placing in family homes as a substitute for the institutional care on which it must at present so largely rely. The “ reputable citizens” appointed as guardians are either per sons known to t'he parent, though such persons are rarely appointed, or officers o f the court. In the cases o f both delinquent and de pendent girls and a few o f the younger dependent boys the officer appointed as guardian is the head o f the child-placing division. This division was organized about 1914 in order to provide private boarding homes for semidelinquent girls, for whom a change o f environment was considered advisable and who were not delinquent enough to be sent to an institution for delinquent girls. The work soon proved so useful that the division extended its activities to dependent children also. The annual report o f the juvenile court for 1918 gives the following account of the work o f this division: Officers of the child-placing division place in family homes or in private institutions children who have been committed to their care by the judge of the juvenile court. During the past year 704 children, approximately onethird o f whom were delinquent girls and the other two-thirds dependent boys and dependent girls, were so placed. No public money is paid for the support of these children. In some cases the parents pay the child’s board. The older schoolgirls and girls o f working age, who are placed in family homes, receive compensation ranging from $1.50 to $6 per week for services which they render in these homes. On December 1, 1918, 423 children were in the care of officers o f this division.7 Most o f the girls placed are 15 or 16 years old. An effort is usually made in the case o f dependent girls to secure for them posi tions as mothers’ helpers, a type o f work chosen because it brings the girl into intimate relationship with the family life and* puts her under the close supervision o f her employer. Delinquents and semidelinquents are more likely to be employed as maids in private families. Children under 12 years o f age are generally placed in institutions, though sometimes in free private homes where they may be given the opportunity to go to school. Applications from women who wish to take wards o f the court into their homes are investigated by a special officer o f the division. She is expected to visit the home and to talk with the mistress, to learn the composition o f the family and the number and condition of the rooms, and to assure herself that the girl will have a bed room of her own which is provided with a key. No effort is made to see other members o f the family, and the woman’s word is taken as to the absence of boarders. At least two persons, not relatives, 7 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1918, p. 219. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TH E COURT ORDER. 81 given as references by the family, are also visited. Any woman who wishes to take a girl must agree to the following conditions: 1. That the girl be allowed to attend night school if she chooses. 2. That she report twice a month alone in person to her probation officer at the Mary B Home! 3. That she shall not be required to do any washing. 4. That she is to be in the house by 9 o’clock at night. 5. That she is not to go out in the evening with anyone o f whom the mistress o f the house does not approve. The extent to which these instructions are carried out by the officer can not be judged from the records of the division, as those records are very slight. The results o f the carefully outlined investigation o f homes are not recorded in detail. The only report o f conditions in a foster home selected by the division, aside «from remarks en tered in the case records of an individual child, is that recorded on a four by six card which contains the name and address and the number o f persons in the home.7® One o f the great difficulties with which the child-placing depart ment was formerly confronted was that o f finding working homes for girls fresh from the court room. They are likely at first to appear too friendless and woe-begone to be attractive to strangers. Thus a pleasant temporary home where the girls might rest and re cover self-possession and a little courage was greatly needed. This need was met by equipping from private funds two small clubs to which girls could be sent directly from the court. One, known as the Mary B, is for dependents; and the other, the Mary A, is for semidelinquents. The board o f directors publishes a circular in which the clubs are described as follow s: In 1914 money was raised to furnish, a six-room flat, which later grew into a two-story-and-attic house. Here the girl remains for a day, a week or perhaps longer, as the case requires, the thought back o f the home being to acquaint her with the requirements, responsibilities, and joys o f real home conditions. She is helped to wash and mend her clothing and takes part in the pleasures as well as the work of the household. I f frail and undernour ished, she remains until able to take a place where she may earn her livelihood or perhaps work her way through school. I f adenoids or tonsils should be re moved, she is cared for at the club while convalescing from these minor opera tions. W hile her physical wants are thus cared for, the moral and spiritual help she receives from the knowledge that somebody really cares about her welfare and that there is a place she may always call home, brings to her selfconfidence and courage to take her place in life. The need of the girl whom we might term a semidelinquent was quite as urgent as that o f the dependent girl, and friends came forward again in 1916 and established a second home. • The Mary B club for dependents accommodates 18 girls; the Mary A cares for 8. 70 Since this w riting a new system of records for the child-placing department has been established and complete reports of investigations of foster homes are now kept on file. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 82 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. Many o f these girls are entirely destitute except for the clothes they are wearing, and before leaving the club for a new home each girl is given a small suit case containing a change o f underwear, a night dress, a comb and brush, and various other articles necessary for care o f the person and helpful in properly starting a new career. No girl committed by the coqrt to the head o f the child-placing division may be released, without special application to the court, before She has* reached the age o f 18. During this period the girl is under the close supervision o f some officer in the division who must make monthly written reports to the head o f the division. Every two weeks, as has been stated, the girl reports to the officer, and she is visited once a month in her home. When the girl has shopping to do, she brings her wages and is assisted by the officer in making her purchases. The division handles savings accumulated by th£ girls that Grange from $5 to $450. The social life o f these girls has received special attention during the last two years. On Sunda3Ts they may entertain their callers in the Mary B home. Out ings,' concerts, and entertainments are arranged for by societies in terested in the recreation o f young girls. In general, girls under IT are not allowed to receive callers in their homes, though exceptions are made in special cases. Until recently the officers of thé child-placing division worked only with children who were to be placed in homes and had no contact with the child’s own home. These officers are now required to keep in touch with the home as well, and to make an effort to deal with the entire family situation. It frequently happens that when a girl reaches the age o f 16 arid is free to select an occupation she prefers an occupation other than domestic work, such as, for example, that o f telephone operator or office work. In that case the department finds for her another home where she can pay board. Although wards o f the division are re leased from guardianship at the age o f 18, they frequently avail themselves o f the help and advice o f the officers for a few years longer. The following case supervised by the child-placing division illus trates the difficulties o f finding satisfactory homes, the danger of delinquency developing in uncongenial surroundings, and the methods employed by the division : Victoria J., aged 17. Father and mother both dead. Under the court’s care as a dependent sine# 1910. She had been at first on probation, later placed in an institution for dependents, and since October, 1915, had been under the care of thé child-placing division. During this time she had remained for three years in one fam ily home which proved to be very satisfactory. Then her custodian died, and during the next nine months she was placed in fourdifferent homes. She was not contented in any o f these, complained o f being ill, and upon examination was found to be pregnant. She was then sent to a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE C O U R T OR D ER . 83 maternity home, but the matron found her unruly and refused to keep her. On October 8, 1019, she was brought into court on a delinquent petition. A mental examination two days before this showed her mental age to be 12 years. The case was continued five months under the supervision o f the child-placing division. October 8, 1919: In court. willing to give another trial. Continued to January 5, 1920. Maternity home October 14, 1919.: Sent with probation officer’s approval to work in the kitchen of a large hospital until her confinement. January 5, 1920: Confinement. Arrangements made for Victoria and baby to go to an infant’s home until bastardy case against the man responsible is heard. March 1, 1920: Baby died. Victoria in family home. Man paid burial ex penses, and bastardy charge dismissed. March 19, 1920: In court. Delinquent petition dismissed. April 8, 1920: Victoria complains of loneliness in private home. June 10, 1920: Custodian reports Victoria keeping late hours. July 5, 1920: Continues to keep late hours. Custodian suspects immorality. July 9, 1920: Victoria admits immoral relations. Taken to detention home. July 12, 1920: Case in court on delinquent petition. Victoria committed to the House of the Good Shepherd. In the. cases o f delinquent boys and dependent boys over 12 years o f age, the guardian appointed is the head of the delinquent boys’ division, who assigns the care o f these boys to three officers o f the division, two handling cases o f Catholic boys, the third those of Protestant boys. The two Catholic officers have 180 boys under their care, and the Protestant officer has had as many as 90, but in 1920 he reported about 50. Although the boy may be placed in any situation that the officer deems suitable, and some boys are allowed to enlist in the Army or Navy, a farmer’s home is generally selected. It has been the experience o f the officers that the farm with its outdoor life, contact with animals, and opportunities for hunting and swim ming, makes a strong appeal even to the city-bred boy and often proves so attractive to him that he remains on the farm after his f period o f supervision by the court is over. This terminates by law at his twenty-first birthday, and may be ended before that time. No specific regulations governing the activities o f these officers exist. Each one is given great latitude in working out his own method o f procedure. Farms within a radius o f 50 miles o f Chicago are usually investigated personally by the officer who has been as signed the case. Farms at a considerable distance from Chicago are not personally investigated, but references from prominent citi zens in the town near vjjiich the farmer lives are taken instead. Until about 1920 boys were widely scattered over Illinois and ad joining States, but since that time an effort has been made to place them on farms within convenient distance o f Chicago. Each officer has his own standards o f conditions which make a farm a suitable place for a boy. Moreover, these standards vary according to the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 84 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. individual needs o f the boy concerned. Comfortable quarters, ar rangements for bathing, and wages o f at least $10 a month to cover the cost o f clothing are some o f the requirements. No stipulation about conditions o f work is made, but farmers with a reputation for overworking their employees are avoided. The officer is not in a position to make too precise demands because the farmer feels that it is a favor to take the boy at all. In selecting a farm, the character o f the boy is always kept in mind. For instance, a home with young children would not be selected for a boy who had im moral tendencies, nor one with unusual opportunities for stealing for a dishonest boy. Although the officer states the truth when asked, he avoids going into detail about the boy’s past record. I f a boy is not satisfied with the first home in which he is placed, he is given a chance to try others. Rarely an officer biings a boy back to court. He prefers changing him about many times to giving up the plan o f placing him on a farm. As in the child-placing division, the officers make a monthly report with regard to each child under their care. The boys make no regu lar reports to the officers. Those at a distance write letters, while those near Chicago are frequently conferred with by telephone and visited approximately every six weeks. As many o f the boys as pos sible are sent to a particular district about 50 miles from Chicago because o f the greater ease o f supervision. The sheriff o f the county in which this district lies is especially interested in keeping in touch with the boys and makes them feel that they can come to him i f they get into any difficulty. Cooperation o f public' officials with probation officers is o f peculiar importance when, o f necessity, the officer is not readily accessible to his charges. Boys under the guardianship o f these officers are encouraged to go to school, but it is seldom that they attend beyond the age o f 16. Those wishing to go to high school are not sent out on farms. The problem o f securing education for even the younger boys presents difficulties, owing to the dislike o f school authorities and parents for having city boys, many o f them with undesirable records, attend the small country schools. Commitment to child-placing societies. A small proportion o f dependent children, 4.6 per cent, as shown by Table X I I , were committed to child-placing societies during the five-year period 1915-1919. The only societies o f whose services the ju w iile court now avails itself are the Illinois Children’s Home and Aid Society, the Jewish Home Finding Society o f Chicago,8 and the Now a division of the Jewish Social Service Bureau. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE COURT OR D ER . 85 Catholic Home Finding Association o f Illinois. The effect o f this order is not essentially different from the preceding, except that the care o f the child passes to others than court officers. Children com mitted to these societies are placed in family homes or in institutions and are supervised by agents o f the societies. No reports are required from these agencies, but the Illinois Home and A id Society reports every three months to the chief probation officer ¿regarding children received for placing but not for adoption. The court, however, takes no action upon these reports and a change in the status o f the child is made only at the request o f the society. Commitment to hospitals and schools for defectives. The juvenile court law gives the court authority to place a delin quent or dependent child found to be in need o f medical care in a public or private hospital or institution for special treatment.9 In a small number o f cases, less than 1 per cent o f each group in the period 1915 to 1919,10 the child was committed to such institutions. Most o f these children were placed in the county hospital and the county tuberculosis sanitarium, but a few were sent to the State school for the blind and to a home for destitute crippled children in Chicago. In these cases in which a child is to be placed in a public institution at county expense the procedure is commitment to the county agent. Deportation. A few children each year are deported.10 This means usually that they are turned over to the county authorities to be returned to other counties or States in which the family has a legal residence. Commitment to institutions. An order for commitment to an institution is a last resort on the part o f the court. Most delinquent children are tried On probation or are placed in family homes before it is finally thought to be necessary to place them in institutions. In cases o f dependent children perhaps even greater effort is made to find a suitable and normal home environ ment before resorting to commitment to an institution. Nevertheless, from Tables X I and X I I it appears that in 22.1 per cent of the cases o f delinquent boys, 39.9 per cent o f the cases o f delinquent girls, and 40.7 per cent o f the cases o f dependent children, the child was com mitted to an institution, a higher proportion o f the last two groups than that o f cases in which the child was placed 6n probation. This is largely due to the fact that for dependent children every possible plan is tried before bringing the case into court, while the seriousness o f the offense and the difficulty o f supervising a girl in the old sur9 Hurd’s Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 177b. 10 See Tables X I and X I I , pp. 70 and 71. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 86 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. roundings often makes commitment the only possible plan for the delinquent girl. Dependent children.—The juvenile court law provides for the com mitment o f dependent children to “ some suitable State institution,” to a manual-training or industrial school, or to a private association.11 As a matter of fact, only one institution for dependent children sup ported by public funds is in existence, the Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home at Normal, 111. This institution is at present used by other counties of the State for dependent children as well as for soldiers’ orphans, but is Vised by Cook County only for its original purpose. With the excep tion o f a few orphanages, therefore, the institutions to which depend ents can be sent are those organized under the acts establishing indus trial schools for girls and manual-training schools for boys.12 Under these acts any seven persons with the approval of the governor and the secretary o f State may incorporate to maintain an institution for the education and care o f dependent children.13 When organized under these acts they have certain privileges not given to other private asso ciations, by far the most important o f which is the right to receive from the county $15 a month for each girl and $10 a month for each boy committed to their cafe by order o f the court. Under these cir cumstances it is not surprising that in Cook County one after another of the institutions caring for dependents has reorganized under the industrial or manual training school act14 until there are now 18 such schools in the county, 10 for boys and 8 for girls. Most o f the schools are organized for children of foreign-born parents, along national and religious lines, and the court, as required by law, exercises scrupulous care in committing children to institutions where they will be given religious training in accordance with the faith of their parents. The policy of the court with reference to the commitment o f depend ents to institutions has always been to avoid commitment whenever pos sible, in accordance with the principles set forth by the White House Conference o f 1909 that “ Children o f worthy parents or deserving mothers should, as a rule, be kept with their parents at home ” and that “ Homeless and neglected children, if normal, should be cared for in families, when practicable.” 15 The court has been hampered in carrying out this policy by the fact that there has been no public money available for the support o f children in boarding homes and the resources o f private agencies have been inadequate. Under these circumstances the court has been forced to commit to institutions 11 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, eh. 23, sec. 175. 12 See p. 3. 13 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 122, secs. 320—347. 14 Ibid., ch. 23, sec. 185. 15 Proceedings of the Conference on the Care of Dependent Children, Held at W ash ington, D. C., Jan. 25, 26, 1900, p. 8. W ashington, 1909, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis TH E COURT ORDER. 87 children whom it was necessary to separate from their parents, unless the separation promised to be o f such long duration that more or less permanent placing in a family home was possible. When the parent or parents are financially able to contribute to the support o f their children in an institution the court has authority to order the payment o f a stated sum each month.16 This money is not paid directly to the institution, but to the clerk o f the court and is turned over by him to the county treasurer, who pays the institution. I f parents fail to make the payments ordered, they may be brought before the court on contempt proceedings and punished by commit ment to the county jail. The process, however, is cumbersome, and enforcement o f orders by this means is very difficult. In recent years the major part o f the time o f one officer has been devoted to this work, with the result that collections on orders for support o f children, either under guardianship or in institutions, have increased from $1,107.66 in .1912 to $48,513.84 in 1920.17 Delinquent boys.-—Two public institutions are available for the care o f delinquent boys, one the St. Charles School for Boys, main tained by the State, and the other the Chicago and Cook County School for Boys, jointly maintained by the city o f Chicago and by Cook County. The policy o f the court is against commitment of first offenders except for the most serious offenses, and against com mitment until the boy has been given every chance to make good under some other treatment. Boys who have committed serious offenses and frequent repeaters are sent to the St. Charles School for Boys for an indefinite period that may legally extend through minor ity unless the boy is previously released. For first commitments or in cases o f less serious nature the Jboy is usually sent to the Chicago and Cook County School for Boys, where the period o f detention is shorter, varying from a few weeks to perhaps a year, depending upon behavior. ^ The Chicago and Cook County School for Boys was established in ' 1915 to take the place o f the John Worthy School in the house o f correction. It will be recalled that separate housing o f the boys committed to the house o f correction had first been brought about. Later a school in the confines o f the institution was organized and the segregation o f the boys was effected. In 1915 the use o f that school was replaced by commitment to a farm school. Table X I V shows the number of boys committed to these various institutions in each of the years 1915-1919. 16 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, ch. 23, sec. 190. lT Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1920, p. 240. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 88 THE C H IC A G O J U V E N IL E COURT. T a b l e X I V . — Institution to which committed, by y e a r ; cases o f .delinquent boys committed to institutions, 1915—1919.1 C ases o f d e lin q u en t b o y s c o m m itte d to in stitu tio n s. In stitu tio n . T o ta l. Chicago a n d C ook C o u n ty School........................................... S t. C harles School for B o y s ........................................................ 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 853 2,603 425 379 453 493 1,130 166 1,307 3 166 256 153 202 252 520 226 251 241 333 1 Figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1 9 1 5 -1 9 1 9 . For 1920 the figures a r e : Chicago and Cook County School, 4 4 4 ; St. Charles, 193. For 1921 they a r e : Chicago and Cook County School, 4 6 0 ; St. Charles, 178. About 60 per cent o f the commitments in 1919 were to the Chi cago and Cook County School, the remainder to St. Charles. Delinquent girls.—Delinquent girls may be committed to one o f three institutions, the State Training School for Girls at Geneva, the House o f the Good Shepherd— a Catholic home— and the Chicago Home for Girls, Protestant, though nondenominational. The last two receive per diem payments from the city o f 40 cents a day for each girl, paid through the city house o f correction. Only girls from the city would be sent to either o f these institutions. The Chicago Home for Girls also receives a considerable sum from private contributions. Table X V gives the number o f girls committed to each o f these institutions in the five years, 1915-1919. T able X V . — Institution to which committed, by y e a r ; cases of delinquent girls committed to institutions, 1915—1919.1 Cases of d elin q u en t girls co m m itte d to in stitu tio n s; in stitu tio n . T o ta l. 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 T o ta l...... ...................... t .......... ........................j'...................... 1,333 '257 210 279 286 301 Chicago H o m e for G irls................................................................ S ta te T r a in in g School for G irls a t G e n e v a ....................... H o u se of th e G ood S h e p h e rd .................................................... 234 439 660 54 81 122 40 61 109 57 85 137 44 97 145 39 115 147 1 Figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1915—1919. For 1920 the figures a r e : Chicago Home for Girls, 3 1 : Geneva, 8 4 ; House of the Good Shepherd, 100. F or 1921 they a r e : Chicago Home for Girls, 5 4 ; Geneva, 5 0 ; House o f the Good Shepherd, 132. With certain exceptions, delinquent girls are sent to the State school in only the more serious cases. About 60 per cent o f them were committed in 1919 to the Chicago Home for Girls and the House of the Good Shepherd. The State school will not receive pregnant girls and these are committed to the Chicago Home for Girls. Transfer to the criminal court. The juvenile-court law provides that the court may in its discretion permit a delinquent child to be proceeded against in accordance with. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 TH E COURT ORDER. the laws of the State governing the commission of crimes or violations o f city ordinances.18 This authority has been exercised in serious cases involving a few boys each year. The delinquent petition is dismissed, and the boy is held to the grand jury for indictment on a criminal charge. In Table X V I the number o f such cases is given for each year since 1915. T able X V I .— Cases held to the grand ju ry by the juvenile court, by y e a r ; de linquent hoys, 1915-1919.1 Cases o delinquer it b o y s. H e ld to t h e grand jui Y - Y ear. T o ta l. N u m b e r . P e r c e n t. T o t a l.......................................................................................................................................... 11,799 70 0 .6 1915................................................................................................... ....................................................... 1916.......................................................................................................................................................... 1917.................................................................................................................................................... 1918.......................................................................................................................................................... 1919.............. ............................................................................................................................................ 2,326 2)192 2)328 2 ,306 2)647 24 25 7 2 12 1 .0 1 .1 0 .3 0 .1 0 .5 1 Figures for fiscal years ending Nov. 30. Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1915—1919. In 1920, 17 cases were held to the grand ju r y ; in 1921, 6. The proportion of cases disposed o f in this manner as compared with all cases o f delinquent boys appears from Table X V I to be very small, less than 1 per cent during the five-year period 19151919. All these boys were at least 16 years o f age. Many had been tried on probation or had been at one time committed to institutions for delinquent boys. A few had never been in court before but were nearly 17. The offenses charged were for the most part deeds o f violence, daring holdups, carrying guns, thefts o f considerable amounts, and rape. The decision o f the judge in these cases usually depends upon his belief that the boy is too experienced in wrong doing to be manageable in the State institution for delinquent boys and that he should therefore be committed to the State reformatory established for boys between 16 and 26. A boy can not, however, be committed to this institution under the juvenile-court law but must be transferred to a court having criminal jurisdiction. The judge is also cognizant o f the fact that in many o f these cases the officers o f the court have tried for some time and have failed to effect any change in the boys. No detailed study o f these cases has been possible. The following paragraphs, however, indicate the type o f case dealt with by transfer to the criminal court: George J. had never been in court before. W ith three other boys carrying a gUn he held up a man and stole an automobile. The same week he and an other boy robbed a store, using force with the storekeeper. H e was held to the grand jury under $10,000 bond. The other boys were committed to the St. Charles School for Boys. 18 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 177a. 88005°— 22------7 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 90 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. Tony M. had been previously committed to the Chicago Parental School, to the Chicago and Cook County School for Boys, and to the St. Charles School for Boys. H e was involved in two robberies, one the theft of an automobile. Alpv B. had previously been committed to the Chicago and Cook County School for Boys. H e was accused of rape. Joseph G. had once shot another boy and had been in the Chicago and Cook County School for Boys. H e was involved with several other boys in a holdup. W illiam M. had been known to the court for four years. H e and another boy with a revolver held up a man and took an automobile and a watch. The same night they held up a man and woman and took another watch and some money. Herman S. had never been in court before. H e was involved in two holdups, one with a gun. Other procedure in cases of delinquent children. Besides the methods o f disposing o f cases o f delinquent children especially provided by law and included in the official reports o f the court, other methods o f treatment are sometimes used, usually to sup plement an order specified in the law. The detention home is theoretically a place for safe-keeping pend ing hearing and not a place for detention as a punishment. In rare instances, however,- during the service o f a temporary judge, children have been sent to the detention home during short continuances as a disciplinary measure. Restitution for damages is another form o f procedure not con templated by the law. Fines as such are never imposed, but in case o f theft a boy is not infrequently required to make good the actual pecuniary loss;,and this practice o f the court is sometimes extended to other offenses besides stealing. In one instance noted a boy was required to pay the doctor’s bill o f the boy he had stabbed. In another, a boy who had accidentally shot a companion was ordered to pay $2.50 a week until he had paid $2 0 , the money to be given to the family o f the injured child. The boys required to make resti tution are all o f working age and the amount ordered is paid in weekly installments at the office o f the chief probation officer. A check is then mailed to the person who is to receive the money. During 1920 the chief probation officer received and paid out $8,706.23 in this manner.19 19 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111.. 1920, p. 241. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SUBESEQUENT RELATIONSHIP OF THE COURT, CHILD, AND THE CUSTODIAL AGENCY. THE The problem o f retaining jurisdiction after a final order has been entered placing a child under the care o f persons other than officers o f the court is one o f very real significance; it is, however, a problem that has not as yet been satisfactorily dealt with in Illinois. I f jurisdiction over the child is to continue, the court must be able to exercise its authority in three ways: ( 1 ) By inspection or visitation to make sure that the child is receiving the proper treatment and is returned to his own home at the earliest possible moment; ( 2 ) by requiring from the custodial agency regular reports showing the disposition o f each child under its care; and (3) by the exclusive power o f release. Under the Illinois law, as at present interpreted, the court does not possess complete authoritv to exercise anv o f these powers. The following provisions o f the juvenile-court law apply alike to dependent, neglected, and delinquent children whether committed to the care of a guardian, to an institution, or to an association: The guardianship1 under this act shall continue until the court shall by further order otherwise direct, but not after such child shall have reached the age of 21 years. Such child or any person interested in such child may from time to time upon a proper showing apply to the court for the appointment of a new guardian or the restoration o f such child to the custody of its parents or for the discharge o f the guardian so appointed.* Whenever it shall appear to the court before or after the appointment of a guardian * * * that the home of the child is a suitable place * * * the court may enter an order to that effect returning such child to his home under probation, parole, or otherwise. * * * Provided, however, That no such order shall be entered without first giving 10 days’ notice to the guardian, institution, or association to whose care such child has been committed, unless such guardian, institution, or association consents to such order.8 The court may, from time to time, cite into court the guardian, institution, or association to whose care any dependent, neglected, or delinquent child has been awarded, and require him or it to make a full, true, and perfect report as to his or its doings in behalf of such ch ild; and it shall be the duty of such 1 Whenever a child is committed to an institution, the head of that institution is ap pointed guardian. T his should not be confused w ith the appointment o f a reputable citizen as guardian, which is an order quite distinct from commitment. Guardianship in the provision quoted means custody in general, whether that of a guardian, institution, or association. * Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 1 7 7 a 3 Ibid., ch. 23, sec. 177d. 91 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 92 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. guardian, institution, or association, ^within 10 days after such citation, to make such report either in writing verified by affidavit, or verbally under oath in open court, or otherwise as the court shall direct; and upon the hearing of such report, with or without further evidence, the court may, if it see fit, remove such guardian and appoint another in his stead, or take such child away from such institution or association and place it in another, or restore such child to the custody of its parents or former guardian or custodian.* With regard to associations it is provided that— The court may at any time require from any association, receiving or desiring to receive, children under the provision of this act, such reports, information, and statements as the judge shall deem proper or necessary for his action, and the court shall in no case be required to commit a child to any association whose standing, conduct, or care of children, or ability to care for the same, is not satisfactory to the court.6 These provisions of the juvenile court law seem to establish the following principles with regard to the court’s jurisdiction: ( 1 ) Any disposition ordered by the court may be terminated only by a subsequent order o f the court—that is, the court has sole authority to release; ( 2 ) any person may reopen the case by petition to the court; ( 3 ) the court may remove a child from custody with the consent of the guardian, institution, or association, or after 1 0 days’ notice may remove the child without such consent; (4) the court may require a report from the custodian with regard to a particular child and may, with or without further evidence, remove the child from such cus tod y ; and ( 5 ) the court may at any time require such information as it desires from an association receiving children under the juvenile court law. These principles seem to give to the court a fair amount o f control over the ultimate disposition o f the child. The application o f these principles formulated in the juvenile court law is, however, modified by the interpretation o f the laws relating to State institu tions for delinquent children and o f the laws establishing industrial and manual-training schools for dependent children. Moreover, in some instances, even when the juvenile court’s jurisdiction has ap peared to be clear, the court has hesitated to press a claim against the opposition o f an important and influential institution. THE COURT AND THE GUARDIAN. The question o f the court’s relation to the “ reputable citizen” ap pointed as guardian is probably the least difficult both in theory and practice o f the questions presented by these sections o f the law. The policy o f the court in this matter is in fact determined not so much by a principle o f law as by a question o f expediency. Judge Pinck ney stated in 1911 before the county civil service commission 6 that 4 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, sec. 177e. 8 Ibid., sec. 181. ' 6 Testimony of Judge Pinckney in Breckinridge, S. P., and Abbott, E . : Tbe Delinquent Child and the Home, Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912, p. 213. V https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SUBSEQUENT RELATION OF CHILD TO COURT. 93 such citizens were chosen because o f their reputable character and their recognized ability to care for the child and that interference by a probation officer or other representative o f the court would seriously impair their service. The practice o f appointing reputable citizens outside the court has, moreover, fallen into disuse almost, in recent years, and, as previously stated, the citizens usually appointed are the head o f the child-placing division and the head o f the delinquent boys’ division, who are directly responsible to the chief probation officer. THE COURT AND THE INSTITUTION. The control exercised by the court over children placed in institu tions is more limited than that over children placed under guardian ship. Institutions for delinquent children. Ip the case o f institutions for delinquent children none o f the prin ciples formulated above are held to apply. The Cook County board o f visitors in 1912 reported on the question o f release from these institutions as follows: The relation of the juvenile court to the two State institutions for delinquent children is governed definitely by statute. The custody during minority o f every child committed to either of these institutions passes to the institution at the time of commitment. The responsibility for the child’s care, training, and super vision rests with the institution. The length of stay o f a boy in St. Charles [School for Boys is determined by the superintendent and State board’ of ad ministration, and so with the State Training School for Girls.7 The act establishing the St. Charles School for B oys 8 contains no reference to the manner o f permanent release, although it is provided that the board of trustees may make such provisions as it sees fit as to placing boys in homes, obtaining employment for them, or returning them to their own homes. The act providing for the establishment o f the State Training School for Girls at Geneva provides not only for parole but for permanent release by the governor o f the State or by the board of trustees.9 As a matter o f fact these two institutions and the Chicago and Cook County School for B oys 10 parole children without reporting to the court, and a violation of parole may mean return to the institu tion without another appearance in court. The State institutions are required by law to appoint agents to visit and supervise children re leased on parole. Permanent releases are made by these institutions without the knowledge o f the court. They are also in some cases 7 Report o f the County Board of Visitors o f Cook County, 111., for the year ending Nov. 30, 1912, p. 22. 6 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, secs. 1 9 1 -2 1 5 . 9 Ibid., sec. 236. 10 Established in 1915. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 94 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COUKT. made by the court at the request o f a parent or guardian after notice to the institution. A somewhat different situation exists with regard to the court’s relationship to private institutions receiving the custody o f delin quent children. The authority of these institutions is defined only by the juvenile court law, not by separate acts such as those which gov ern the State schools for delinquent children. The power o f a private institution to parole a child without consulting the court is not ques tioned, but the juvenile court law provides for the appointment by the institution o f an agent to visit homes in which children are pa roled “ for the purpose o f ascertaining and reporting to said court whether they are suitable homes.” 1 1 The law evidently contemplated such control on the part o f the court over homes in which children are placed by the institutions as may be exercised through visitation of those homes. In the matter o f permanent release by private institutions some conflict o f opinion exists. The chief probation officer made an effort in 1918 to secure an agreement on the part o f the private institutions to release children .only through the court, but one institution, on legal advice, maintained its right under the law to effect permanent releases without court action; the assistant State’s attorney assigned at the time to the juvenile court, concurred in this opinion o f the in stitution’s authority, and the effort was pushed no further. Another view 6 f the law is at least possible, and it is to be hoped that a more liberal view o f the court’s power may find the opportunity o f sub mitting the matter to judicial determination by the higher court, so that the juvenile court’s claim o f continuing jurisdiction over the child and exclusive authority permanently to release a child from a private institution may be affirmed, or, if finally denied by the court, obtained through amendment o f the law. The authority to require reports 12 has never been interpreted by the court as applying to public institutions, nor has the court had any power o f visitation and inspection. Public institutions receiv ing delinquent children are subject to the inspection and control of the Illinois Department o f Public Welfare, and private institutions must be certified by the same body. Institutions for dependent children. More serious difficulties have been met with, however, in retaining jurisdiction over dependent children. The institutions receiving these children are more numerous than those receiving delinquents, and all are under-private management. 11 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 180. 12 See p. 96. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SUBSEQUENT RELATION OF CHILD TO COURT. 95 The apparent intent o f the juvenile court law was to limit release to the court and to subject all institutions receiving dependent chil dren to a certain amount o f control by the court.13 It was specifically provided ,14 however, that the juvenile court law should not in any way conflict with the earlier laws providing for the establishment of the industrial and manual-training schools. 15 These acts provided for discharge at any time by the court committing, with the restric tion in the case o f the industrial schools that the power could be ex ercised only i f the girl was still in the school. But the acts also pro vided 16 that any girl committed to an industrial school or any boy committed to a training school might be “ discharged therefrom at any time, in accordance with the rules thereof, where, in the judgment o f the officers and trustees, the good o f the girl (or boy) or the school would be promoted by such discharge,” and discharge might also be ordered by the governor o f the State. The industrial and manual training schools have therefore claimed the right to dispose o f chil dren without reference to the court. As early as 1907 the chief pro bation officer pointed ou t 17 that this procedure had already in many cases rendered ineffectual the work o f the court, since children were returned almost immediately to homes that the court had declared unfit for them. An effort was made at that time to prevent the con tinuance o f this practice by informal agreement with the institution, but the effort was unsuccessful. In 1912 the Hotchkiss committee, after investigating the relationship of the court and the institutions, made the same criticism and proposed the following remedy: The law should be so amended as to make each institution responsible to the court at least for continued custody o f every child committed to its care. In case a child escapes from such custody notice should at once be filed with the court which should then have power to institute appropriate measures for the child’s apprehension. The return of a child without court consent to an environment which the court has just found to be unfit is a humiliating travesty on judicial procedure, and is in no way necessary to uphold the autonomy of institutions.“ While there has been no amendment in accordance with these sug gestions the practice o f the industrial schools has in the last few years been somewhat modified. For a great many years the institu tions had been represented at the court by police officers, commis sioned as probation officers, whose primary duty it was to convey to their respective institutions the children committed. In 1917 these 13 See pp. 9 1 -9 2 for provisions applying to these institutions. 14 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 188. 16 Ibid., ch. 122, secs. 333a and 347. 16 Ibid., ch. 122, secs. 332 and 345. The words o f the two acts are practically identical in these sections. 17 Charity Service Report, Cook County, 111., 1907, p. 123. 18 The Juvenile Court o f Cook County, 111. Report of a Committee Appointed under Resolution o f the Board of Commissioners o f Cook County, p. 17. Chicago, 1912. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 96 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. officers were removed by the general superintendent o f police at the time o f a reorganization o f the police department which abolished “ special details.” The police department felt that the work which these officers performed could not strictly be called police work. Several o f the institution superintendents felt that the institutions should not bear the expense o f an officer to convey children to the institution following commitment. In the emergency the court dealt directly with the managing officers o f institutions until some plan for institutional representation at the court should be worked out. The court had already made a first step in dealing directly with the institutions through the inauguration o f an effort during the pre vious year to keep in touch with dependent children committed to institutions. To the officer in charge o f this work was assigned the new task o f making arrangements with the institution authorities for the admission of children, conveying children to the institutions, and conducting correspondence in matters relating to the welfare of the children. This plan still continues in effect, and the result has been most satisfactory to both the court and the institutions. Mis understandings which were almost inevitable when transactions were made through a third person have to a large extent disappeared. Moreover, in January, 1917, Judge Arnold obtained from the super intendents o f the industrial and manual-training schools, whom he had called together for conference, an agreement to give the court 1 0 days’ notice o f an intended discharge or parole. The court was in this way given an opportunity to make an investigation and to suggest any plans it deemed advisable in connection with the dis position o f the child. This arrangement has resulted in closer coopera tion between the court and the institutions, though the schools have not always rigidly adhered to the agreement. The power to require reports from these institutions, as interpreted by the court,19 is limited to specific instances in which complaint has been made with regard to particular institutions. Thus the court does not have the authority to require periodic reports from institutions concerning their general organization or their disposi tion o f children committed by the court. A report required in a specific instance may be made under oath and is not subject to veri fication by representatives o f the court. For assurance that the in stitutions are in general performing their functions in a satisfactory manner, the court relies upon the annual certification o f the State department o f public welfare. Under authority o f section 18 o f the juvenile court la w 20 a board o i visitation to inspect institutions receiving children from the juve10 The interpretation is that stated by Judge Pinckney i n '1911 before the county civil service commission. Later judges have for the most part followed his interpretations of the law. 20 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 23, sec. 186. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SUBSEQUENT RELATION OF CHILD TO COURT. 97 nile court may be appointed by the county judge. Under section 19 this power may be exercised in counties o f over 500,000 by the judge o f the juvenile court.21 It was originally held, however, that this au thority lay with the county judge alone. Thus during 2 0 years o f the court’s existence the only board o f visitation created was that appointed by the county judge o f Cook County in 1911 and lasting only a short time. This board employed an executive secretary paid from private funds and made an investigation o f the 33 institutions then receiving children on commitment from the juvenile court. The board reported to the county judge on conditions prevailing during the year ended November 30, 1911.22 The services o f a paid secretary were not retained, however, and the board ceased to function after the presentation o f their report. In 1920 the judge o f the juvenile court for the first time decided that authority to appoint such a board o f visitation lay within his powers, and a board o f two members was appointed. One member was the former chief probation officer, who was at the time superintendent o f the United Charities; the other was a physician. A few institutions were visited by these gentlemen acting as a board. They are both very much overworked men; they had no secretary nor provision for clerical help, and up to the present time, except so far as the institutions visited may have profited from suggestions made by them, no obvious results o f the experiment can be pointed^ to. RECOVERY OF CHILDREN WHO ESCAPE FROM INSTITUTIONS. The possibility o f escape from an institution raises the interesting question o f responsibility for the recovery o f a runaway child. Two cases o f runaway children were among the records' read for this study. A 16-year-old boy who had been committed to the Chicago and Cook County School for Boys ran away from the school. A letter was received by the court from a social agency in a town in a neighboring State saying that the boy was being held in the county jail there. The juvenile court replied that the parents refused to pay his return transportation; and since the school had no funds for this purpose, the social agency would have to dispose o f him as best it could. The other case is that o f a 14-year-old delinquent girl. She had once run away from home with a woman of questionable character, taking $195 from her mother and going to Mississippi. Her mother had sent her money to return. When she ran away a second time, the mother appealed to the court, and the girl was found in Chicago. She was then committed to the State Training School for Girls at Geneva, and after eight months escaped from the institution. A month later 21 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes, 1919, sec. 187. 22 Report of the County Board o f Visitors of Cook County, 111., for the year ending Nov. 30, 1911. Chicago, 1912. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 98 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. the mother received a letter from a probation officer in a Mississippi town asking for authority to place the girl in the house o f correction. The mother notified the court, and the cburt in turn informed the authorities at the institution o f the situation. These authorities re quested the probation officer in Mississippi to take her into custody and sent the court a notice of this action, saying, “ i f we are able to return her to the school, we will notify you.” In neither o f these cases, then, did the court exercise the right to deal independently with the child but rather treated the costs o f secur ing the return as a burden to be borne by the institution. The expense incurred by a public authority o f another locality within the State in returning these children to their homes could presumably be collected as a charge against Cook County. In practice this collection is not made, but Cook County often bears the expense o f returning to their homes runaway children from other counties.28 The court itself, however, and the institutions from which they escape seem to be unable to authorize such expenditure or to expedite in any way the transfer o f the children. FOLLOWING UP THE DEPENDENT CHILD AND HIS FAMILY. Since February, 1916, the court has made an effort to keep in touch with families o f dependent children who have been committed to in stitutions. This work grew out o f an inquiry conducted by the county bureau o f public welfare, which was established by the board o f commissioners o f Cook County in April, 1914. This bureau in vestigated the cases o f a number o f children who had been in institu tions for a considerable time and who were not frequently visited by relatives. In some cases the results were startling, and the reunion of relatives and children through the bureau was in some eases dra matic. When the value o f such investigations became apparent, the court itself took over this part of the work o f the bureau o f public welfare, and in February, 1916, began the practice o f assigning officers to visit the families o f children in institutions. This work is at present under the direction o f the head o f the family-supervision division and under the immediate supervision o f the assistant to the head. Investigation and supervision o f families o f dependent children in institutions are assigned to the regular dis trict officers. The volume o f work was very great when this system “ The problem o f the “ run aw ay” to Cook County (Chicago) Is an interesting one. Six hundred and eleven such children were dealt w ith by the probation staff during the year 1919. In approximately 85 per cent of these cases, the parents or near relatives supply transportation for the return of the child. In those cases in which the relatives are not financially able to do this, the county agent on recommendation of the court sup plies the transportation. (Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1920, pp. 2 4 1 -4 2 .) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SUBSEQUENT RELATION OP CHILD TO COURT. 99 was established; but, with the better technique o f investigation of new cases developed within the past few years, constant improvement in the follow-up work is expected. A periodic investigation and re port is required by the head o f the family-supervision division for every child in an institution, the interval between reports varying with the circumstances of the particular case. Through this periodic review an effort is made to restore the child to community life, either in his own home or a foster home, at the earliest possible moment. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES. SOCIAL AGENCIES. As a case-work agency dealing with family problems, the juvenile court necessarily has relations with private organizations in Chicago that are working in the same field. Attention has been called in a preceding section 1 to the court’s use o f the confidential exchange, or the registration bureau, as it is called in Chicago, to learn what agencies have known the family under investigation; consultation with these agencies, either by read ing their records or by personal interviews, is a part of the work of investigation. It has also been pointed out that complaints revealing situations upon which no court action can be taken yet requiring treatment are referred by the court to an agency organized to handle the particular difficulty. In other ways, too, the court cooperates with outside agencies. These can best be made clear by a discussion o f the relation o f the court with two agencies with which perhaps it comes in closest contact, namely, the Juvenile Protective Association and the Jewish Social Service Bureau. The Juvenile Protective Association 2 is the successor o f the Ju venile Court Committee organized in 1899 to pay the salaries o f probation officers, there having been no provision for salaries in the juvenile court law. While this defect in the law was remedied in 1905,3 the committee continued its support of four officers until 1909, when it was reorganized as the Juvenile Protective Association and turned its attention to community conditions affecting child life. The association, however, continues its case work for the protection o f children found in dangerous or unwholesome surroundings. Its work is largely with the same classes of children as those dealt with by the court, and close relations with the court are necessary in order to avoid duplication and disagreement. A t the present time the division o f work between the two organizations is briefly as follows : The Juvenile Protective Association confines its attention to cases of a less serious nature, in which it is thought court action will prove to be unnecessary. Cases that seem to call for court action are re ferred directly to the court without preliminary investigation by the association. The association also does work that the court does not feel it can undertake, such as the investigation o f anonymous 1 See p. 37. 2 I t was known for a brief time as the Juvenile Protective League. 3 See p. 6 of this report. 100 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COOPERATION W IT H OTHER AGENCIES. 101 complaints and work o f a detective nature. All such work that comes to the attention o f the court is turned over to this association. In turning over cases that seem too trivial to require court action,, the court uses its own discretion. I f the situation is such that action,, but not necessarily court action, appears to be required at once, the case is ordinarily referred to the association. If, on the other hand,, this does not become evident until the officers o f the court have made a partial or complete investigation, it is often thought better for the court, which is familiar with the facts and through its officer has established relations with the family, to continue the work. This is especially true if it seems at all probable that court action may be necessary later. The Juvenile Protective Association on its side finds it difficult to know immediately what cases will require court action. A condition seeming to call only for friendly supervision may on further investi gation prove to require more drastic treatment or one originally not serious may in the course of months or years become such that court action is necessary. To avoid the duplication o f work that would occur in cases o f this kind if the association turned «them over to the court as soon as it saw the necessity for court action, the court and the association have agreed that if the association has done much work on the case before court action is seen to be necessary or before the case is referred to the court by an outsider, the association is to complete the investigation, which the court will accept. For this purpose workers o f the association are commissioned as volunteer probation officers by the juvenile court. In making their investiga tions they are not subject to the supervision o f the head o f the investigation division, but they bring cases involving dependent children before the dependent-case-conference committee before they file petitions. The court’s method o f cooperating with the agencies that care for Jewish families, until recently known as the Jewish A id Society, the Jewish Home Finding Society o f Chicago, and the Bureau of Per sonal 'Service (now organized as the Jewish Social Service Bureau) is somewhat different from its method o f working with other agencies in the city*. The Jewish agencies maintain in relation to the court the same policy that they hold with reference to most organizations, namely, that Jewish families can be dealt with more intelligently by Jewish workers and Jewish organizations and that these organiza tions alone should work with them. The court has acquiesced in this policy to a large extent, and at the present time the great majority o f Jewish cases are handled by Jewish agencies with the power and authority o f the court behind them. A ll complaints that are received regarding Jewish families are turned over to the Jewish Social Service Bureau for investigation. This agency investigates and keeps https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 102 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. a record o f its work in its own office; it does not, however, report to the court the details of the inquiry or what action it has taken.3® I f it is thought that court action is necessary, a conference is held o f representatives of the three Jewish agencies. Dependent cases are taken before the dependent case conference committee only if the action contemplated requires spending public money for the support o f the child. The relation o f the officers o f the Jewish agencies to complaints o f delinquent boys is like that of the court probation officers; that is, investigation o f delinquent boys’ cases is made by the Jewish agencies in those cases in which the complaint is made directly to the court; in other cases the police probation officers in vestigate the complaint o f Jewish boys as they investigate cases of non-Jewish boys. In cases o f dependent children and o f delinquent girls, if the court orders probation or appoints a guardian, a representative of the Jewish agencies is always named as the probation officer or guardian. I f the order is “ guardianship with the right to place in a home,” the agency makes no further report to the court. If, on the other hand, the order is probation, the representative o f the agency is nominally at least under the supervision o f the head o f the family-supervision division and submits written reports to the court in accordance with rules covering reports on probation cases. The court comes in constant contact with the United Charities since many cases, both dependent and delinquent, have at some time been known to that agency. No formal plan o f cooperation now exists. A t one time the society maintained an officer at the court, and recently one visitor of the society was assigned to all cases in volving action in any court. These plans, however, have at the present time been abandoned. The probation officers are invited by the United Charities to attend district case conferences but rarely find themselves able to accept this invitation. Successful cooperation often depends, o f course, upon the willing ness o f other^ocial agencies, both public and private, to carry through plans initiated by officers of the court. The work of the court can be rendered futile by the failure o f the agency on which it must rely for special service. The following case illustrates the very great waste o f effort caused by such lack o f cooperation on the part o f an agency through which alone the object sought by the court in behalf o f the family could have been obtained. Three children, a girl of 7, a boy of 5, and a girl of 1 year, all had glandular tuberculosis. Their mother had an active case of pulmonary tuberculosis. The father of the two older children had deserted, and the baby was an illegitimate child. In March, 1919, the case was placed on probation, and in June the proba30 Since July, 1921, complete reports of investigations in these cases have been made to the court. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COOPERATION W IT H OTHER AGENCIES. 103 tion officer placed the mother and her three children in a county tuberculosis sanitarium. In July she was given a pass by the sanitarium to go to the juvenile court with all the children, but she did not appear in court and' did not return . to the sanitarium. It was October before the family was again located and De cember before the probation officer had persuaded the mother to return to the sanitarium. When the ambulance arrived, however, she escaped with the baby through the back door, abandoning the two older children. The case of these two children was brought into court for rehearing on January 7, 1920. The following is a brief sum m ary: January 7 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. Continued for three months in order to locate mother. Children to be placed meantime in tuberculosis sanitarium. Publication for mother ordered. April 7, 1920: Case in court. Mother still missing. Sanitarium will keep children for another three months. Case continued. May 12, 1920: Case in court. Mother still not located. Continued for publi cation for father. August 10, 1920: Probation officer learns from sanitarium that on July 27, 1920, the children had been released to an uncle who had come for them, and the sanitarium had no record of their whereabouts. The “ uncle ” was unknown to the court. August 1 1 ,1 9 2 0 : Case in court. / 1 Family not located. Case dismissed. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER COURTS. As explained in an earlier section, the juvenile court has no juris diction over adults except in the matter o f enforcing an order for the support o f a child removed from its own home. The lack of criminal jurisdiction has two important results. The first is that it becomes necessary for the probation officer handling the child’s case, whenever court action against a parent or another adult is needed in behalf o f a child, to institute proceedings in another court. The second is that a number o f dependent or neglected children whose parents have been prosecuted in another court by persons outside the juvenile court never come to the attention o f juvenile probation officers and never benefit from the services o f the court. Reports o f the juvenile court contain repeated references to the first o f these difficulties and point out the waste involved in the necessity of having to carry cases into other courts and in sometimes having two probation officers at work on the same family, one representing the adult probation department, the other the juvenile court. In 1916, for example, the report o f the court-contained the following statement: In studying the records o f dependent children one can not help reaching the decision that the present overlapping of courts in Cook County is nothing short of ridiculous. In the same case the parents might be taken before the municipal court of domestic relations or the children before the juvenile court of Cook County or both parents and children might be taken before the different courts. Some day the courts will be combined. I f that is not done in the near future, the adult and juvenile probation forces should be united so that the probation officers will at least work under one head.4 4 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1916, p. 299. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 104 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. Neither o f these hopes has been so far fulfilled, but the court has made some progress in its cooperation with other courts. The offenses for which adults have been prosecuted most frequently by juvenile court officers are those of contributing to delinquency or dependency, nonsupport, abandonment, adultery, abduction, rape, bastardy, crimes against children, incest, abortion, selling liquor to children, and disorderly conduct. Within the city of Chicago, most o f these cases may be prosecuted in the domestic-relations branch o f the municipal court, which has jurisdiction in all criminal cases except those punishable by death or imprisonment in the peni tentiary and in all cases which may be transferred to it by the circuit, the superior, and the criminal courts o f Cook County.4® The more serious cases are held to the grand jury and tried in the crim inal court o f the county. In 1915 the juvenile court reported that 72 cases had been taken into the criminal court on charges made by wards o f the court.5 The offenses charged in these cases were rape and assault to rape, 41; crimes against children, 21; contrib uting to delinquency, 1 ; incest, 4 ; crime against nature, 1 ; seduction, 1 ; inducing female to enter house o f prostitution, 1 ; and harboring females, etc., 2. ■ The charges in 348 cases taken into the court o f domestic relations during 1916 are shown in Table X V II . The most frequent charges by juvenile court officers in this court are contributing to delin quency or to dependency, nonsupport, and bastardy. TATiT.Tr; X V I I .— Charge; cases against adults prosecuted by juvenile court officers in the court of domestic relations, year ending Nov. 80, 1916.1 C harge. Cases against ad u lts. 348 C ontributing to d öpöfidßn cy........................................... 114 104 80 31 4 5 .4 5 1 1 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111' M f « , g. 3° 0 . I b l » 2 0 , ' 261 cases were prosecuted in the municipal and criminal c o u rts; in 1921, 456 cases. Since 1915 an assistant State’s attorney has been assigned to the juvenile court to advise the probation officers concerning cases taken into other courts, and no prosecution may be begun without her as sent and the assurance that the evidence is sufficient. 40 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 37, sec. 265. See p. 13. 5 Charity Service Reports, Cook County, 111., 1915, p. 229. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COOPERATION W IT H OTHER AGENCIES. 105 So long as cases o f abandonment, contributing to dependency and delinquency, bastardy, etc., can be prosecuted without the children involved ever coming to the attention of the juvenile court, the de velopment o f a uniform policy of child care in Chicago is impossible. The report o f the court o f domestic relations for the year 19176 shows that during that year 5,651 children were involved in 3,687 cases o f non-support alone. Children were also concerned in 319 cases of contributing to delinquency, 137 cases o f contributing to dependency, and 435 bastardy cases. No investigation has been made as to the number of children under the jurisdiction o f other Chicago courts who have never been brought to the attention o f the juvenile court; but probably few o f these chil dren were known to the juvenile court. Many cases heard by the court o f domestic relations, however, are taken into court by a social agency such as the United Charities and the provision for the chil dren and the supervision o f the family under such an agency may be as satisfactory as that possible through juvenile-court action. But many dealt with by the court o f domestic relations are not under the care o f any social agency. Formerly a juvenile-probation officer was assigned to the court o f domestic relations to present cases in that court and to receive cases that might be transferred from the court o f domestic relations to the juvenile court. This custom has been discontinued, however, and the cooperation between the two courts is far from complete. Both courts have at various times expressed the opinion that their work should be combined under one court having jurisdiction in all cases involving family life. In a recent report o f the court o f domestic relations the presiding judge expressed the opinion o f that court as follow s: As has been pointed out before, the domestic-relations branch would at once enter upon a greater program of usefulness to the public were the law-givers to enlarge its jurisdiction to take in all matters affecting the family that re quire judicial adjustment. I f it be admitted that public policy of the present day and faultless administrative methods of justice call for special service, then, obviously, it follows that such special courts should be endowed with ample powers to handle their special problems. This argument means that all family troubles ought to be taken care of in one tribunal, doing away with a multiplicity of courts, with conflicting interests and consequent confusion, expense, delay, waste o f time of litigants and lawyers, armies of witnesses, and scores of jury panels.7 It is obvious that both the juvenile court and the court o f domestic relations are conscious o f the need o f change in the structure o f the * Tenth and Eleventh Annual Reports of the Municipal Court of Chicago for the years Dec. 6, 1915, to Dec. 2, 1917, inclusive, p. 98. 7 Tenth and Eleventh Annual Reports of the Municipal Court of Chicago, for the years Dec. 6, 1915, to Dec. 2,, 1917, inclusive, p. 97, 88005°— 22------ 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 106 TH E CHICAGO JUVENILE COURT. judicial system, so that the work they may be said to share may be more efficiently and satisfactorily done. To determine what the nature of that change should be will require careful examination o f the constitutional limitations as well as the accumulation o f a large body o f data as to the exact nature and volume o f the service to be rendered. The two courts do not exercise jurisdiction over the same geographic area, as the jurisdiction o f the court o f domestic relations extends over the city only, while that of the juvenile court covers the entire county. The court o f domestic relations is a branch o f the municipal court,8 which as the successor o f the earlier justice o f the peace and city magistrates court, is a court o f less dignity and of lower judicial rank.' The judges of the municipal court, who are elected for terms of six years, in whose hands lies the appointment o f a certain number o f the members o f the adult probation depart ment, have never adopted the policy initiated by Judge Pinckney of making appointments from an eligible list prepared by a nonpolitical expert committee on the basis o f competitive examination. The services of the adult probation department are by the terms of the statute under which the department is organized 9 much more re stricted than those o f the juvenile probation staff, as they can be utilized only when the accused has been convicted. These limita tions were discussed at length in 1915 in a report to the city council by a committee o f which Prof. Charles E. Merriam was chairman,10 and conditions remain to-day substantially as they were at that time. Under the clerk o f the municipal court a social-service department has been organized. But in that department no principle o f selection corresponding to the juvenile-court examinations has been applied; the staff consisted during 1919 a n d '1920 o f only seven persons, though during the year 1919,16,931 complaints were received, result ing in the issuing o f 3,986 warrants, while in 1920, 38,441 complaints were received and 3,342 warrants issued.1 1 Obviously in the present organization o f the court of domestic relations no such basis exists for the development o f a general family court as might be found in the juvenile court. The development o f the juvenile court into a tribunal competent to deal with the various problems both civil and criminal that now characterize the treatment o f the family groups of which dependent and delinquent children are members will re quire constitutional interpretation and possibly constitutional amend ments that will demand a study o f the entire judicial system o f Cook County. Family problems in Cook County are, moreover, 8 Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, ch. 37, sec. 264 fol. 9 Ibid., ch. 38, sec. 509b. 10 Report of the City Council Crime Committee of thfe City of Chicago, Mar. 22, 1915, p. 6 0 fol. 11 Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Annual Reports of the Munici.pal Court of Chicago, Dec. 2, 1917, to Dec. 5, 1920, p. 154. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis COOPERATION W IT H OTHER AGENCIES. 107 dealt with not only by the circuit court and the court o f domestic relations but also by the superior, probate, and county courts, all of them constitutional tribunals. The constitution confers, too, upon the criminal court o f Cook County the criminal and quasi-criminal jurisdiction that is exercised by the circuit courts in other counties.12 Such jurisdiction is not, however, specifically denied to the circuit court by the constitution 5 and it is possible that over certain classes o f offenses concurrent jurisdiction with the criminal court might be granted to the circuit court and that agreements similar to that already arrived at in the handling o f truant children might place the handling o f the problems o f the adult involved in a family situation in the juvenile branch o f the circuit court. 13 One difficulty now constantly confronting the juvenile court, how ever, is the large number o f cases as well as the great variety of problems. It is therefore difficult to contemplate any considerable increase in the court’s burden. I f certain questions o f jurisdiction now at issue between the juvenile court and other courts, such as that o f jurisdiction over older boys, continued jurisdiction over children committed to institutions, or bastardy jurisdiction, could be so deter mined as to fix the court’s responsibility for those groups of problems, other adjustments looking toward a corresponding reduction o f the court’s burden might be contemplated. Nor can the ultimate devel• opment o f the court be profitably discussed without at the same time giving thorough consideration to the development o f the publicrelief agencies of the community, and to the provision o f greater facilities for doing certain work with which the court is already charged, as, for example, giving to it adequate provision for “ plac ing out ” the children under its care with as well as without the payment o f board. In this discussion, it is, however, impossible to go into these questions o f enlarged community resources for child care. I X V I i nStitUti° n ° f A rt- V I, sec. 26. Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes 1919, p. 13 Since this was written the Illinois Constitutional Convention, now sitting, has formu lated proposals for the consolidation of the courts of Cook County that would obviate the difficulties referred to. The convention’s plan contains express sanction for the estab lishment of a juvenile or domestic relations court as a branch o f the contemplated consolidated court. See Report of the Committee on Phraseology and Style of the Illinois Constitutional Convention o f 1920. Report No. 18, p. 16. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis LIST OF REFERENCES TO ILLINOIS STATUTORY SOURCES. Constitution o f 1870, Art. V I, sec. 26 (H urd’s Illinois Revised Stat utes, p. L X V I I ). Session Law s: 1830-31, p. 103, sec. 4S. 1879, p. 309. 1883, p. 168. 1891, p. 52, sec. 9. 1893, p. 23, secs. 16 and 17. 1895, p. 295. x 1899, p. 131. 1901, p. 141. 1905, pp. 151, 152. 1907, pp. 59, 70. > 1911, p. 126. 1917, p. 536. 1919, pp. 780-782. 1921, p. 162. Revised Laws 1827, p. 1833, p. 1867, p. o f Illinois: 124, secs. 4, 29, 46, 47, 48, 50. 209, sec. 158. 42, sec. 16. Hurd’s Illinois Revised Statutes: 1874, ch. 75, sec. 1 1 . 1897, ch. 118. 1919, p. L X V I I ; ch. 4, sec. 1; ch. 17, sec. 4 : « ch. 23, secs. 169, 170, 171, 172,173, 175, 177, 177a, 177b I77d, 177e, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187,’ 188, 190, 190d, 191-215, 271, 298 fol., 313, 324 328,341; . ’ ch. 37, secs. 264 fol., 265 ; ch. 38, secs. 283, 509b; ch. 122, secs. 144, 320-347. 109 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis INDEX Abbott, E ., and Breckinridge, S. P. : Administration of the Aid to Mothers Law in Illinois, footnotes on pages 9, 18, 41. Truancy and Nonattendance in Chi cago Schools, 18 (footnote). See also Breckinridge, S. P., and Ab bott, E. Adjustm ent of cases without court a c tio n : Agency cooperation in, 1 0 0 -1 0 2 . Extent and method of, 4 2 -4 6 . In delinquent boys’ cases, 41. In delinquent girls’ cases, 39. Inform al complaint giving opportunity for, 35. A d op tion : Appointment of guardian with author ity to consent to, 1 2 -1 3 , 79, Investigations, 42. Proceedings, 13. Adults : Lack of jurisdiction over, 16. Relationship between juvenile and other courts in cases involving, 1 0 3 -1 0 4 . Age groups under court’s jurisdiction, 11, 12, 15, 19. Age of criminal responsibility, 1. Aid to mothers c a se s: Conference committee, 41—42, 62. Disposition, 64, 68, 70. Hearings, 62. Investigation, 36, 38, 4 1 -4 2 . Jurisdiction, 11, 12. Number, 1 7 -1 8 . Records, 34. Supervision of, 12, 31. Aid to mothers division : Committee reviewing investigations made by, 38, 42. Function, 22, 31. Investigations o f applications for moth ers’ pensions by, 36, 38, 4 1 -4 2 . Records, 34. Staff, 31. V Supervision by, 12, 31. Aid to mothers law : Disposition of cases under, 68. Funds for pensions 9 -1 0 . History of, 9 -1 0 . granted under, 1 Annual rep o rts: Citations, 14, 5 2 -5 3 , 80. Contents, 33. Statistics from, 17—21, 4 3 -4 4 . Anonymous complaints, 36, 101. Appointment of probation officers, 7 -8 , 2 8 -3 0 . Arnold, Judge Victor P ., 26 (footnote). Arrangement of court room, 5 8 -5 9 . Arrest of children, 1, 35, 57. Assistant to judge in girls’ c a se s: Appointment, 2 7 -2 8 . Legal status, 28. Methods, 61—62. Powers, 28. Attorney, representation by, 60. B astardy, 12, 1 3 -1 4 , 45, 104, 105. Board o f Commissioners o f Cook C o u n ty: Appropriation of funds for mothers’ pensions by, 10. Committee to investigate court ap pointed by, 7, 15. Determination of probation officers’ sal aries by, 30. Management of detention home by, 30, 51. Power to select probation officers, 6, 7. Taking over of medical examinations by, 47. Breckinridge, S. P ., and .Abbott, E ., The Delinquent Child and the Home, footnotes on pages 6, 18, 20, 27, 92. See also Abbott, E ., and Breckinridge, S. P. Bureau of Personal Service ( Jewish Social Service Bureau), 6, 36, 101. Bureau of social registration, 37, 40, 100. Case records : Access- to, 34. Filing, 34. Information included in, 33—34, 73, 74. Lack of study of, 21. Making out of, at detention home, 54. Use of, in probation work, 73. Case stories, 5 7 -5 8 , 8 2 -8 3 , 8 9 -9 0 , 9 7 -9 8 , 1 0 2 -1 0 3 . Continued for definite period, 6 6 -6 8 . O f children placed on probation, 75—78. Of neglect, 22, 23, 2 4 -2 5 , 45, 46. I l l https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis # 112 INDEX. Gases, classes of, under court’s jurisdiction, 1 1 -1 4 . Cases c ite d : County of McLean v. Humphreys, 104 111. 378, 8 (footnote). Dunn v. Chicago Industrial School, 28 0 111. 613, 3, (footnote). Gilbert et al. v. Sweitzer, 211 111. App. 438 , 8 (footnote). Hosking v. So. Pac. Co., 243 111. 320, 13 (footnote). Lindsay v. Lindsay, 257 111. 328, 8 (footnote). P. v. Olson, 245 111. 288, 1 3 (footnote). People v. C., B . & Q. R. R . Co., 273 111. 110, 7 (footnote). People v. Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern R. R. Co., 27 111. 447, 10 (footnote). Petition o f Ferrier, 103 111. 367, 3 (footn ote). W itter v. Cook County Commissioners, 256 111. 616, 7 (footnote). Catholic Home Finding Association of Illi nois, 85. Chancery jurisdiction, 5. Character of the court, 11. Charity Service Reports, Cook County. See Cook County Charity Service Reports. Chicago and Cook County School for Boys, 87, 88, 93. Chicago Bar Association, 5. Chicago Board of Education : Assignment by, o f teacher to detentionhome school, 9. C o m p u ls o r y -e d u c a t io n , d e p a rtm e n t o f, 12, 42, 70. Cooperation of, in securing passage of juvenile court act, 5. Chicago Home for Girls, 88. Chicago Parental School for Boys, 69. Chicago Parental School for Girls, 69. Chicago W oman’ s Club, 4. Chief probation officer: Duties, 3 0 -3 1 . Examinations for position of, 7. Membership on committee passing on mothers’ pension cases, 62. Report of, 14, 33, 49, 5 2 -5 3 . Reports to, of child-placing agency re ceiving children for placement, 85. Reports to, of officer in charge of police probation officers, 40. Representation on dependent-case-conference committee, 37. Responsibility of, for children placed under guardiansnip o f court officers, 93. Restitution for damages received and paid out by, 90. Suspension of, by president of board of county commissioners, 7. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Child-placing d ivision: Appointment of head of, as guardian, 80, 82, 93. Clubs established for wards of, 81—82. Conditions of placement in homes by, 8 0 -8 1 . • Distinction between “ child placing ” under, and supervision o f chifd in home other than his own by family-supervision division, 72. Function, 31, 80. Number o f cases cared for by, 80. Records of, 81 Reports o f officers, 82. Requirements formulated by, for homes in which wards o f the court are placed as mothers’ helpers, 8 0 -8 1 . Savings handled by, 82. Staff, 31. Supervision by, 82—83. Child-placing societies, commitment to, 71, 8 4 -8 5 . Children’s Hospital Society, 47. Circuit c o u rt: Chicago juvenile court as branch of, 11. Hearing by juvenile court of adoption cases filed in, 12. Jurisdiction of, over dependency cases, 3. Jurisdiction of, over fam ily cases, 1 0 6 -1 0 7 . Selection of judge of juvenile court by judges of, 26. Selection of probation officers dele gated to judge of juvenile court by judges of, 7. Civil-service appointees to probation -staff, 29. Civil-service commission, 6, 7. Civil-service method of appointment, 28. Colorado Revised Statutes, 63 (footnote). Commissioners o f Cook County. See Board of Commissioners of Cook County. Com plaints: Anonymous, 36, 101. Clearing of, a t confidential exchange, 37. Handling of, by police probation offi cers, 32, 4 0 -4 1 . In delinquent boys’ cases, 32, 39—41. In delinquent girls’ cases, 39. In dependent children’s cases, 36—37. Informal adjustment of, 42—46. Preliminary scrutiny of, 36—37. Substitution of, for petitions, 35. Supervised, 38, 44, 45—46. t Treatment of, regarding Jewish fam i lies, 1 0 1 -1 0 2 . Compulsory-education department, Chicago board of education, investiga tion of truancy cases by, 12, 42, 70. Concurrent jurisdiction, 13, 107. INDEX. Confidential exchange (Registration bu reau), clearing complaints a t, 37, 40, 41, 100. C onstitutionality: O f appointment of probation staff, 6—8. Of juvenile court law, 8. Contested cases, 26, 60, 62. Continuance: F or definite period, 65, 68. General, 6 3 -6 4 , 68, 69, 70, 71. Continuing jurisdiction, 91, 94. Cook County, jurisdiction in, 11. Cook County Board o f Visitors, 93, 97. Cook County Charity Service Reports, 33, and footnotes on pages 1, 6 ,1 4 , 20, 28, 31, 41, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 5 8 , 65, 73, 80, 87, 90, 98, 103, 104. Cook County Detention Hospital, 8. Cooperation : O f employers with juvenile court, 74. Of other Courts with juvenile court, 1 0 3 -1 0 7 . O f public officials w ith probation offi cers, 84. Of social agencies w ith juvenile court, 30, 36, 37, 1 0 0 -1 0 3 . County a g e n t: Commitment to, o f children 'placed in public institutions at county expense, 85. Membership of, on committee passing on mothers’ pension applica tions, 62. Payment of funds to parents by, 9. County board of commissioners. See Board of Commissioners of Cook County. County bureau of public welfare, 98. County of McLean v. Humphrys, 3 (foot note). Court order : Continued for definite period, 6 5 -6 8 . Continued generally, 63—65. Dismissed, 6 3 -6 5 . Final order. See Final order. Payment for support of dependent child in institution, 16, 38, 87. Court procedure: A t hearings, 59—60. Need for reforming, prior to passage of juvenile court law, 4. Crimes against children, 104. Criminal code, 1, 2. Criminal c o u rt: Jurisdiction, 107. Procedure in cases of older boys on probation committing new of fense, 1 5 -1 6 . Transfer of juvenile-court cases to, 8 8 -9 0 , 104. Trial of children committing serious offenses, 14—15. Criminal procedure, 35. Criminal responsibility, age of, 1. Custodial agencies, relation of, to juvenile court, 9 1 -9 9 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Defectives, 113 schools for, commitments to, 70, 85 Delinquency, contributing to, 104, 105, Delinquent b o y s: Age, 19, 21. Division in charge of, 31, 36, 3 9 -4 1 , 7 ?, 74. Institutions for, 87—88. Investigation of cases involving, 36, 3 9 -4 1 . Offenses, 1 8 -1 9 , 20, 89. Delinquent boys’ division : Care of boys under guardianship, 8 3 84, 93. Conditions o f placement in farm homes by, 83. Function, 31. Investigations by, 36, 3 9 -4 0 . Monthly report o f officers of, 84. Probationary supervision by, 72, 74. Reports ,of boys placed on farms to officers of, 84. Staff, 31. Delinquent children : Age distribution, 18, 19, 21. Commitment to institutions, 70, 8 5 -8 6 , 8 7 -8 8 . Definition, 1 1 -1 2 , 14, 15. D etention 49, 51, 54, 55, 90. Disposition of cases involving, 6 3 -6 8 , 7 0 -7 1 , 8 7 -9 0 . Guardians appointed for, 7 8 -8 4 . Hearings, 58, 59—60. Investigation of cases involving, 3 5 -3 6 , 3 9 -4 1 . Jewish, 101—102. Number o f cases involving, 1 7 -1 8 , 19, 20. Offenses, 1 8 -1 9 , 2 0 -2 1 . Probationary supervision of, 71—78. Problems of, 18, 25. Sex, 18, 19. Delinquent Child, The, and the Home, by Breckinridge, S. P., and Abbott, Edith, 20. Delinquent g ir ls : Age, 19, 21. Divisions in charge of, 31, 36, 39, 72. Hearings, 2 7 -2 8 , 6 1 -6 2 . Institutions for, 88. Investigation o f cases involving, 39, 61. Offenses, 18—19, 2 0 -2 1 . Dependency, contributing to, 104, 105. Dependent-case-conference committee, 3 0 -3 1 , 3 7 -3 9 ,1 0 2 . Dependent children: Age distribution, 21. Commitment to child-placing societies, 71, 8 4 -8 5 . Commitment to institutions, 38, 60, 85, 8 6 -8 7 . Definition, 12, 15, 22. Detention, 51, 54. Disposition of cases involving, 63—68. Guardians appointed for, 70, 71, 7 8 81. 114 INDEX. Dependent children— Continued. Hearings, 6 0 -6 1 . Investigation of cases involving, 3 6 39. Jewish, 101—102. Number of cases involving, 1 7 -1 8 , 21. Problems of, 21—25, 75—78. Sex, 21. Supervision of cases involving, 7 1 -7 4 . Deportation, 70, 71, 85. Deputy chief probation officer, 3 0 -3 1 , 37. D eten tion : Before 1899, 1, 4. First detention facilities provided, 8 -9 . Juvenile court laws, provisions in, re garding, 5, 8, 35, 49. Policy, 49, 52—53. Use of police stations, 53. Detention h o m e : Average daily populatioh, 51. Average length of stay in, 51« Building, 8—9, 53—54. Clothing o f children, 56. D aily routine, 55—56. Dental work, 55. Dietary, 56. Equipment, 53—54. Investigation of, by Hotchkiss com mittee, 51. Management of, 51. Medical, psychological, and psychiatric examinations, 47—48. Number cared for, 50. Overcrowding, 51—53. Reception of children, 54—55. Recreation, 56. Report of matron of, 33. Return to, after hearing, 50, 69. School, 9, 53, 55—56. Sources from which children were re ceived, 50. Use of, as disciplinary measure, 53, 90. Development of the court, 5—10. Discharge of probation officers, 28—29. Dismissed cases, 63—64, 68, 69, 70, 71. Dispensary in juvenile-court rooms, 47. Disposing of children for money, 24—25. Disposition of c a se s: Adjusted w ithout court action, 43—44. Dismissal and continuance, 63—68. F inal order— Delinquency cases, 70. Dependency cases, 71. Effect, 68. Feeble-minded cases, 69. Mothers’ pension cases, 70. Truancy cases, 69. Supplementary methods of treatment of delinquent children, 90. Bee also Appointment of guardian, Commitment, Deportation, Pro bation, and Transfer to criminal court. Domestic-relations branch of municipal court, 13, 104, 105—106. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dunn v. Chicago Industrial School, 3 (foot n o te). Employers, visits to, 36, 74, 8 0 -8 1 , 83, 84. Equipment of juvenile detention home, 53— 54. E vidence: A s to moral character of parents, 38. In adoption cases heard bjr juvenilecourt judge, 13. Exam inations: M ental, 42, 4 6 -4 8 . Physical, 4 6 -4 7 . Exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile court, 11, 15. F am ily problems, jurisdiction over cases involving, 103—107. Family-supervision d ivision : Follow-up work of, 9 8 -9 9 Function, 31. Investigations by, 36, 39. Representation on dependent-case con ference committee, ,37. Return to court by, of cases not show ing improvement, 74. Staff, 31. Supervision by, 72, 74. Farm placements, 31, 8 3 -8 4 . Feeble-minded c a se s: Detention, 50. Diagnosis, 47—48. Disposition, 64, 68, 69. ♦' Investigation, 42. Hearings, 62. Jurisdiction over, 13. Number, 18. Fifteenth Biennial Report o f the Board of State Commissioners of Public Charities of the State of Illinois (1 8 9 8 ), 5 (footnote). Filing system, 34. Final order of c o u r t: Delinquency cases, 70. Dependency cases, 71. Effect, 68. Feeble-minded cases, 69. Mothers’ pension cases, 70. Truancy cases, 69. Bee also Appointment of guardian, Commitment, Deportation, Pro bation, and Transfer to criminal court. Fines, 1 (footnote), 90. Follow-up work with dependent child and fam ily, 31, 82, 9 8 -9 9 . Foreign-language-speaking officers, 32. Funds to parents act, 9. Bee also Aid to mothers act. Gilbert et ah v. Sweitzer, 8. Grand j u r y : In cases o f children committing seri ous offenses, 14, 70, 89. Investigation of court by, 28. Guardian : Consent to adoption, by, 1 2 -1 3 . Contact w ith child’s own home, 82. 115 INDEX. Guardian— Continued. Frequency of appointment of, 70, 71, 79. Order, 78—79. Persons appointed, 80, 83, 102. Placing o f children by, 80—84. Subsequent relation o f court to, 9 1 -9 3 . H ealth, parental responsibility for, 24. Healy, D r. W illiam , 47—48. Individual Delinquent, 18 (footnote). Mental Conflicts and Misconduct, 18 (footn ote). H ea rin gs: Adoption cases, 13. Aid to mothers cases, 62. Compulsory attendance at, 57—58. Contested cases, 26, 60, 62. Delay in, 52, 57, 65. Delinquent boys’ cases, 59, 60. Delinquent girls’ cases, 6 1 -6 2 . Dependent children’s cases, 6 0 -6 1 . Feeble-minded children’s cases, 62. Number, 35, 58, 64, 69, 70, 71. Summons, 57—58. Time and place, 58—59. Truancy cases, 12, 59—60. Home visits, 34, 4 0 , 72, 74. Hosking v. So. Pac. Co., 1 3 (footnote). Hospitals, commitment to, 70, 85. Hotchkiss committee, 15 (footn ote), 51, 95. House of correction, 3, 4, 87—88. House o f the Good Shepherd, 88. Hurley, T . D . : Development o f the Juvenile Court Idea, 4 (footnote). Juvenile Courts and W h a t They Have Accomplished, 4 (footn ote). Illegitimacy, 12, 13—14, 45, 104, 105. Illinois Children’s Home and Aid Society, 6, 84, 85. Illinois Department o f Public W elfare, 48, 94. Illinois Federation of W om en’s Clubs, 5. Illinois Home for Juvenile Offenders, 2. Illinois Industrial Association, 8. Illinois State Board of Charities, 4, 5. Illinois juvenile court a c t: Date enacted, 2, 3, 5. History of, 3—5. Original provisions, 5. See also Juvenile court law. Illinois State Conference o f Charities, 4. Imprisonment of minors in penitentiary, 1 (footnote), 2. I n c o m p e t e n t p r o b a t io n o ffic e r s , d i s m i s s a l o f , 2 8 -2 9 . Indictment, 14, 35, 70. In d u s tr ia l s c h o o ls : A cts providing for, 3, 86. Follow-up work w ith fam ilies of chil dren committed to, 31. Procedure in commitment to, 60. Number of, 86. Relation o f court to, 9 2 , 9 5 -9 6 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Informal adjustment of cases. See Adjust ment of cases w ithout court ac tion. Inspection o f custodial agency, 9 1 , 94. Institute of Juvenile Research, 47—48, 53, 62, 69. Institutions : Certification of, 94. Commitment to, o f— Delinquent boys, 70, 85, 8 7 -8 8 . Delinquent girls, 70, 85—86, 88. Dependent children, 38, 60, 85, 8 6 -8 7 . Feeble-minded children, 69. Truants, 69—70. Follow-up work w ith families of chil dren committed to, 3 0 -3 1 ,9 8 —99. Placement of children in private, by child-placing division, 80. Recovery of children escaping from, 9 7 -9 8 . Relation o f court to, subsequent to commitment of— Delinquent children, 3 0 -3 1 , 93—94. Dependent children, 9 4 -9 7 . Interpreters, 29, 32. In v e s tig a tio n : Adoption cases, 13, 42. Aid-to-mothers cases, 41—42. Bastardy cases, 1 3 -1 4 . By private agencies^36, 100—102. Delinquent boys’ cases, 3 9 -4 0 . Delinquent girls’ cases, 39. Dependent children’s cases, 36—39. Divisions and agencies making, 3 5 -3 6 . Elimination of complaints not requir ing, 3 6 -3 7 . * Feeble-minded casés, 13, 42. Police probation officers’, 4 0 -4 1 . Prior to filing petition, 35. Truancy cases, 42. Investigation division : Adjustm ent of complaints, 4 3 -4 4 . Function, 31. Investigation of cases, 35—37, 39—40> 42. Reception o f complaints, 35. R elation to dependent-case-conference committee, 3 7 -3 8 . Reports on adoption cases, 42. Staff, 31. Investigation of juvenile court, 6—7. J a il : # Commitment of children to, 2, 3. Detention o f children in, 1, 2, 49. School for boys in, 4. Jewish agencies, 6 , 36, 38, 100, 101. Jewish Aid Society, 101. Jewish Social Service Bureau (Jewish Home Finding Society of Chi cago), 36, 84, 100, 101. John W orthy School, 87, 88. Judge of juvenile court : Duties, 12, 27. Method of conducting hearings, 5 9 -6 0 . Policy with reference to serious of fenses, 1 4 -1 5 . 116 INDEX. Judge o f juvenile court— Continued. Qualifications, 27. S alary,. 26. Selection, 26. Substitute, 26. W om an assistant hearing delinquent girls’ cases, 27—28. Jurisdiction : Age groups, 11, 12, 15, 19, 21. Area covered, 11, 106. As branch of circuit court, 1 2 -1 4 . Classes of cases, 11—14, 4 3 -4 4 . Cook County, jurisdiction in, 11. Duration, 15. Lack of criminal, 103. Original and exclusive, 1 1 -1 2 . Over adults, 16, 61, 103, 104. Over children accused of committing serious offenses, 14—15, 88—90. Over fam ily cases, 105—107. Policy with reference to exercise of concurrent,- 1 2 -1 3 , 14, 15, 105, 107. Retention of, after final order, 9 1 -9 2 . Retention’ of, by use of general con tinuance order, 64—65. See also Follow-up work w ith dependent child and fa m ily ; Guardian, subsequent relation of court to ; Institution, relation of court to, following com m itm ent; and Re covery of children escaped from institutions. Jury, 1, 35. In dependency cases, 3, 60—61. Justice of the peace, 14, 32, 106. Juvenile court building, 9 , 53, 5 8 -5 9 . Juvenile court law : A ct of 1899, 5, 8, 11. Amendments enacted, 5, 6, 9, 10 (foot note), 79, 100. Appointment of guardian, 78—79. Authority for mental and physical ex aminations under, 46. Board of visitation, 9 6 -9 7 . Commitment to institutions, 85, 86, 87. Constitutionality, 7, 8. Delinquent child as defined by, 11—12, 14, 15. Dependent or neglected child as defined by, 12, 15, 22. Efforts to secure enactment, 3 -5 . Initiation o f case, 35. Legal status of minors prior to pas sage of, 1—3. Related acts— Aid to mothers, 9 -1 0 . Detention home, 9. Domestic-relations branch of mu nicipal court, 104, 106. Industrial and manual training schools, 3, 60, 86, 95. Parental schools, 12. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Juvenile court law— Continued. Relation of court to private institu tions, 94. Retention o f jurisdiction over commit ted children, 91—92, 95. Transfer of cases to criminal court, 8 8 -8 9 . See also Jurisdiction. Juvenile Court o f Cook County, 111., The, Report of a Committee Ap pointed under Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Aug. 8, 1912, 7 (footnote), 15 (footnote), 51 (fo otn o te). Juvenile Protective Association (Juvenile Court Com m ittee), 6, 8, 36, 38, 100. Juvenile Psychopathic Institute (Institute of Juvenile Research), 4 7 -4 8 , 53, 62, 69. Lathrop, Julia C., Development of the Pro bation System in a Large City, 4 (footnote), 8 (footnote). Legal papers, 3 3 -3 4 . Legal relationship of detention home and juvenile court, 51. Legal status of probation staff, 5, 6—8. Legal status o f woman assistant to judge, 28. Lindsay v. Lindsay, 8 (footnote). Mack, Judge Julian W ., 26 (footnote), 27. Legal problems involved in the estab lishment of the juvenile court, 27 (footnote). Manual training schools, 3, 31, 60, 86, 92, 9 5 -9 6 . Mary A Home, 81, 82. M ary B Home, 81, 82. Massachusetts, probation system, 4, 5. Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, 1878, 4 (footnote). Medical care, 46, 47. In detention home, 53—55. Medical examinations, 4 6 -4 7 . M ental examinations, 42, 46—48. Merriam, Prof. ' Charles E,, 106. Mothers’ helpers, 8 0 -8 1 . Mothers’ pensions. See Aid to mothers cases. Municipal court : Domestic-relations branch, 13, 104, 1 0 5 -1 0 6 . Tenth and eleventh annual reports of, 1 0 5 (footnote). Tw elfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth annual reports of, 106 (foot note). Nationality as basis of assignment of pro bation cases, 32. Neglected child, 5, 9, 12, 63. See also Dependent children. INDEX. Negro probation officers, 32. New York system o f detention, 4 -5 . Nonsupport, 104, 105. Number of children brought into court, 1 7 -1 8 . Number of families assigned to a proba tion officer, 73. Number o f probation officers, 20—30. Offenses of delinquent children, 1 8 -1 9 , 20- 21. Offices, 53, 5 8 -5 9 . Organization of the c o u rt: Judge, 12, 2 6 -2 7 , 5 0 -6 0 . Probation officers— Appointment and discharge, 2 8 29. Number, 2 0 -3 0 . Organization, 3 0 -3 2 . Police probation officers, 3 2 -3 3 . Salaries, 30. Records, 3 3 -3 4 , 4 0 -4 1 . Reports, 33, 40. W om an assistant to judge, 2 7 -2 8 , 6 1 62. Origin o f the court, 1 -5 . Original, exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile court, 11, 15. Outlying districts, probation work in, 32. Overcrowding of juvenile detention home, 5 1 -5 3 . P . v. Olson, 13 (footnote). Parental schools, 12, 42, 6 9 -7 0 . Parental school act, 12. Parole, 93, 96. Payment by parent for institutional care of child, 16, 38. Penitentiary, imprisonment of minors in, 1, 2 . People v. C., B. and Q. R. R. Co., 7 (foot n ote). People v. Chicago, Lake Shore & Eastern R. R. Co., 10 (footnote). Petition : By whom filed, 35. Change of, 68. Dismissal of, in transferred cases, 89. F or appointment of guardian, 12. F or commitment to industrial or train ing school, 3. In cases of feeble-minded children, 13 42, 69. In cases reported by police, 39, 40. Investigation prior to filing of, 35, 3 7 -3 8 , 39. Presence at hearing of officer filing, 59, 61. Public record, 34. Petition o f Ferrier, 3 (footnote). Physical examinations, 4 6 -4 7 . Pinckney, Judge M erritt W ., 1, 26 (foot note), 27, 9 2 -9 3 , 106. Place of hearing, 5 8 -5 9 . Police magistrate, 14, 35. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 117 Police probation officers: Assignment, 6. Investigations by, 36, 4 0 -4 1 , 42, 43. Lim itation o f duties, 33, 65. Number, 31. Organization, 31, 3 2 -3 3 . Presence a t hearings, 59. Records, 4 0 -4 1 . Reports, 40. Representatives of institutions, 9 5 -9 6 . Supervision o f work of, 32. Value of, 32, 33. Police sta tio n s: Conferences with boys, parents, and complainant at, 41. Detention of children in, 8, 49, 53. Reception o f complaints at, 32, 33. Policy of juvenile court.: Application of probation system, 71. Carrying out of, by chief probation officer, 30. Commitment to institutions, 85, 86. Detention, 49, £>2—53. Dismissal and continuance, 6 3 -6 8 . Exercise of jurisdiction over older boys, 15. Forming of, by judge, 27. Guardianship, 9 2 -9 3 . Separation o f families because o f pov erty, 22. See also Cooperation with other agen cies. Preliminary procedure: Adjustment w ithout court action, 4 2 46. Complaint and petition, 35. Investigation, 3 5 -4 2 . Physical and mental examinations, 4 6 -4 8 . Private nature o f social records, 34. Probation: Child-placing as distinguished from, 72. Continuance for definite period com pared with, 65. Delinquent children placed on, 70, 72. Dependent children placed on, 71, 72. Effect of order, 71. Frequency of, as compared with other orders, 79. Homes in which children are placed during, 72. In truancy cases, 6 9 -7 0 . Jurisdiction of court over older boys on, who commit new offenses, 15, 8 8 -8 9 . Policy in application of, 71. Standards of probation work, 7 3 -7 5 . Supervision o f delinquent boys on 74— 75. Supervision of delinquent girls and de pendent children on, 7 2 -7 4 . Probation departm ent: Development, 5—8. Organization, 3 0 -3 2 , 65, Records, 34. Reports, 34, 40, 118 INDEX, Probation officers: Appointment, 5 -8 , 28. Assignment, 31, 105. Average number of families assigned to, 73. Discharge, 2 8 -2 9 . Examinations, 7—8. Number, 5 -6 , 29—30. Salaries, 5—6, 8, 30. Selection, 5 -6 , 7—8. See also Chief probation officer, and Police probation officers. Procedure. See Court procedure, Hearings, and Preliminary procedure. Proceedings of the Conference on the Care o f Dependent Children, held at W ashington, D. C., Jan. 25, 26, 1909, 86 (footnote). Psychological and psychopathic examina tions, 46—48. Publication o f cases, 58. Publicity, avoidance of, at hearings, 59. Qualifications of probation officers, 28. Reconstructing homes, 72—73. R ecords: Aid to mothers division, 34. Case. See Case records. Child-placing division, 81. Clearing new cases with court, 41. Other records and forms, 34. Probation department, 34. Social, private nature of, 34. Recovery of children escaped from insti tutions, 9 7 -9 8 . R e g i s t r a t i o n bureau (Confidential ex change), clearing complaints at, 37, 40, 41, 100. Rehearings, 41, 68, 70. Relation of court, child, and custodial agency, 91—99. Relation of juvenile court and other courts, 1 0 3 -1 0 7 . Release, power of, 82, 9 1 -9 2 , 9 3 -9 4 , 95, 96. Report o f the County Board of Visitors of Cook County, 111., 9 3 (footnote), 97 (footnote). Report of the City Council Crime Com mittee for the City of Chicago, March 22, 1915, 106 (footnote). R e p orts: Annual, of court. See Annual reports. Charity Service. See Cook County Charity Service Reports. Chief probation officer’s, 14, 33. Monthly, for division heads, on pro bation work, 34, 40. Monthly, of officers o f delinquent boys’ division, 84. Of child-placing division officers', 82. O f custodial agency to court, 9 1 -9 2 , 93. Of dependent-case-conference commit tee, 3 8 -3 9 . O f Institute of Juvenile Research, 48, 62, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Reports— Continued. O f investigation division, in adoption cases, 42. O f matron of detention home, 33. O f probationers to probation officers, 74, 84. On feeble-minded cases, 62. On follow-up work with families of dependent children in institu tions, 99. On results of private hearings of de linquent girls’ cases by woman assistant to the judge, 2 7 -2 8 , 6 1 -6 2 . School. See School reports. Restitution for damages, 90. Retention o f jurisd iction: A fter final order, 9 1 -9 2 . By use of general continuance order, 6 4 -6 5 . See also Follow-up work with depend ent child and fam ily ; Guardian, subsequent relation o f court t o ; Institutions, relation of court to following com m itm ent; and Recovery of children escaped from institutions. Return of child to his own home, 91, 95, 99. Runaway children, 34, 97—98. St. Charles School for Boys, 87, 88, 93. Salaries of probation officers, 5 - 6 , 8, 30. Schedule of court hearings, 58. School reports, 39, 73, 74. Schooling, provisions for, for children in working homes, 81, 84. Schools for defectives, commitments to, 85. Sectarian institutions, 3. Separate hearings, 4. Serious offenses, children accused of committing, jurisdiction over, 1 4 -1 5 . Settlements, reporting of probationers at, 74. Social agencies, cooperation with juvenile court, 30, 36, 37, 1 0 0 -1 0 3 . Social records: Private nature of, 34. Use of, in investigation, 40. Social-service department of municipal court, 106. Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home, Normal, 111., 86. Stan dards: Realization of, in investigations of dependency cases, 36. Standards of probation work, 7 3 -7 5 . State criminologist, 48. State penitentiary, 1. State reformatory, 2, 3. State school for the blind, 85. State school for the feeble-minded, Lin coln, 111., 50, 69. State Training School for Girls, Geneva, 111., 88, 93, 97. State’s attorney, 13, 14, 37, 94, 104, 119 INDEX. Statistical information in annual report of juvenile court, 33. Status of probation officers, 5, 6 -8 . Stevens, M rs. Alzena P., 5. Summons, 3, 4, 35, 5 7 -5 8 . Supervised complaint, 38, 44, 45—46. Supervision : Boys under guardianship, 83—84. Children on parole, 93. Children on probation, 63, 71—78. • Detention home, 51. Families of dependent children, 12, 63, . 9 8 -9 9 . Guardians appointed by court, 9 2 -9 3 . In cases continued for a definite pe riod, 6 5 -6 8 . Institutions receiving children, 9 3 -9 7 . Police probation officers, 32. Probation staff, 3 0 -3 1 . W ards of child-placing division, 8 2 -8 3 . Support of dependent children : By parent, 16, 38, 87. Public funds for, 86. Support order, dependent children commit ted to institution, 16, 38, 87. Supreme court, 8, 14, 15, 26. Suspension o f probation officers, 29 (foot note) . Territorial assignment of probation work, 31. Thurston, H. W ., Ten Years o f the Juvenile Court of Chicago, 9 (footnote), 58 (footnote). Time of hearings, 58—59. Transfer of cases to criminal court, 8 8 -9 0 , 104. Trial o f children prior to passage of juve nile court law, 1. o https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Truant cases : Disposition, 64, 68, 6 9 -7 0 . Hearings, 5 9 -6 0 . Investigation, 36. Jurisdiction, 12. Numerical importance, 18. Truant officers, 12, 32, 36, 5 9 -6 0 , 69, 70. Tuthill, Judge Richard S., 26 (footnote). Types of cases heard by juvenile court : Definition of, 11, 12. Numerical importance o f various, 1 7 -1 8 . United Charities, 102, 105. V isitation and Aid Society of Chicago, 3 -4 , 6. Visitation of institutions receiving children, 91, 94, 9 6 -9 7 . Visits to homes o f probationers, 72, 73, 74. Vocational bureau, 78. Volunteer probation officers, 5 - 6 , 32, 36, 101. W a g e s , deductions from, for support of de pendent child in institution, 16. W arrant, 35, 57. Whipping, 1 (footnote). W hite House conference of 1909, 86. W ines, Dr. -Frederick W ., 4 -5 . W itnesses, 60. W itter v. Cook County Commissioners, 7 (footnote). W om an assistant to judge in girls’ eases. See Assistant to judge in girls’ cases. W om an physician to examine delinquent girls, 47. W orking homes for girls, 80—83. Y . W . C. A . 78. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis