Full text of Courts in the United States Hearing Children's Cases : Results of a Questionnaire Study Covering the Year 1918, Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes Series No. 8, Bureau Publication No. 65

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

f'fo '

I
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

CHILDREN’S BUREAU
JULIA C. LATHROP, Chiel

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES
RESULTS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY
COVERING THE YEAR 1918

EVELINA BELDEN

DEPENDENT, DEFECTIVE, AND DELINQUENT CLASSES SERIES No. 8
Bureau Publication No. 65

W ASHINGTON
GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE

1920

3Lx.~\

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3 (s>

♦

CONTENTS,

Page.
5
Letter of transmittal......................................................................................................
The juvenile court movement— *............................................................................. 7-19
Fundamental principles...................................................
7
Present status........................................... . . ............................ ................ . . . ----10
Significant tendencies..................... ............... r ..................................... ...............
15
Method of study. . ..............................................
21
Total number of courts and number furnishing information, together with areas
25
served..............................................................................; ...........................................
Classification of courts...............
29-52
Method of classification..........................................................................................
29
Specially organized courts..............................................
29
Courts not reporting specially organized juvenile work.................................
31
Significant aspects of the legal jurisdiction under which children’s courts
operate................................................................. ............................ - ..........................
S3
Judges and methods of hearings..................................................................... ............ 37-43
Specialized judges.........................................................................
$7
Referees.................; .................................................................................................
38
Women assisting in hearing delinquent girls’ cases..........................................
39
Separate hearings for children’s cases.. . ............................................................
39
Disposition of cases— .......................................................
40
Informal handling of complaints..........................................................
42
Commitments to and release from institutions.................................................
43
Detention.... ...........................................................................
45-49
Methods of detention..............................................................................................
45
Detention homes and rooms................... 1 .......................... .................................
46
Family homes or homes of court officials............................................................
48
Other expedients...........................................................................................
48
49
Jails..................................................................; .......................................................
Probation............................................................
51-58
Amount of probation service................
51
Types of probation service.............................................
53
Appointment of probation officers................: .....................................................
56
State supervision of probation work....................................................................
56
Records and reports........................................................................................................ 59-61
Legal and social records. .........................
59
Annual reports........................
61
Provision for physical and mental examinations............................
63-69
Physical examinations.................................................. ...........................- - .........
63
Number and types of courts reporting mental examinations...... ..................
63
Standards of mental examinations.......................................................................
64
Resources for mental examinations.........._.............. . .......................... .............64-69
Court clinics and examiners..........................................................................
65
Institutions and public departments...........................................................
66
County and city clinics..................................................................................
67
3

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS.

Provision for physicial and mental examinations—1Continued.
Resources for mental examinations—Continued.
Page.
Universities, colleges, and normal schools...............................*................ .... 67
Elementary schools......................................................
68
Other clinics or examiners.............................................................................
68
Other examiners reported................................ ........... ............................. ...
68
States in which no court reported mental examinations.................................
69
Cooperation of the court with the community.......................................................... 71-74
Local and county boards or agencies. ............................... ..............................
71
State-wide agencies.................................................................................................
- 73
TABLES.
Table I. Number and per cent of courts replying to all or part of questionnaire
inquiry, by population of largest city in area served...........................................
Table II. Number and per cent of courts replying to questionnaire for judge,
by population of largest city in area served......................................................
Table III. Number and per cent of courts replying to questionnaire for pro
bation officer, by population of largest city in area served..................... ...........
Table IV. Number of courts replying to all or part of questionnaire inquiry,
by State.........................................................................................................................
Table V. Courts serving specified areas by States...................................................
Table VI. Specially organized courts and general courts, by population of larg
est city in area and type of area served............................... .................................
Table VII. Comparison of dispositions of delinquency cases in the Chicago
court and in other courts in Illinois during one year...........................................
Table V III. Types of detention homes and rooms reported used in 1918, by
courts serving specified areas...............................................
Table IX. Total courts and courts with and without probation service by
State and type of area served.............................................................................
Table X. Number and per cent of courts with probation service, and courts
with specified type of service, by population of largest city in area served___
Table X I. Courts reporting mental examinations, by population of largest city
in area served.................................................................................................
Table XII. Total courts reporting mental examinations in clinics or by mental
examiners, with area served, by type of clinic or exam iner............................

25
25
26
26
27
30
41
46
52
54
64
65

APPENDIXES.
Appendix A. Charts.................................................................................................... 75-101
Chart I. Juvenile courts established by special laws, and court systems
having jurisdiction over children’s cases of delinquency and
neglect, by States.................................................................. ............
75
II. Methods of appointment of probation officers reported from the
various States............ ........................
79
III. Courts reporting special organization for hearing children’s cases,
1918........................................................................................................
82
Appendix B. Questionnaire forms.................................
103~
Appendix C. Reports relating to work of courts hearing children’s cases.........
109

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
U. S.

D epartm ent of L abor,
C h i l d r e n ’s B u r e a u , -

Washington, September 16, 1919.
S i r : I transmit herewith a report on courts in the United States
hearing children’s cases, the results of a questionnaire study covering
the year 1918.
Miss Evelina Beiden had charge of the planning of the study- and
the collection and analysis of the material. The material for the
report was assembled by Miss Beiden and was completed for
publication by Miss Emma O. Lundberg. Miss Ruth Bloodgood,
Miss Mina Sessions, Miss Angelina Brockmeier, and Miss Marion
Schaffner gave especially valuable assistance in analyzing the data.
Respectfully submitted.
J u l i a C . L a t h r o p , Chief.
Hon. W . B. W i l s o n ,
Secretary of Labor.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
THE JUVENILE COURT MOVEMENT.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.1

Twenty years ago the Illinois Legislature passed a law author
izing the establishment of a special kind of court for the hearing
and disposition of children’s cases.2 This law, in accordance with
which a juvenile court was established in the city of Chicago in
July, 1899, marked the beginning of the juvenile court movement
in this country. Previous to that time certain States, following
the lead of Massachusetts, had provided for the hearing of children’s
cases apart from those of adults and had made some progress in
developing other special features. But the Illinois law was the first
attempt at serious modification of court procedure so far as it
related to children. In 1901 the system under which the Denver
Juvenile Court operates was established, in part under the author
ity of the school law of 1899.3 In 1903 the Colorado Legislature
passed a special juvenile coHrt law.4 Since then a great body of
legislation affecting children who come before the courts has been
enacted, and in communities representing every section of the
country special courts have been created or special divisions have
been established, and new methods have been introduced for the
treatment of children’s cases under existing court systems.
The jurisdiction of the juvenile court covers neglected and, in many
States, dependent or destitute children, as well as children whose
conduct is in conflict with the law. I t is in regard to the latter class
that the juvenile court movement introduced a new legal concept to
the effect that the delinquent child is not to be proceeded against
as one who has committed an offense against the State for which
the State must mete out punishment, but is a subject for the State’s
special protection, care, and guardianship in exaotly the same degree
as the child who is neglected or homeless. The power of the eourt
1 The sections on “Fundamental Principles” and “Significant Tendencies” were written by Katharine
F. Lenroot.
2 Laws 1899, p. 131. Approved April 21,1899; in force July 1, 1899.
3 Session Laws 1899, C. 136, p. 342. Approved Apr. 12, 1899. Lindsay, Judge Ben B.: The Law and the
Court. In “The Problem of Children and How the State of Colorado Cares for Them: A Report of the
Juvenile Court of Denver, 1904.” Denver, pp. 28-29,36.
* Session Laws 1903, C. 85, p. 178, Approved Mar. 7,1903.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

to extend this protection to the delinquent child is the same power
which the courts in England and in the United States have long
exercised in respect to destitute or neglected children and is derived
from the capacity of the State to act as the ultimate parent of its
children.1
Since the fundamental purpose of juvenile court procedure is
not to determine whether or not a child has committed a specific
offense, but to discover whether he is in a condition requiring
the special care of the State, it follows that the chancery or civil,
rather than the criminal, procedure is best adapted to the end in
view. Under the criminal procedure—with apprehension by warrant
and arrest, trial on specific charges, strict application of the rules
of evidence, conviction, and sentence—the punitive aspects of the
process are repeatedly emphasized. The judgment must depend
upon the technical evidence presented, and the vital social facts
of home and environmental conditions and the child’s physical and
mental make-up can be given, at best, limited consideration. In
contrast to this complicated legal machine is the simple chancery
procedure, under which the judge in an informal hearing can utilize
all the information that has been obtained about the child and his
family, decide whether or not the child is in a condition of delinquency
or neglect, and apply the remedies best suited to the correction of
the condition.
In some jurisdictions the essential features of the juvenile court
have been developed under a procedure which remains criminal in
form but which is in substance a chancery proceeding, the strict
limitations of the criminal process having been relaxed. Most author
ities agree, however, that the true chancery proceeding is preferable.
The special modifications of court methods and court procedure
which have been necessary in the development of the juvenile court
have been designed to make possible the practical application of the
fundamental principle that the child is a ward of the court, to be
protected and safeguarded. The modifications may be grouped
under three headings: (1) Methods of hearing and detention; (2)
evidence; (3) judgment and disposition.
The first step in the special organization of courts for hearing
children’s cases was the provision that hearings for children should be
separate from those for adults. As before stated, this measure pre
ceded in some States the enactment of more complete laws for the.
protection of children before the courts. In modem juvenile court
procedure of the best type children are given the advantage not only
of separate hearings but also of hearings from which persons not
1 See Mack, Julian W. (formerly judge of the juvenile court of Cook County, 111.): “Legal Problems In
volved in the Establishment of the Juvenile Court,” in Breckinridge and Abbott, “ The Delinquent Child
and the Home,” Charities Publication Committee, New York, 1912, pp. 181-188; and Flexner,Bernard, and
Baldwin, Roger N ., “Juvenile Courts and Probation,” New York, 1916, pp. 7-9.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES.

having a legitimate interest are excluded. Proceedings in chancery,
including the use of petition and summons; a method of detention
separate from adults for such children as can not remain in their own
homes pending the disposition of their cases; and special attention to
cases of delinquent girls: these are essential to the fullest realization
of the protective ideal of the court.
One of the fundamental distinctions between the juvenile court pro
cedure and the usual criminal procedure lies in the matter of evidence.
Since the youthful offender is not considered a criminal but a child
in need of protection, the problem of the judge is not fundamentally
to decide whether or not the child has committed a specific wrong,
but, in the words of a former juvenile court judge, is to determine:1
“ What is he, how has he become what he is, and what would best be
done in his interest and in the interest of the State to save him from
a downward career
Hence, legal evidence must be accompanied
by complete social evidence, the result of a thoroughgoing investiga
tion of the child’s family history and circumstances, personal history
and characteristics, and examination of his physical and mental con
dition. In order to utilize the results of the investigations and ex
aminations, a system for recording and filing social as well as legal
information is necessary.
Since the purpose of court action is protective rather than penal,
purely punitive dispositions, such as fines, are done away with under
the best practice. The judge must determine whether the child is
in need of special care, and if the decision is in the affirmative, what
provision would be best suited to his needs. A probation stervice
equipped to give careful supervision to children in family homes is an
essential feature of adequate juvenile court organization.
The cooperation of the court with other agencies in the community
is of great assistance, particularly in the supervision of children
through the probation department. Probation or supervision is not
a negative force designed merely to prevent the recurrence of anti
social conduct, but a constructive effort to secure for the child the
fulfillment of those essentials of physical well-being, mental health,
home life, education, and social activities which , may be lacking.
This effort can result in successful accomplishment only through the
fullest utilization of the resources of the community.
Juvenile court acts and similar statutes have been upheld by the
courts as against various constitutional objections, such as depriva
tion of liberty without due process of law, denial of the right of trial
by jury, and violation of the guaranty of a public trial.2
1 Mack, Julian W .: “ Legal Problems Involved in the Establishment of the Juvenile Court,” in Breck
inridge and Abbott, “ The Delinquent Child and the Home.” Charities Publication Committee, New
York, 1912. p. 198.
Supplement to Annual Report of the Attorney General of the United States, for the year 1914.”
Washington, D. C., 1915, pp. 23-35.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS W ' THE UNITED STATES

The fundamental principles of the juvenile court, as expressed
in the first juvenile court law, have been sustained by a large number
of judicial decisions. That proceedings instituted under juvenile
court acts and similar statutes are not criminal in their nature has
frequently been affirmed by the courts.1 In an Illinois decision
the court said: 2
Our statute and those of a similar character treat children coming within their pro
visions as wards of the State to be protected rather than as criminals to be punished,
and their purpose is to save them from the possible effects of delinquency and neglect
liable to result in their leading a criminal career.

In a Utah case 3 it was held that—
Such laws are most salutary, and are in no sense criminal and not intended as a
punishment, but are calculated to save the child from becoming a criminal. The
whole and only object of such laws is to provide i the child with an environment such
as will save him to the State and society as a useful and law-abiding citizen, and to
give him the educational requirements necessary to attain that end.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania * has stated—
The act is not for the trial of a child charged with crime, but is mercifully to save it
from an ordeal, with the prison or penitentiary in its wake, if the child’s own good and
the best interests of the State justify such salvation. Whether the child deserves to
be saved by the State is no more a question for a jury than whether the father, if able
to save it, ought to save it. * * * The act is but an exercise by the State of its supreme
power over the welfare of its children.

As summarizing the main features usually considered essential to
the organization of a juvenile court, the following may be specified:
1. Separate hearings for children’s cases.
2. Informal or chancery procedure, including the use of
petition or summons.
3. Regular probation service, both for investigation and for
supervisory care.
4. Detention separate from adults.
5. Special court and probation records, both legal and social.
6. Provision for mental and physical examinations.
PRESENT STATUS.

In order to ascertain how widespread has been the movement
during the 20-year period that has elapsed since the organization of
the first special juvenile court and to secure as accurate a picture as
possible, by the means available, of the types of development in
various sections of the country, the Children’s Bureau undertook in
1918 a survey—by means of questionnaires and correspondence—of
’ “ Supplement to Annual Report oi The Attorney General of the United States,for the year 1914.”
Washington, D. C., 1915, pp. 17,18,
*Lindsay v. Lindsay, 257 111., 328, 333.
»Mill v. Brown, 31 Utah, 473, 481.
’ Commonwealth v. Fisher, 213 Fa. St. 48, 54.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

juvenile courts and other courts in the United States hearing chil
dren’s cases. This study was made at the request of the National
Probation Association and others active in child welfare work, and
was designed to serve as the basis for further and more intensive
studies of juvenile court methods and results. The study purposed
to describe not the legislation permitting or requiring special courts
or special procedure for children’s cases but the actual machinery
which was in operation. I t aimed to discover the number, types,
and location of courts having jurisdiction in children’s cases and the
amount and character of organization, including any special fea
tures developed in the courts or in cooperation with them which
would reveal the trend of the juvenile court movement. Informa
tion was sought from every court having authority to hear children’s
cases involving delinquency or neglect, excluding courts serving
areas of less than 5,000 inhabitants, and also excluding, for various
reasons, a few other courts; courts in every State were addressed.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts, sent to judges, probation
officers, and clerks, respectively. Following is a brief summary of
the main findings of the survey.
A total of 2,391 courts were addressed. All or part of the infor
mation desired was returned from 2,034, or 85 per cent. Definite
reports of the number of children’s cases heard during one year were
received from 1,601 courts, 332 of which stated that no children’s
cases had been heard in the year reported upon. The remaining
I, 269 courts reported a total of 140,252 cases heard.1 A total of
79,946 cases of juvenile delinquency was reported by 1,088 courts;
556 courts reported hearing delinquency cases but did not specify
the number; 390 reported no delinquency cases heard. For neglect
and dependency, 37,387 cases were reported by 791 courts; 663
other courts did not specify the number; 581 reported no such cases.
Of other cases, including truants not heard as delinquents, mental
defectives, and children sent to hospitals for physical treatment,
I I , 111 were reported. For 11,829 cases classification was not pos
sible. I t is probable that the number of children’s cases annually
coming before the courts of the United States approximates 175,000.
In 22 States two-thirds or more of the courts having jurisdiction
over children’s 'cases served only rural areas, 9 of these States having
within their boundaries no large or medium-sized cities.2 Many of
the courts serving cities of specified sizes served also smaller cities
1 It was impossible to determine the number of children coming before these courts, because of differ
ences in the methods of recording statistics in the various courts.
2 For the purpose of this study, "large city’! was defined to mean a city having a population of 100,000
or more; "medium-sized city," a city of 25,000 but less than 100,000 population; "small eity," a city,
town, or village of 5,000 but less than 25,000 population. The populations as given in the 1910 census

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

and rural areas. The numbers of courts serving areas of specified
types 1 were as follows:
Number
of courts.

Areas containing large citie s................................................
57
Areas containing medium-sized cities................................
173
Areas containing small c itie s...............................................
742
Only rural areas..................................
1,419

Ninety per cent of the courts addressed served areas in which there
was no city of 25,000 or more inhabitants. The importance of the
problem of court organization for the small town and the rural com
munity is evident.
Courts were grouped under two main heads—specially organized
courts and courts not specially organized so far as known. Only
courts reporting (a) separate hearings for children, (b) officially
authorized probation service, and (c) the recording of social infor
mation were classified as specially organized. In practically all
cases these courts had some system of detention other than jail. The
definition was based upon the primary and most common elements of
juvenile-court organization. Many courts had other special features
which might be considered essential to successful work with children.
The minimum degree of specialization defined above was reported
for 321 courts in 43 States and the District of Columbia—16 per cent
of the 2,034 courts from which information was obtained. Of these
321 courts, 22 were juvenile courts established by special laws and
independent of other court systems. Undoubtedly the number of
specially organized courts is understated, though the work of some
of the courts may be less valuable than appeared from the replies to
the questionnaires. I t is clear that in the majority of jurisdictions
in the United States special provision for children coming before the
courts has not yet been made.
All the courts from which replies were received serving cities of
100,000 or more inhabitants were specially organized; 71 per cent of
the courts serving areas containing medium-sized cities; 16 per cent
of the courts serving areas containing small cities; and 4 per cent of
the courts serving only rural areas.
The majority of the courts which heard children’s cases reported
separate hearings for juveniles. A considerable number of the smaller
courts, however, reported that hearings were not separate. The
amount of privacy of these separate hearings could not be determined
by the questionnaire method. The large courts in each State reported
the use of special rooms or private offices or the judge’s chambers for
children’s hearings.
Many courts reported that a woman was present at hearings for
girls. She was in most instances a probation officer, though some1 The area served was classified according to the largest city contained.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES*

times members of advisory boards were called in. In six large
cities especially qualified women served as referees for girls’ cases:
In one city, Washington, D. C., the judge of the juvenile court was
a woman, and in seven counties of Kansas the probate judges, who
also heard children’s cases, were women.
From at least one court in every State in the Union came reports
of detaining children in jails. The practice was much more general
in some States than in others. Thirty-seven courts in 18 States re
ported that no effort was made to separate children detained in jails
from adult offenders, though in many of these States such separation
is required by law.
A total of 212 detention homes or rooms, in 38 States and the Dis
trict of Columbia, were reported. A considerable number of courts
used as a method of detention the boarding of children in family
homes or placing them in the custody of court officials. Except for
Massachusetts, this method was used to the largest extent in States
having much rural territory. A further development of standard
ized placing out during detention seems to be needed, especially in
small communities where the number of cases is too small to warrant
the maintenance of a special detention home.
Every State in the Union except one had legislation providing for
juvenile probation. Less than half the courts having jurisdiction
over children’s cases—45 per cent—were known to have had proba
tion service during the year for which the report was made. All the
courts serving cities with a population of 100,000 or more had proba
tion service. Ninety-four per cent of the courts serving areas con
taining medium-sized cities; 66 per cent of those serving areas con
taining small cities; and 25 per cent of the courts serving only rural
areas reported probation service. Only 8 States reported a recognized
worker for every court. In 15 States, so far as known, only a fourth
or less of the courts had official probation work.
Less than half the courts reporting probation work, and less than
one-fifth of all courts having jurisdiction over children’s cases, had
regular officers, giving full-time service paid for by the court. For
the other courts the probation work was done by persons authorized
by the court who gave part-time service, by officially recognized
agents of public or private organizations who combined the work of
probation with their other duties, or by volunteers officially author
ized as probation officers.
In 6 States agencies were reported which were supervising juve
nile probation work throughout their respective States, thus tending
to standardize the work of the various courts. These States were
Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Utah. In 8 other States the courts were responsible in a limited
way to the State board of charities or some similar body. In 4

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN' THE UKITED STATES

additional States annual reports were made by the courts to a State
board or to the governor.
The returns indicated that in many courts social records were
quite inadequate. There was a general lack of uniformity and a wide
difference in definition, both in laws and in court usage. In the
States having State supervision of probation work statistical reports
are sent a t regular intervals to the supervising body, which prepares
statistics for the State. The supervising commission or other body
also assists the local courts in developing good records and in many
other ways. In other States the methods of compiling statistics
frequently differed in the various courts, and comparable data were
not available even for the courts within a single State. Fair com
parisons of any one State with other States are thus practically im
possible.
Physical examinations of children before the courts frequently
disclose conditions of health the improvement of which may result
in the removal of important contributing causes of delinquency. Of
909 courts replying to the questionnaire sent the probation officer,
671 reported provision for physical examinations. Many of the ex
aminations were probably those required by law before commitment
to institutions. In the majority of places where the examination
was part of the investigation and was not made merely in connection
with commitment, only those children were examined who gave
evidence of abnormal physical conditions. In 23 courts, of which
21 were special courts serving large cities, physical examinations
were made by physicians attached to the staff of the court or regu
larly making this examination for the court.
Of the 2,034 courts replying to the questionnaire, 145, or 7 per cent,
reported mental examinations in clinics organized for th at purpose
or by persons having some psychiatric or psychological knowledge.
The courts having special provision for mental examinations often
examined only cases presenting special problems, or repeaters. In
only 13 courts were there clinics maintained as a part of the court
organization, where examinations were made by psychiatrists or
psychologists definitely attached to the court. These clinics were
all located in cities of 100,000 or more population. In two States
departments had been established by law for the mental diagnosis
of children brought to them from the courts of the State. For the
other courts examinations were made through the cooperation of
social or civic agencies and institutions or by private individuals
having some special qualification.
Although special court organization for the hearing of children’s
cases was found in certain communities representing every section
of the country, in many small towns and rural communities, as has
been indicated, children were still subjected to the unsocialized

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’s CASES. '

court procedure that the juvenile court movement was designed to
replace. Even where attempts have been made so to modify
the judicial machinery that it may be more humane and effective
in dealing with children, the development has not been uniform.
Among the courts included in this study may be found illustrations
of all stages of development away from the old and toward the new
ideals and methods. Many courts had arranged for separate hearings
for children’s cases, but still maintained the old attitude and imposed
the old punishments. Lack of an adequate probation service, the
absence of any method of detention other than the jail, failure to secure
adequate social information and to provide a method for recording
and utilizing these facts, judges who were not well qualified for their
work and who failed to grasp its fundamental principles, unnecessary
publicity of hearings—one or more of these and other defects in or
ganization were frequently found.
Courts serving cities of 100,000 or more population had developed
the primary features of special organization for children’s work,
though some of these courte were much in advance of others.
Courts serving small towns and rural communities as a rule were
poorly equipped for children’s work. Yet 90 per cent of the courts
addressed in the course of the study served areas in which there was
no city of 25,000 or more inhabitants. The child from the village
or rural community who is brought before the court has an equal
right with the city child to be treated as a ward in need of protection,
rather than as an offender to be punished. There is as great need
in the former case as in the latter for adequate knowledge of home
conditions, family circumstances, physical and mental condition,
and personal characteristics. Detention in jail is as bad for the rural
child as for the child in the city; probationary oversight as much
needed.
I t was estimated that 175,000 children’s cases were brought before
courts in the United States in 1918. Of these, approximately 50,000
came before the courts not adapted to the handling of children’s cases.
Statistics can not adequately reveal the injury done these children
through their association with adult offenders, their trial under the old
criminal processes, and the absence of equipment for the study of their
needs or for proper overnight and protection.
SIGNIFICANT TENDENCIES.

The wisdom of dealing with the child offender not as a wrong
doer but as one in special need of care and protection has been fully
borne out in practical experience. But the development of the
juvenile court has necessarily varied in the different States, in accord
ance with differences in the density and character of the population

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

and the original governmental structure. To a large extent exist
ing court systems have been utilized, and established methods of
organization and practice have necessarily had their influence. The
juvenile court movement is still in a formative period, and stand
ardization of methods and definition of common principles are in
progress. Some of the significant tendencies as brought out by the
questionnaire study are summarized below.
The extension of juvenile court organization.—Increasing recogni
tion is being given to the importance of the extension and develop
ment of juvenile court organization, that all children who come be
fore the courts may have an equal chance. The problem for the
immediate future is the working out of practical methods by which
the principles of the juvenile court may be universally applied.
The area served is of primary importance in connection with the
development of special organization. In the majority of the States
the courts hearing children’s cases serve entire counties or districts
composed of several counties. A court having jurisdiction over a
district sufficiently large to permit specialization has a great advan
tage over one or more small courts serving small areas. In order that
such a court may operate promptly in any part of the district when
need arises, referees are sometimes authorized to act in the absence
of the judge. In North Dakota, for example, where the district
system prevails, juvenile court commissioners are provided to act
as referees and to assist generally in children’s work. In Missouri
the law authorizes the court to appoint a referee having specified
qualifications to hear such cases as may be referred to him. In
New York State a beginning in this direction has been made in one
county through the recent law establishing a children’s court as a
part of the county court of Chautauqua County. Under this act the
county judge, who is also the judge of the children’s court, is author
ized to appoint “ a lawyer or other suitable person” to hear cases
and report his recommendations to the court.1 Where the county
system is used, a unified probation service, a detention home, and
a clinic for child study may be developed to serve the entire county.
Courts serving small towns or rural areas and hearing -relatively
small numbers of cases each year find it difficult to develop effec
tively their work for children. An organized probation staff, a de
tention home, and provision for physical and mental examinations
are often impracticable. By the development of a county plan
for probation, detention, and child study, and the utilization by
all the courts in the county of these unified services, the children
may be given the kind of care needed. In Erie County, N. Y., a
successful experiment has been made along these lines. The Chil1 Laws 1918, ch. 464, in force July 1,1918, establishing the children's part of the county court in Chautau
qua County, N. Y.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN'S CASES.

dren’s Court of Buffalo serves only the city of Buffalo, and in the
rest of the county children’s cases are still being heard by justices of
the peace. But a county-wide probation system has been organized,
and a regular staff of probation officers makes investigations and
supervises children on probation throughout the county.
One of the problems which courts hearing relatively few children’s
cases have found difficult to solve is the provision of a suitable method
of detention for children who can not be left in their own homes pend
ing the disposition of their cases. » I t is, however, sometimes im
practicable to maintain a detention home. In such a case boarding
children in carefully selected and supervised family homes has been
found a satisfactory substitute. In Massachusetts this method has
been widely used. I t has been found to be successful, even in the
city of Boston. This method would seem best adapted to courts
serving small towns and rural communities.
The cooperation of the court with other social agencies in the com
munity often makes it possible to develop a greater amount of special
organization than could otherwise be obtained. If the volume of work
does not warrant the employment of a full-time probation officer at
an adequate salary, the duties of a probation officer may be combined
with those of a school attendance officer, a county relief agent, or the
secretary of a welfare association. In a number of counties such co
ordination of duties had been found practicable.
Medico-psychological work.—The importance of knowledge of the
child’s physical and mental condition, of his home, and of his family
and personal history is recognized as essential to successful work by
the court, though the development of facilities for diagnosis has been
relatively slow. The Juvenile Psychopathic Institute of Chicago, now
a part of the State-wide Juvenile Psychopathic Institute of Illinois,
was the pioneer in the thorough-going study of children before the
courts. The next court to take up this work, the Seattle "Juvenile
Court, did so by establishing a “ department of social diagnosis,”
which is still maintained as such.
Investigation of home conditions and family and personal history
is usually a part of the regular investigations made by the proba
tion officers. Physical examinations are given much more gener
ally than mental examinations. In 13 courts mental clinics were
maintained as a part of the court organization. In some of these
clinics the examinations of physical and mental conditions, and the
studies of social histories were parts of a unified program for the diag
nosis of the children’s needs and possibilities. Frequently the only
children given the intensive study indicated are those presenting
especially difficult problems, though the present feeling among many
familiar with the work is that all children coming before the courts
135315°—20-----2

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

should- have the benefit of *such consideration» In the Judge Baker
Foundation in Boston a large proportion of children befoi*e the juve
nile court are given thorough physical examinations, their mental
condition is carefully studied, and especially qualified investigators
attached to the staff of the foundation gather the social data. All
the information in a given case is then assembled and studied at a
staff conference, and the diagnosis of the child’s condition and the
recommendation as to the kind of treatment needed is made by the
director or his assistant.
Coordination of the trial and treatment of juvenile and fam ily eases,—
The socialization of the courts dealing with children has pointed
the need for the socialization of other courts, especially those dealing
with family life in its various aspects. Frequently juvenile courts
are given jurisdiction in cases involving adults contributing to the
delinquency or neglect of children. This is held by many to be
essential to successful juvenile court work.
There is a movement looking toward the coordination of the trial
and treatment of juvenile and family cases, including desertion and
nonsupport, contributing to delinquency or dependency, divorce,
illegitimacy cases, adoption, and guardianship. The National Pro
bation Association has gone on record in favor of such consolidation
of court work touching closely the family life, holding that all these
cases should be dealt with in much the same manner as children’s
cases.1 In the report of the committee of the National Probation
Association on domestic relations courts in 1918, in which the ease
for the family court is strongly stated, the chairman emphasized
the necessity for preserving the juvenile court organization.2 He
states that “the principle of the juvenile court is the foundation
upon which the family court must be constructed,” and defines
the relation of the juvenile court and the family court as follows:
The family coart is not intended to limit or restrict the jurisdiction incident to
juvenile courts. In fact, the juvenile court w ill become an integral part, or division,
of the family court. By reason of the organization of family courts, w e believe that
the administration of the juvenile court w ill become more effective and significant
and better understood not only by those connected with the juvenile court but by
the public generally.

State supervision of juvenile court and probation work.—The State
probation commissions of New York and Massachusetts have done
notable work in supervising juvenile probation and standardizing
and centralizing the work of the courts. In some other States there
are supervising agencies of various types. Such activities contribute
iReport of the committee on courts of domestic relations, in “ Social Problems of the Courts," the
annual report and proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1917, pp. 82-86. Albany, 1918.
2 Domestic Relations Courts. Report of the Committee by Eon. Charles W. Hoffman, judge of the Court
of Domestic Relations of Cincinnati, chairman, in “ The Social Work of the Courts," the annual report
and proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1918, pp. 134-136. Albany, 1919.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

greatly to the extension of tlie juvenile court organization, the
maintenance of efficient probation service, the systematizing of the
records, and the general application of the principles of the juvenile
court movement.
Community- cooperation.—The growth of the juvenile court has
been to a great extent dependent upon the cooperation and assist
ance of other social agencies in the community. In many instances
private effort has demonstrated the need for certain features, such
as probation work, a method of detention, and child-study depart
ments, which have later become a part of the regular organization,
supported from public funds.
In many courts a definite method for cooperation with the com
munity has been developed. Provision is made by law in a number
of States for the establishment of county or other local boards which
serve the court in an advisory and auxiliary capacity. In Alabama,
for example, the juvenile law provides for the compulsory appoint
ment of advisory boards for juvenile courts. The boards serve,
without compensation, in a general advisory capacity. They may
inspect institutions and make reports. In Minnesota the duties of
the county boards of child welfare, working under the direction of
the State board of control, include among others those of investi
gating cases, instituting proceedings, and giving the courts advice
and assistance in all matters pertaining to the welfare of children.
In other States cooperating boards have been established without
special statutory provision. Often State boards of charities or child
welfare bureaus actively cooperate. A number of private societies
doing protective work or child-placing give the courts valuable
assistance.
As the work of the juvenile court develops, some of the underlying
causes and conditions of child delinquency and neglect become more
evident. The results of intensive studies of individual children
have indicated the varieties of provision which must be made. The
need for the early recognition and treatment of abnormalities in the
child’s physical, mental, or moral development has been conclusively
demonstrated. In this field the responsibility reverts to the home,
the school, and the other social forces of the community. The
adequate fulfillment of these obligations will result in the prevention
of a considerable amount of juvenile delinquency and in the conse
quent reduction of the number of children who come before the
courts.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

METHOD OF STUDY.
This study of courts in the United States Hearing children’s cases
was conducted by means of questionnaires and correspondence. The
limitations of the questionnaire method were recognized, but it offered
the best means of securing general information in regard to the situa
tion in the country as a whole, which would serve as a basis for further
studies of the methods of dealing with children before the courts.
Information was sought from every court having authority to
hear children’s cases involving delinquency or neglect (with certain ex
ceptions enumerated below), regardless of variations in definition.
Courts in every State were addressed. The questionnaire, which was
prepared by the Children’s Bureau in collaboration with the committee
on children’s courts of the National Probation Association, and other
experts in children’s work, consisted of three parts, of which one was
sent to judges, one to probation officers, and one to clerks.1 The
questions addressed to judges were concerned with jurisdiction,
organization and method of trial and the questions to probation
officers, with methods of investigation and probation work. Those
sent to clerks asked for the number of cases and the dispositiQns.
When replies were not received, follow-up letters were sent.
I t was difficult to prepare lists of judges and probation officers
and sources varied greatly in the different States. In two States,
lists were furnished by a State commission concerned with the super
vision of probation work. Fairly complete lists were furnished in
more than half the States by a correspondent of the National Pro
bation Association or by some State board or official. In several
States there was no list of judges hearing children’s cases or of pro
bation officers and no organization or official in the State kept such
information currently. The names of judges for specified courts
could sometimes be secured from a State manual or a tax list or from
some State official. Often it was necessary to address a court without
the name of the judge.
The type of court having jurisdiction in children’s cases is, in
general, clear from the laws of a State, but in several States it could
not be determined from the law without further inquiry. For ex
ample, in four States the judge hearing children’s cases was selected
from several court systems in the county, but in certain counties no
1 See Questionnaire forms, Appendix B.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

selections had been made and it was not possible to discover who was
doing the work. In certain other States, one judge was assigned for
juvenile cases from among a number of similar power. Or, again,
concurrent powers were given two or more systems of courts, b u t not
all these courts assumed jurisdiction in juvenile cases. I t was fre
quently necessary to write to several courts in order to discover which
one had assumed such jurisdiction.
Lists of probation officers were secured from State correspondents
of the National Probation Association and others having special
knowledge of probation and court work. Publications often gave the
names of probation officers in charge. These returns were sup
plemented by names secured from the questionnaires addressed to
judges; each judge was asked to state the number and kind of proba
tion officers attached to his court. Borne additional names were se
cured during the process of verification of the Btate analyses.
Every effort was made to avoid such misunderstandings and in
accuracies as are likely to occur in a questionnaire study. The three
replies requested from each court (two if the court had no probation
officer), though concerned with different phases of the work, served to
supplement and clarify one another. Record forms and published or
manuscript reports were secured when available, and were carefully
compared with the questionnaire material. The summarizing of
material was facilitated by explanatory letters sent to the bureau
with many of the replies. Reports of Btate boards or commissions
and of Btate institutions for juvenile delinquents and the provisions
of the juvenile court laws were also studied. As opportunity offered,
representative workers from various States were consulted in per
sonal interviews, and the working summary of each State was sub
mitted by correspondence to one or more persons in the State who
were familiar with conditions.
The following courts were omitted from the study, though having
jurisdiction over eases of delinquency and neglect: (1) Courts serving
counties, districts, or cities, the population of which (in 1910) was
less than 5,000; (2) a few courts serving counties formed since 1910;
(3 ) justice of the peace or mayor’s courts in small communities;
(4) courts of appeal; (5) courts receiving juvenile cases through crim
inal indictment by a grand jury; and (6) courts with concurrent
jurisdiction in juvenile eases but known not to be using this power.
The replies received from the areas under 5,000 population showed
little or no organization for juvenile court work. Most of the counties
formed since 1910 were small, and information in regard to population
was difficult to secure. However, 18 newly chartered counties in
Idaho, comprising a large part of the State, have been included be
cause they appeared to be doing work similar to that done elsewhere
in the State. Justices of the peace or mayor’s courts in small com
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN 7S CASES*

munities were disregarded because such information as was received
indicated that these courts rarely attempted special work and usually
had insufficient records to furnish the information desired; alsobecause
the decision was often preliminary to a hearing by a judge with power
to pronounce judgment. Cases before courts of appeal and cases
brought through grand jury indictments were for the most part of
exceptional character and few in number. Judges of the appellate
courts who were addressed did not consider that their juvenile work
was of the kind to be included in this study.
The facts presented in this report relate in general to the year 1918,
during the spring and summer of which replies to the questionnaires
were received. Changes resulting from later legislation have not
been incorporated, though laws affecting methods of handling
children’s cases have been passed in several States during the 1919
sessions of the legislatures.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TOTAL NUMBER OF COURTS AND NUMBER FURNISHING
INFORMATION, TOGETHER WITH AREAS SERVED.
The total number of courts included in the inquiry was 2,391.*
More than half these courts had no recognized probation officer so
far as known; the number of chief probation officers or officers in
charge to whom questionnaires were sent was 1,071.
All or part of the information desired was returned from 85 per
cent of the courts—2,034 out of 2,391. Percentages of replies from
judges and from probation officers—80 and 85 per cent, respectively—
show a slightly greater interest and response from probation officers.
No separate percentage was computed for replies from clerks, because
in many courts the judge or probation officer acted in that capacity
and in some States a number of clerks returned replies for several
counties within one court area.
T a b l e I .—Number and per cent o f courts replying to all or part o f questionnaire inquiry,

by population of largest city in area served.
Courts replying.
Population of largest city in area served.®

Total...........................................................
100,000 or over........................................
25,000-100,000...................................
5,000-25,000................................
Under 5,000.....................................................

Total
courts.

Number. Per cent.

2 391

2 024

57
173
742
1,419

1,153

Ififi
81

a According to 1910 census.

T a b l e I I .— Number and per cent of courts replying to questionnaire fo r judge, by popu

lation o f largest city in area served.
Courts replying.
Population of largest city in area served, a

Total...................................................................................
100,000 or over................................................................................
25,000-100,000............................................ ...............................
5,000-25,000..........................................................
Under 5,000...................................................................................

Total
courts.

Number. Per cent.

2,391

1,917

57
173
742
1,419

53
149
594
1,121

93
88
80
79

a According to 1910 census.
1 If a district or circuit judge rotated over several counties, his complete circuit was considered to be one
court and information from his various counties was combined. In Georgia, where one judge was to be
designated for each county, and it was not always possible to discover who had been designated, a court
was counted for each county even though it was presided over by a superior court judge who also rotated
for several other counties. If two judges served one court, both were addressed, but the combined reply
was tabulated as for one court.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IH" THE UNITED STATES

T a b l e I I I .—Number and per cent o f courts replying to questionnaire fo r probation officer,

by population of largest city in area served.
Courts replying.
Total
courts
having
proba
tion ser Number. Per cent.
vice.

Population of largest city in area served, a

3§ oôôlioh oôô.
5 000-25,000.
TÎnrfor S 0(10_ _

...........................................................................
............................................................................................
....................................................................

1,071

909

57
162
493
359

53
150
427
279

93
93
87
73

a According to 1910 eensus.

All or part of the information desired was received from every
court addressed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North
D akota; from every court but one addressed in Delaware (two courts
out of three), Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ehode Island, and
South Dakota; and from all but two in Arizona, California, Idaho,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Vermont. For the number
of courts addressed and replying in each State, see Table IV.
T a b l e IV .—Number of.courts replying to all or part o f questionnaire inquiry, by State.

State.

Missouri.....................................

Total
courts.

Courts
replying.

2,391

2,034

67
12
75
51
37
37
3
1
45
59
37
102
68
26
85
117

57
10
61
49
31
34
2
1
35
47
35
98
62
25
82
73
17
34
11
71
76
83
18
34

39
12
71
77
86
27
38

State.

New Hampshire.......................

Tennessee..................................
Utah..........................................
Vermont....................................
West Virginia...........................
Wisconsin..................■..............

Total
courts.
16
80
9
14
21
3
73
112
12
8875
26
67
12
43
49
93
165
47
32
31
74
11

Courts
replying.
14
78
8
14
18
6
66
77
12
84
63
21
61
11
34
48
125
12
13
28
25
26
71
8

Many replies evidenced a lack of understanding of the law. For
example, several judges wrote th at no juvenile courts existed in their
counties, even though under the law the men who wrote the state
ments were themselves the juvenile judges when hearing juvenile
cases. From one county the probation officer wrote that the judge
selected had refused to act because he was already overworked and
was too old to undertake anything additional. One judge wrote,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN'S CASES.

“ I t is confusing where two men have the same power, each one
expecting the other to do it.”
The differences in method of organization developed in city courts
and in rural courts made it desirable to attem pt a classification, of
the courts included in this study according to the population of the
largest city in the area served. For this purpose the cities and rural
areas in the United States have been roughly divided into four groups
according to their population as shown in the Census of 1910 :1
(1) Large cities with population of 100,000 or over......................... .
50
(2) Medium-sized cities with population of 25-,000, but less than
100,000._____________________ ____________ _______________
J79
(3) Small cities, towns, and villages with population of 5,000, but
less than 25,000...........................-................ ........................................ 2 000
(4) Rural areas containing no city or town of 5,000 or over.

The number of courts reported as serving these four types of areas
do not correspond with the number of areas because* on the one
hand, certain large or medium-sized cities were each served by more
than one court, and on tbe other hand certain courts serving a city
served also surrounding territory, which may have included both
rural areas and one or more smaller cities. Moreover, courts serving
areas with less than 5,000 total population have been omitted entirely.
In 22 States, two-thirds or more of the courts included in the study
served only rural areas. Nine States—Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming—had no large or medium-sized cities. Illinois, Massa
chusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio each had 10 or more
courts serving areas containing medium-sized or large cities, Massa
chusetts having 31 courts serving such areas.
T able V .— Courts serving specified arms, by States.
Courts serving areas whose largest
cities were of specified size.®
State.

Total
courts.

100,«» ; 25,0005,000or over. 100,000. ; 25,000.

Total............................................
Alabama................................
Arizona......................................
Arkansas............................
California.......................................
Colorado...............................
Connecticut..................................
Delaware............................
District of Columbia..................
Florida............................
Georgia...................................
Idaho............................
Illinois...............................
Indiana............................
Iowa. ...........................
Kansas................................
Kentucky..................... . .
Louisiana......................................

57
67
12
75

1,419

68
26
85

........

13
19

44
32
55
27
4
63

a According to 1910 census.

1 Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910, vol. 1, pp. 64, 65.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

37
37
1
45
59
37

Under
5, «30.

COURTS IN UNITED STATES HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
T able V .— Courts serving specified areas^ by States—Continued.
Courts serving areas whose largest
cities were of specified size.
State.

U tah..................................................................................

Total
courts.

39
12
71
77
86
27
38
16
80
9
14
21
8
73
112
12
88
75
26
67
12
43
49
93
165
15
15
47
32
31
74
11

100,000
or over.

25,000100,000.

1
12
2
2

19
7
1

3
1
1

2
5

16
4

9
2

1
3
1

15
4
2

2
8
2

1
2

5
1
4
7

5,00025,000.
30
7
34
29
18
15
15
8
18
1
12
8
3
52
31
5
43
12
5
29
7
11
6
6
29
2
9
22
8
13
23
8

Under
5,000.
5
4
6
39
65
12
18
7
60
8
5
5
77
7
31
61
20
20
30
43
83
128
11
6
19
21
14
43
3

Classifying the courts addressed according to the largest city
within the jurisdiction of each, we find 57 courts serving large cities,
of which 56, or 98 per cent, replied; 173 courts serving medium
sized cities, of which 166, or 96 per cent, replied; 742 courts serving
small cities, of which 659, or 89 per cent, replied; and 1,419 serving
only rural areas, of which 1,153, or 81 per cent, replied (see Table I,
p. 25). Enough replies were received from courts serving the
various types of areas and representing all the systems of jurisdictions
in each of the States to reveal the principal facts about specialization
and organization.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS.
METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION.

In order to discover the number and distribution of the courts
which were specially organized for handling children’s cases, all
courts from which replies were received were roughly grouped under
two main heads: (1) Specially organized courts, (2) courts not
specially organized so far as known. Classifications were made
according to features reported on the questionnaires, and in some
courts the amount of specialization may not have been fully reported.
This division is suggestive as a method of classification rather than
as an accurate presentation. Probably the number of courts which
had special organization is understated, though on the other hand
the work of some of the courts doubtless is less specialized and also
less valuable than would appear from the replies.
SPECIALLY ORGANIZED COURTS.

Courts were considered as specially organized if they reported any
significant amount of specialization and organization for work with
children. Such specialization was reported for 321 courts in 43
States and the District of Columbia. Included in this classification
were those courts which reported separate hearings for children,
officially authorized probation service, and a system of legal and
social records. In practically all cases these courts had some system
of detention other than jail. In addition, a considerable number
reported having informal or chancery procedure, a special judge
giving all or the major part of his official tune to children’s work, a
special court room or a definite arrangement for hearings in the
judge’s chambers, special attention to cases of delinquent girls, or
provision for physical and mental examinations. Complete infor
mation on special methods used by the various courts could hardly
be obtained in a questionnaire inquiry; this requires intensive field
study. Of the courts from which reports were received, all the 56
serving areas in which there were cities of 100,000 or over were
specially organized; 118 of the 166 serving areas with medium cities;
105 of the 659 serving areas with small cities; and 42 of the 1,153
serving only rural areas. I t is probable that the majority of the
courts not returning the questionnaires were not specialized, judging
by other courts of similar areas and jurisdiction in the same States.
29

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Of the 321 courts reporting special organization in accordance with
the foregoing definition, 21 were juvenile courts created by special
law and independent of other court systems. The special provisions
of individual laws and the independence from other court systems
usually permitted a larger amount of specialization than was other
wise possible.
T a b l e V I.—Specially organized courts and general courts, by population o f largest

city in area and type o f area served.
Courts replying.
Population o! largest city in area» and type of area served.

Total
courts.

2,391

Courts
not
Specially General replying,
organized courts.
courts.
321

1,713

357

45
234
42
1

56
19
37

Medium-sized city (25,000-100,000)..................................................

173

118
15
103

Small city (5,000-25,000)....................................................................

742

105
11
94

554

Only rural area (under 5,000)................... .......................................

1,419

1,111

266

a According to 1910 census.

A small number of courts reported some coordination in the trial
and treatment of juvenile cases and family cases involving one or
more of the following: Nonsupport, desertion, contributing to de
linquency or dependency, divorce, illegitimacy, adoption, or guardian
ship. Twelve of the 21 juvenile courts created by special law also
handled some domestic relations cases. Occasionally this coordination
of juvenile and domestic relations work was specified in the law
creating the courts. In other cases jurisdiction in juvenile cases
was given to a court that already handled domestic relations cases.
This coordination was sometimes effected by the judge through
a combination of his duties as juvenile judge and judge of a court
having jurisdiction over other types of cases. The judge in Los
Angeles, for example, developed such a working method through
having authority both as superior and as juvenile judge. Coor
dination in probation work for both types of cases was effected in some
places which did not have combined trials. Undoubtedly more
courts could, if they desired, effect such coordination without change
in legislation.
Almost half the specially organized courts were in five States.
In Massachusetts, 41 of the 71 courts hearing children’s cases were

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN ’& CASES,

classed as specially organized; 29 of the 51 courts in California; 37
of the 77 courts in Michigan; 30 of the 88 courts in Ohio; and 19
of the 67 courts in Pennsylvania. The 321 courts with special organi
zation represent 13 per cent of the 2,391 courts covered by the
questionnaire study, and 16 per cent of the courts from which re
plies were received.
COURTS NOT REPORTING SPECIALLY ORGANIZED JUVENILE WORK.

All courts not reporting specially organized juvenile work were
called “general courts/’ In this classification were included the
courts whose judges devoted most of their time to other duties
than their work for children and whose work was not organized as
previously described. A few of these had some provision for
probation, clerical work, and detention, though not giving enough
recognition of these particular phases as they concerned children to
be included in the previous classification.
At the outset of any statement of the number of general courts,
it should be clearly understood that this classification does not nec
essarily imply inadequate results secured by the courts. Work of
of a high order might have been performed even without a special
juvenile law or special machinery, if the need were realized and the
court officers possessed a natural genius for children’s work. Judges
of general power sometimes were known to be settling informally
many cases of minor importance, disciplining parents instead of
children, working out preventive measures, themselves taking chil
dren on probation if there was no probation officer, informally hold
ing children in a private home pending a hearing, and in other ways
treating the children who came to their attention as wards of the
court.
Reports from general courts, however, frequently showed not
only a lack of organization but also implied a lack of realization
of the significant possibilities of the work. The attitude of the judges
in the less populous centers and consequently in the general courts
was variously referred to in correspondence received during the course
of the study. To quote from seven States in different sections of
the country—
* * * unlikely that you will get replies from a very large proportion of these
judges as in many counties they scarcely know that they are the judges of the juvenile
court.
The whole juvenile delinquency and probation is exceedingly crude and primitive.
Very little juvenile court or probation work is done outside of the larger counties.
The juvenile work in the small counties is so primitive and the county judges
have such a variety of cases and such small salaries that it is not considered very
important.
Most of them [the judges] think there is no need for such a court because of the
sparsely settled communities in the judicial circuits.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS i n u n i t e d s t a t e s h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n ’s c a s e s .

Juvenile matters are handled in the same way as all other cases * * * the
truth of the business is the courts are doing nothing. Their entire activities can be
summed up by saying that cases are heard and disposed of upon first hearing.
It has been repeatedly noted at gatherings when lawyers and judges meet that
some judges are ignorant of the provisions of the juvenile court law. I regret that I
must admit that this is the case. * * * Very many judges regard it as an un
necessary trouble.

Most of the general courts were for small or rural places; 1,111
were in purely rural areas; 554 served areas with small cities; only
48 served areas with medium-sized cities. Even with allowance for
a possible overstatement of the total and for the excellent personal
work accomplished in some unorganized courts, this number offers
a challenge to the smaller centers to consider whether their work
is adequate to their needs. From the number and character of
cases reported from some of these localities, especially those that
lacked probation service, there would appear to be problems of de
linquency and neglect that are left undetected or uncared for, until
they reach a serious stage and can be handled only by institutional
commitment. The importance of suitable methods for detecting
such needs and providing a workable method of dealing with them
continually suggested itself in the study of the replies received for
these small places. Unorganized courts presided over by judges
already occupied with other duties undoubtedly depend for their
development of standards upon State advice or supervision.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL JURISDICTION
UNDER WHICH CHILDREN’S COURTS OPERATE.
Some of the laws under which courts hearing children’s cases
operate are codified- statements of all the important provisions for the
treatment of the children’s cases within the court’s jurisdiction. The
replies indicated that such a codified statement of law relating to the
classification, apprehension, detention, trial, and disposition of chil
dren coming before the courts makes for greater precision and uni
formity in planning and developing the work.
Independent courts had been created by special law for 21 locali
ties in 12 States and the District of Columbia; the remainder of the
specialized courts and all the general courts hearing children’s
cases were parts of other court systems. The independence „of the
court or the system into which the juvenile work has been grafted
inevitably has certain significant effects upon the spirit and work of
the court.
In but 10 States—Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisi
ana, Michigan, New York, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada—was the
session of the court system dealing with children termed in the stat
utes “ juvenile court” or “ children’s court,” though in all but two
States, Maine and Wyoming, special statutory provision has been
made for the trial of some or all juvenile cases.
Of the courts operating as parts of other judicial systems the
leading types were county courts, 832; probate, 398; superior, 216;
and district, 204. Similarly named systems in different States do
not always have like powers.
Only through study of the special powers conferred upon these
courts by the juvenile law could the extent of the criminal or chan
t r y procedure be determined, and this would also require a study
of the actual procedure used. For example, in one State it was dis
covered incidentally from some replies of judges that even though
the county court was given original and exclusive jurisdiction with
certain chancery power, these judges had referred children’s cases
to another system of courts, where the children were indicted and
tried on felony charges.
In 10 States—Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming—
135315°—20-----3

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COUETS IN' THE UNITED STATES

two or more systems of courts had concurrent jurisdiction. In
Georgia, Maryland, Ohio, and Wisconsin a judge selected from one
of several courts might be appointed as the juvenile judge.
This inquiry could not go into the details of these very complicated
judicial systems or their effect upon the hearings of children’s cases.
Much explanation of legal procedure and constitutional differences
and of the historical evolution of the courts would be needed to clarify
the subject. To persons familiar with the courts of the States,
the types of systems suggest in a general way the types of judges,
the usual procedure, the personnel of the court, and the type of other
cases also heard which would influence the method of trial and the
attitude of the officer. All these matters are important in view of
the fact that the majority of judges hearing children’s cases were
devoting most of their time to other cases.
One significant aspect of the legal jurisdiction is the unit of areas
served by the court. If rural children are to come within the pro
tection of the most advanced legislation, they must necessarily
be within the jurisdiction of a court which can and will specialize
for their care. A court serving a city unit of jurisdiction leaves
the rural children under the charge of justices of the peace. If
a court with one “ rotating” judge and no referees serves a large
district there may be uncertainties as to time and place of hear
ing—great distances to be traveled and lack of local cooperation.
On the other hand, a court serving a district might be so organized
with certain special provisions as to afford unusual opportunities
for rural children. An understanding of areas is significant in any
discussion of standardization, particularly that relating to probation
service and its supervision, detention systems, advisory boards,
and cooperation with other community enterprises for public wel
fare.
It is noteworthy that the most prevalent system was the county
unit; in 21 States the county system was the only one used; in
9 States the county system was used in only part of the State. In
these States probation service, advisory boards, and detention homes
may be part of the county plan. Certain financial benefits may
come to such courts because their area of jurisdiction coincides
with the taxing and governing unit, especially the unit for distrib
uting poor relief and providing funds for detention homes and pro
bation officers.
In the next largest number of States the courts served a district
or circuit unit. Not only the “ district courts” but in a few States
the chancery and circuit courts also served district units. North
Dakota has provided in connection with its district courts juvenile
court commissioners to act as referees and to be available for chil
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

drcii’s work at any time or place. In some States the county pro
bation officer remains in the county, though the judge rotates.
The city or municipal system was the least common. In a few
places a court for a city unit had concurrent power with one for
a county or district. New York appears to be the only State in
which the city unit system is used to any considerable extent. Ex
cept in three counties the courts dealing with children are either
city, village, or town courts. In this State, with the exception of
the three counties referred to, all the rural work is done by town
justices of the peace or village police justices.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

JUDGES AND METHODS OF HEARINGS.
SPECIALIZED JUDGES.

The judiciary and the public have recognized the importance
of a special judge for children’s work, at least for the larger courts
in which the amount of work warrants either the appointment of
a specially qualified person or the designation of one of a number
of judges for the juvenile court work. In most of the statutes
creating the independent courts, qualifications required for a juve
nile-court judge áre specified.
Twenty-three judges in the United States were reported to be
devoting their entire official time to their work in connection with
special juvenile or special juvenile and domestic relations courts.
Eighteen presided over courts in large cities; four in medium
sized cities; and one in a smaller place. All were in special juve
nile courts. In some other courts the judges were reported as
'devoting the major part of their time to juvenile court work.
The method of appointment of the judges who heard children’s
cases depended- upon whether the court was part of a State system
or was a special court created by law. The judges of the courts
specially created by law were variously appointed by a juvenile
court commission, governor or mayor, or elected by popular vote;
the judge of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia is
appointed by the President of the United States.
If the court is part of a State system, the judge takes up his
juvenile work as a result of his appointment as judge. In certain
States, one of the judges of a system of courts assumed juvenile
work as a result of assignment to it by his associate justices. In
other States the selection was by vote of all the judges of courts
of record in the locality. In some places the juvenile judge was
designated by another judge who has been given the power of
making such an assignment. For example, the judge of the Juve
nile Court of Cook County (Chicago) is chosen from the circuit
system by his associates; the judge in Milwaukee is chosen by a
vote of all the judges of courts of record in the county; in Georgia
the superior court judge may designate one of the judges of a court
of record in a county to act as juvenile judge. I t was known that
31 of the 321 organized courts had specially assigned judges.
37

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS m

THE UNITED STATES
REFEREES.

The laws in several States have provided for referees to assist
in the hearing of children’s cases, either as an arrangement for
providing more specialized hearings, or for the purpose of hearing
cases during the judge’s absence.
In Colorado the law (A. 1909, C. 158) provides for the appoint
ment by the judge of two or more persons in each city or town or
justice of the peace precinct to be “ masters of discipline.” They
receive petitions, hear eases, and make findings of facts with recom
mendations. They have powers and duties similar to those of
masters in chancery. The court may approve the recommendation
and act thereon, or may review the case. Only one Colorado court
which replied to the questionnaire referred to the appointment of
such a “ master of discipline.” This court, for Adams County, had
five such persons to perform the work for its outlying districts.
In North Dakota the district judge may appoint a juvenile com
missioner who has power to receive complaints, issue warrants, and
investigate cases, and who has the general powers of a referee in civil
cases. Seven such commissioners were reported appointed. They
have also been appointed to act as probation officers, two also being
clerks of the court. They travel over their districts as often as
necessary. Such a system makes the juvenile court accessible to the
rural parts of the district as well as to the county seat.
In Missouri the law provides that the circuit judge may appoint a
referee to hear cases as provided by law in the hearing of civil suits.
This law took effect in July, 1917, and it was, therefore, too early to
expect many appointments by the time of the questionnaire study.
The three courts which reported having such assistance had com
bined the office of probation officer with that of referee. In one place
the officer did not find this a satisfactory plan. One of the judges
wrote that juvenile matters were completely in the hands of referees,
one in each county. In four of the counties served by this judge
they were paid $100 a year and in the other county $600 a year for
their services. One of the appointments was for a purely rural cir
cuit. One judge who did not report using a referee wrote:
As I have six counties in my district I must necessarily depend upon referees
to a large extent, but the law provides that referees shall serve without pay and
suitable persons will not serve.

In two towns in Alabama the judges reported the appointment of
referees; one, an attorney, virtually performed the duties of the
juvenile judge; the other referee was appointed to be legal advisor
on juvenile cases.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

WOMEN ASSISTING IN HEARING DELINQUENT GIRLS’ CASES.

In a few courts especially qualified women were acting as referees
for delinquent girls’ cases, hearing cases and recommending disposi
tions. Their recommendations were passed upon by the judges. In
Denver and Los Angeles a woman was specially appointed as referee;
in Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Philadelphia a woman proba
tion officer was selected to serve as referee in girls’ cases; in Wil
mington, Del., the judge appointed women.as referees when needed.
New Mexico had legal provision for women referees, but no ap
pointments were reported.
There was one woman judge of a special juvenile court in the United
States—the judge of the juvenile court of the District of Columbia.
In seven counties of Kansas the probate judges who also heard chil
dren’s cases were women. Three of these counties had populations
under 5,000 in 1910.
Many courts reported that a woman was present at hearings for
girls. These were usually probation officers, though sometimes mem
bers of the advisory boards were called in. In the State of California
the law requires that so far as possible no case of a girl shall be heard
without the presence of a woman in the court room. In some courts
in the State the person present was a woman probation officer or a
woman member of the county committee on probation.
SEPARATE HEARINGS FOR CHILDREN’S CASES.

The majority of courts in the country which heard children’s cases
reported separate hearings for juveniles. A considerable number of
the smaller courts, however, reported that hearings were not separate.
The lack of separate hearings was most often found in places without
probation officers.
The degree to which children were protected from the contaminat
ing influences of police court trials, court rooms full of curious
hangers on, and contact with adult prisoners could not be determined
through the questionnaire. Neither could the amount of privacy of
these separate hearings be discovered by this method. I t is known
th at courts frequently arranged for a separate hearing by having the
bench or desk placed at a distance from the seats for the audience,
or in other informal ways. The law may not permit exclusion of
the public from the court room, but the hearings may be made prac
tically private through some informal arrangement.
The large courts in each State reported, the use of special rooms,
private offices, or the judge’s chambers for children’s hearings. All
the large courts which had their own buildings or sections of build
ings used this method for protecting the children from contact with
older prisoners, and practically all the special courts reported special

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

court rooms or chambers. Those which did not report evidently
failed to understand the purpose of the question. How separate these
rooms were could not be determined . I t is known that hearings were
not always held in these rooms if the judge had a busy calendar.
Wherever women referees were hearing girls’ cases these were heard
separately, in private rooms or anterooms.
In the Manhattan branch of the New York City Children’s Court
there are two kinds of hearings, one a formal hearing in a special
court room for the bringing in of evidence and the listening to
facts from the police and witnesses; the second and informal hearing
for cases requiring social investigation, in an anteroom, for the recep
tion of social information and disposition of the case. No other city
reported similar arrangements.
Courts in practically all localities reported a definite effort to have
parents of children present at hearings. The laws in most of the
States required that a summons be sent to the parent or guardian
of the child.
DISPOSITIO N OF CASES.

The attitude of the judges, the amount of organization, the effec
tiveness of probation service, all have considerable influence upon
the number of children who are brought before a judge for delin
quency or neglect and the proportion dismissed immediately, placed
under supervision, or committed to institutions. A marked difference
was reported between the number of cases brought before courts in
cities of similar size in the same or different sections of the country.
This difference was due in large part to the varied presence in the
community of contributing causes, but may also be attributed in a
considerable measure to the variation in the amount of organization
of the respective courts and their differing methods of work.
Statistical reports on numbers and dispositions of cases did not
permit of much analysis, for reasons stated in the discussion of
records. An analysis was, however, attempted for Illinois, a State
for which information was fairly complete. The dispositions of cases
were compared for the highly organized court in Chicago and 62 of
the 101 courts outside Chicago, which gave comparable figures.
Most of these smaller courts had some probation work, and 3 had
enough organization to be classified as specially organized courts.
The comparisons indicated that the highly specialized court in
Chicago was placing a much larger proportion of delinquent children
on probation and sending a much smaller proportion to institutions,
and that a much smaller proportion of minor cases was being brought
into court than elsewhere in the State. Table VII shows the com
parative percentages.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
T able

VII.— C om p a rison o f d isp o sitio n s o f delin qu en cy cases in the Chicago cou rt a n d
in other courts i n I llin o is d u rin g one year.
Delinquency cases in Illinois courts.«
Outside Chicago.
In courts serving areas whose largest cities were
of specified size.

In Chicago.
Disposition of case.

Total.
25,000-100,000

Num
ber.

Total...............

Otti er, pending, and

3,007

Per
Per
Num
cent
Num * cent
ber.
distri
ber.
distri
bution.
bution.

100.0

974

5,000-25,000

Per
cent
Num
distri
ber.
bution.

Under 5,000.

Per
cent Num
ber.
distri
bution.

100.0

405

100.0

437

100.0

19.2
23.7
48.2

87
134

202

19.9
30.6
46.3

43
60

8.9

c 14

3.2

193
1,371

6.4
45.6
25.5

185
273
457

19.0
28.0
46.9

78
96
195

»677

22.5

6.0

132

Per
cent
distri
bution.

100.0
15.2
32.6
45.4

6.8
----------------- ■

a Based on Chicago court and 62 of the 101 courts outside Chicago.
. , ,
&Includes 216 guardians appointed to place child in home; 459 continued generally; 2 committed to
county agent to he deported as nonresident.
c 10 pending and 4 not reported,
d Pending.

Some insight into the attitude of many judges of general power in
the disposition of the children who come before them was gained
from their reports. These frequently failed to differentiate between
the case of a child and of an adult or to recognize the cardinal principle
of juvenile courts—that the purpose is not punishment but educa
tion and discipline suited to the needs of the child. The terminology
used in the replies frequently linked children with criminals.
Judges of general powers sometimes referred to their own methods
in terms which imply little realization of the distinction, as illustrated
by the following quotations:
* * * all cases against children are held at same court as against adults, no
distinction.
There is no juvenile court in this county, nor is there any probation officer appointed
to look after children. Children are tried before the same court as adults, but 'when
they are of tender years are sent to the State reformatory.
I never shut the door of hope to the young offenders and my rule is not to send them
to the State penitentiary, and I place them on the county farm, as the adults are placed.
I usually make some arrangements with the man and wife in charge of county farm
by which these children can be looked after and given some training.
In this State the county judge acts as probate judge, but in all cases where mis
demeanor or crime has been committed the cases are handled by the judge of the
criminal court. He sometimes lets them go on probation and sometimes sends them
to the reform school. The only cases as a. rule that are handled by the county judge
are when the parents bring in disobedient and willful children and request that they
be committed to the reform school.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS I F THE UNITED STATES

We have a State reform school to which delinquents are sent from circuit court.
Can’t be sent to reform school till found guilty of felony and sentenced to penitentiary.
Ought to be accessible to parent or citizen in juvenile court without criminal pro
cedure.
Cases were based upon a criminal information signed by the county and pros
ecuting attorney charging the delinquent with the commission of a crime. When
delinquents are found guilty of a crime, they are sent to the industrial school.
One judge spoke of State institutions, or schools, for criminal and incorrigible chil
dren, and that prosecutions for commitments to an institution must go through the crimi
nal division under the criminal code. The lists of cases reported for several courts
in one State referred to “felonies” and “misdemeanors.”
Two judges wrote: “A child under 16 is never placed in prison unless he commits
a very grave offense, or is a hardened criminal and beyond control,” and “ young
criminals in this State are carefully looked after by the judges.”
In three States the judges referred to whipping as one method of disposition of the
cases. One judge said his method in dealing with truants was: “ First, lectured;
second, ordered whipped by parents; third, turned over to the State board of charities
and correction. ’’ Among the dispositions listed in the published statement in a report
of a State board of charities, whipping was reported for four courts for 121 children,
both white and colored. In another State a judge said that in a great many cases
where nothing serious has been done the parents of the child or children are required
to give them a whipping.
A report sent in by one court is an interesting commentary on the methods still
existing in some parts of the country. Of the children brought before the court in
the year for which the report was made, 65 were sent to jail; 40 were placed in a chain
gang; 12 were sent to a reformatory and 1 to an orphanage; 156 were fined; 156 were
dismissed; judgment was suspended for 25; and only 51 were placed on probation.
A judge from another State wrote pf methods of handling juvenile delinquencies
and criminals among children, saying: “ In such cases when the circumstances war
rant we usually send them to the State reformatory, State farm, or parole them under
the care of some person who may be interested enough to give them proper care and
attention. In some cases the individual, though a minor, sometimes is sent to the
chain gang or penitentiary.”

Fines were not generally imposed upon children, though a few
courts in 32 States reported using this form of punishment.
INFORMAL HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS.

In many courts complaints were received informally and investi
gated by the probation office without a petition or warrant having
been filed. By this means many cases were settled without a formal
court hearing. Informal handling of complaints appeared to be more
usual in some States than in others. Some States did not permit pro
bation officers to make investigations preceding the trial. But in
States where this was allowed the large, well-organized probation
offices frequently reported handling on informal complaints as many
children as were reported brought into court on formal complaint.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

The method of procedure in a well-organized complaint department
is described by the Chicago court:1
The head of the complaint department receives all complaints, so that none are re
ceived that do not rightfully belong to the court. The complaint is then registered
with the social service registration bureau, so that when the officer receives it he or
she can immediately get information from the various philanthropic agencies of the
city with which the family has come into contact. The officer then proceeds to as
certain what the facts in the case are, reporting every visit made to the head of the
department. If possible, the children are not brought into court, but the case is
settled out of court by the visiting of the investigating officer or by referring it to the
proper public or private agency or person.

I t is interesting to note that in courts which made a practice of
handling complaints informally the percentage of cases dismissed
on court hearing was low. A tentative comparison was made for the
court in Chicago and the courts in other parts of Illinois. This showed
that the Chicago court dismissed only a third as large a proportion
of its cases as the other courts in the State (6.4 per cent for Chicago,
19 per cent outside Chicago).
COMMITMENTS TO AND RELEASE FROM INSTITUTIONS.

An attem pt was made to discover through the questionnaire
the relationship of the court to the institutions to which children
were committed, and the number of States in which the court retained
control of the child after commitment, including authority over his
release from institutional care. Because of the legal difficulties in
volved in this question and the evident misunderstanding by many
judges, no reliable summary could be made. The judges frequently
considered that they had ultimate authority over commitments,
because their original order stated the term during which the child
was under the supervision of the institution, frequently until majority
or until 21. Other courts operating under the same law considered
the release to be within the hands of the institution if the institution
determined the time and circumstances of parole. The same mis
understanding occured in the interpretation of the question relating to
whether a commitment to an institution was determinate or indeter
minate, and very little was secured from the replies to this question.
1Juvenile Court and Juvenile Detention Home (Cook County, 111.), Annual Reports, 1916. Chicago,
1917. p. 8.
.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ii
DETENTION.
M ETHODS OF DETENTION.

Methods of detention varied not only in different sections of the
country but within a single State. They reflect, in a measure,
the degree to which the modern principles of children’s work are
appreciated, for some suitable arrangement for the separate detention
of children awaiting hearing and disposition is an essential factor
in the organization of a juvenile court. The actual methods used
were different in various communities and depended, in part,
upon the number of children to be considered and the type of area
served. While distinctive plans had been developed by some courts
in their detention homes and boarding-out systems, a large number
of smaller courts had paid little attention to this important feature.
Some had no method of detention other than the jail.
This questionnaire inquiry has attempted merely to enumerate
the prevailing methods used, and to indicate roughly the extent
to which those most approved have been reported. No attempt
has been made to tabulate the method used in each court in the
country, because of the varied combinations of methods reported by
individual courts and the large number of indefinite replies which
could not fairly be classified. Further study would be needed to de
termine the standards of care maintained by detention homes or the
adequacy of supervision of private-family homes. I t was not even
possible to test all the methods reported by the minimum requirement
of separation of children from contact with adult prisoners or paupers.
In all courts children frequently are permitted to remain at
home with their parents either after the formality of signing a bond
or after the parent or probation officer has promised to produce
the child in court for the hearing. In a few instances the judges
wrote that every case was disposed of immediately and consequently
no method of detention was necessary.
The methods reported for detaining children who do not remain
at home pending hearing fall into five groups as follows:
(1) Publicly supported detention home or room connected with
the court.
(2) Privately supported detention home.
(3) Family home and home of court official.
(4) Other expedient.
(5) Jail or police station, with or without separation from
adults.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS

1ST

THE UNITED STATES

DETENTION HOMES AND ROOMS.

Two kinds of detention homes for children are used: those termed
in this report “ publicly supported detention homes,” maintained
especially for the temporary detention of children for the court,
and those termed “ privately supported detention homes,” maintained
by a society primarily for its own use, though they may also be used
by special arrangement for the temporary detention of court children.
Occasionally where homes are not established, rooms with more or
less equipment are provided. These do not include rooms in which
children could be kept only during the day.
A total of 212 detention homes and rooms was reported, of which
163 were publicly supported detention homes, 23 were privately sup
ported détention homes, 24 were rooms. In two cases the type and
management were not specified. I t is possible that a few of the
<‘homes ’’ reported were family homes. These homes and rooms were
in 38 States and the District of Columbia. The replies from 10
States—Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mex
ico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming—did
not report even one detention home or room within the State; and
from about half these States the information on other methods of
detention also showed little attention paid to this important feature.
T able

V III. — T y p e s o f d e te n tio n hom es a n d ro o m s re p o rte d u sed i n 1918, by c o u rts
se rv in g specified areas.

Type of detention home or room.

Publicly supported detention home..............................
Publicly supported detention room..............................
Privately supported detention h om e...........................

For courts serving areas whose larges!;
cities were of specified size.®

Total de
tention
homes or
rooms.

100,000or

212

163
24
23

over.

38
9

25,000-

Under
5,000.

100,000.

5,00025,000.

59
14

43
4

122

a According to 1910 census.

These 212 detention homes and rooms were about evenly divided
between courts serving areas in which there were large or medium
sized cities and courts serving only small cities or rural areas.
Detention homes serving courts in areas containing cities of more
than 25,000 population were not restricted to any one section of the
country; but homes serving rural areas or areas in which there were
only small cities were reported from only 24 States.
Of the 50 large cities, 41 were known to have in all 47 detention
homes. From one large city in New Jersey no reply to the ques
tionnaire was received, and from three courts serving large cities no
reply to the question on method of detention. The remaining five

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN *S CASES.

large cities were served by courts which, regularly boarded the chil
dren in supervised f a m ily homes.
Of the 179 cities with a population of 25,000 to 100,000, there
were 74 in which there was a detention home in the city or in the
court area in which it was located. This represents a total of 61
homes in medium-sized cities. Three homes located in mediumsized cities and six located in large cities also served medium-sized
cities in their court area. No report in regard to the method of
detention was received from 17 medium-sized cities, 13 where the
court was located in the city, and four where the court was elsewhere
in the area. In 86 cities in which a court was located in the city and
in two for which the court was located elsewhere in the area, the
reports stated that there were no detention homes.
A considerable proportion of the detention homes located in large
or medium-sized cities served courts which also included in their
jurisdiction other cities or rural districts. I t is, therefore, impos
sible to determine satisfactorily the extent to which detention homes
were actually provided for small cities and rural areas. Seventyfive detention homes were reported for cities having a population of
from 5,000 to 25,000 and 29 for courts serving rural areas only. In
a few cases the area served by a detention home could not be clearly
determined, but it appears that at least 86 detention homes in large
or medium-sized cities and 72 in small cities received children from
the rural districts served by courts in these cities.
Determination of the actual provision made for children requiring
detention is complicated by the fact that some homes were used for
certain classes of children only. In 10 cities the detention home
received girls only or boys only, white but not colored, or colored
but not white, or delinquents but not dependents, or vice versa. In
a number of cities and rural areas reporting detention homes, certain
children were detained in jail, either because they were above some
specified age or because they were exceptionally difficult.
I t has been noted above that the great majority of the special
detention quarters were managed especially for the court. All the
29 detention homes or rooms located in purely rural areas and all
but 2 of the 75 located in small cities were publicly supported deten
tion homes or rooms. Of the 108 detention homes or rooms in cities
with more than 25,000 population, 23 were privately managed,
usually by a protective society. But more than half the private
detention homes were supported in part from public funds. New
York City depended upon four shelters managed by the four local
Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and six other cities in
New York State used shelters managed by humane societies. Three
cities and one county in the State maintained publicly supported
detention homes. A private detention home managed jointly by all

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

the children’s societies was reported from Philadelphia as used for
dependent and neglected children before the court, while a detention
home managed by the court was provided for delinquents; homes
maintained by child-protective societies were used in Massachusetts
to supplement boarding homes.
The replies to the questionnaire do not indicate to what extent the
detention homes provided for the examination and physical care of
the children; whether the homes were used also for other purposes;
and, if so, whether court children were kept from associating with
other children.
FAMILY HOM ES OR HOM ES OF COURT OFFICIALS.

A considerable number of courts used as a method of detention
the boarding of children in family homes or placing them in the
custody of court officials. Often family homes were used to sup
plement other forms of detention. Except for Massachusetts* this
was done to the largest extent in States having much rural terri
tory—Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.
In Massachusetts this method of detention was used in the cen
tral Boston court and in the courts in three medium-sized cities, as
well as in small cities and rural areas. In Boston the homes were
found by the Boston Children’s Aid Society, and elsewhere, through
the State board of charity.
What standards of family care were required, and whether children
temporarily boarded for the court were placed with families who
were not boarding other children also, can not be determined from
the replies to the questionnaire.
In Michigan the law requires that a detention home or room shall be
maintained at public expense in each county. For 6 courts it was re
ported that children were placed in charge of a county agent who was
usually the probation officer and that he kept them until the time of
the hearing. His home was used for detention quarters and his
wife was appointed as matron. In Kansas 16 courts stated that
children were detained at the homes of probation officers, some of
whom also held the office of sheriff.
A further development of standardized placing out during deten
tion seems to be needed, especially in small communities where
so few children come before the courts that a special detention home
with a trained matron devoting full time to the work would not
be feasible, and where cooperation with other communities or existing
institutions is not practicable or desirable.
OTHER EXPEDIENTS.

Many courts which did not have regular detention homes reported
arrangements for holding children temporarily in some near-by in
stitution. The institutions used in this way included orphanages,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN ’s CASES.

receiving liomes of children’s agencies, Salvation Army liomes or
lodges, working boys’ liomes, a home for the friendless, a Florence
Crittenton Home, and a Y. M. C. A. Six rural courts representing
six States used the local hotel as a temporary place of detention.
Three courts in one State detained extremely difficult children in
the State reform school. A number of judges from six States reported
using the almshouse, one the county farm, three in as many States
the county hospital.
A few courts using one or another of these expedients have been
classed with the specially organized courts as having a method of
detention better than the j ail. In general it may be said that most
of these expedients offer many difficulties of separation, classifica
tion, and supervision, which unless removed render this alternative
inadequate. Great care has to be exerted to protect from contami
nating influences children placed in institutions concerned primarily
with adult paupers or delinquents, and, on the other hand, to pro
tect the children living in orphanages and homes for the permanent
care of dependent children from undersirable companionship with
delinquent children from the courts.
JAILS.

Detention in jail may mean detention in a local or county jail,
or in the sheriff’s or jailer’s home, if this is in connection with the
jail, or in a police station. From at least one court in every State in
the Union came reports of detaining children in jails. The prac
tice, however, was much more general in some States than in others.
A large proportion of the courts in Alabama, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas mentioned jail detention. Three hundred
and seventy courts in the 48 States reported having no better pro
vision for detention than the jail or the almshouse. Many of these
were, of course, small courts which handled few cases and, therefore,
neglected to arrange a better method of detention. But of the 244
specially organized courts reporting 50 or more cases, which had
arrangements for detention in a special detention home or in a
family home or in some institution, 65 reported using the jail for the
detention of certain children.
Many of the States permitting jail detention have a law requiring
that children be kept apart from adults. Therefore separate rooms
matron s quarters, or juvenile wards were reported by a large
number of the courts which used the jail. Thirty-seven courts,
scattered through 18 States, definitely reported that no effort was
made to separate children from adult offenders, though in many of
these States the law required separation. A few courts used for
children both separate quarters and quarters not separate from those
in which adult prisoners were placed.
135315°—20---- 4

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROBATION.
Without definite provision for the investigation and supervision of
children’s cases an attempt to socialize the treatment of children who
reach the courts would be fruitless. Every court should have such
help available, either through a regular staff of its own, which is to
be preferred, or through other persons who are officially delegated to
bear this responsibility. A judge who decides the fate of a child
requires more than legal facts of evidence. And, if the court is to
place children under reformative care, there must be available not
only good institutions but persons especially qualified to care for
children outside institutions.
The term “ probation service” refers to the provision for super
vising children brought before the court. Children who are not sent
to institutions may be placed in charge of probation officers, whose
duties usually include also investigations of the cases preliminary to
hearing or disposition.
In this study is included only the probation service which is a part
of the court machinery or is authorized by the court. As probation
workers are included persons appointed to serve either with or
without compensation and other individuals or agents of societies
formally associated with the court. If from time to time a judge
informally requests one person or another to supervise an individual
child, but does not require reports of the child’s progress or of the
termination of his probation, that court is not considered to have
probation service. Valuable as such work may be, it does not con
stitute a part of the actual legal organization of the court. To the
court has been given the legal responsibility for the disposition of
children, and it is the court which is ultimately responsible to the
community for results.
No summary has been made of the total number of persons acting
as probation officers for children’s cases. All the large cities had
organized staffs, ranging from 2 to 87 workers. Some of these courts
had not only a chief probation officer but also several specialized de
partments under the charge of supervisors. On the other hand, a
county or a district of several counties often had but one officer.
AMOUNT OF PROBATION SERVICE.

Every State in the Union except one (Wyoming) had legislation
providing for juvenile probation. Yet the data secured in this
study indicated that less than half the courts having jurisdiction
51

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

over children's cases had probation officers during the year of the
study. Of the 2,391 courts known to have assumed jurisdiction
over children’s cases, only 1,071 (45 per cent) had probation workers,
so far as known; 58 of these courts had only part of their areas served.
Table IX gives the number of courts in each State with and without
probation service according to the type or area served. All the 57
courts in the 50 cities of 100,000 population or more had probation
service. In areas containing medium-sized cities 162 of the 173
courts, and in areas containing small cities 493 of the 742 courts, had
probation service. Of the 1,419 courts serving only rural areas pro
bation service was reported for 359. In terms of percentages proba
tion service was reported for 94 per cent of the courts serving areas
containing medium-sized cities, 66 per cent of the courts serving
areas containing small cities, and 25 per cent of the courts serving
only rural areas.
The 321 courts which were considered as having special organiza
tion, and 750 of the 2,070 courts not so classified, were known to have
recognized probation service.
T able

IX .— T o ta l c o u rts a n d c o u rts w ith a n d w ith o u t p r o b a tio n service by S ta te
a n d ty p e o f area served.
Courts without probation service
so far as known.

Courts with probation service.

State.

Serving areas whose largest
cities were of specified size.«

Total
courts.
Total.

100,000 25,000100,000.

or over.
Total...............

2,391 61,071
67

75
37
37
3

45
59
37

102
68
26
85
117
3Ì
39

71
77

10
140
51
19
32

1
1

il
h

19
73
54
17
73

11
8

261
7
71
77
27
3
33

1
3

1
2
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
12
2
2
2
1

162

2
1
3
2
1
2

10
4
8
3
3

19
7

Total.

25,000- 5,000100,000. 25,000.

5,000- Under
25,000. 5,000.
493
5
5
3
16
7
25
3
4
5
29
32
7
18

6
21
5

3
34
29
9
3

359

29
9

Serving areas whose
largest cities were of
specified size.«

1,320

2
52
1
1
1
3
6

d 1,060

18
5

3
14
33
17

c 249

Under
5,000.

34
48
18
29
14
9

106
23
13
5

7
5

6
1
8

3
9
4

2
31
40
18

22
9
2
11
98
20
4
1

39
9
50
1
59
15
86
12
12
24
27
3
2
5
3
12
16
38
1
5
4
11
1
3
7
16
9
56
65
1
5
8
80
7
1
7
1
2
9
Nevada.....................
a According to 1910 Census.
,
.
b The following number of courts have only part of area served: Indiana 9, Iowa 11, Louisiana 4, Missis
sippi 2, Missouri 15, Montana 1, Nebraska 3, New Mexico 2, Virginia 4, West Virginia 7.
c Twenty-one courts reported no cases last year.
d Two hundred and sixty-two courts reported no cases last year.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
T able

IX .— T o ta l co u rts a n d c o u rts w ith a n d w ith o u t p ro b a tio n service by S ta te
a n d ty p e o f area served —Continued.
Courts without probation service
so far as known.

Courts with probation service

State.

Total
courts. Total.

Serving areas whose largest
cities were of specified size.
Total.

100,000 25,000or over. 100,000.
14

Ohio........................

Virginia.....................

21
8
73
112
12
88
75
26
67
Ì9
43
49
93
165
15
15
47
32
31
74

14
18

ìì

13
50

i
3

142
2
20
18

14
13
13

2
1
2
1

8
15
4

2
2
7
2

3
7

25,000- 5,000100,000. 25,000.

5,000- Under
25,000. 5,000.

12
7
1
37
10

1
1

5
42

7
23

3
24
7

2
1
3
6
2
9
8
7
6
4

6«
101
10
75
13
17

11
6
1

39
47
73
147

3
4

33
19
18
62

Under
5,000.

1
2
21
1
12
2

8
11
12

9
5
3
23

30
42
70
123

7
19

18
18

43
3

8
13
5

Serving areas whose
largest cities were of
specified size.

1
2

Only eight States reported a recognized probation officer for
every court: Four States in New England—Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—and four others—Cali
fornia, Michigan, North Dakota, and Utah. In the three last
named States, part of the service was secured through a plan of coop
eration which delegated this responsibility to another public official.
In Michigan, the county agent for dependent children automati
cally becomes probation officer if none other is appointed for the
county; in North Dakota the juvenile commissioner, and in Utah
the superintendent of schools usually acts also as probation officer
when appointed as juvenile judge. The adequacy of such service
could not be determined by this inquiry1.
Fifteen States had, so far as known, only a fourth or less of their
courts officially served. These were Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
and Wisconsin. Two States, Oklahoma and Wyoming, had no official
probation service for delinquent children, though in both these
States the courts were aided by agents of humane societies or by
other county officials.
TYPES OF PROBATION SERVICE.

Probation workers were classified as regular, irregular, schoolattendance probation officers, police probation officers, and volun
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IM THE U NITE» STATES

fceers. Regular officers were those giving full-time service paid-for
through the court. Some officers dealt with both children and adults.
Irregular probation officers were persons authorized by the court
who gave part-time service, or officially recognized agents of public
or private organizations, who combined probation with their other
duties. If a school-attendance officer was definitely attached to the
court as part-time probation officer, he was termed a school-attend
ance probation officer; if a sheriff, bailiff, police matron, marshal, or
police officer combined recognized probation work with his other
duties, they were termed police probation officers. Volunteer pro
bation officers were officially authorized workers giving full or part
time service without compensation.
Where there were several probation officers the kind of probation
service in a court was defined according to the duties of the chief
probation officer or the person giving the most important type of
service. Preference was given in this order: Regular, irregular,
school-attendance probation, police probation, volunteer.
Of the 1,071 courts with probation service, 457 had regular, and
375, irregular probation service. In 42 courts there were schoolattendance probation officers; in 43, police probation officers; and
in 58, volunteers. The probation service in 96 courts could not be
classified because of insufficient information.
All the courts serving large cities had regular probation officers.
Of the 162 courts serving areas containing medium-sized cities and
having probation service, 129 reported regular probation officers.
Regular officers also served 203 of the 493 courts serving areas con
taining small cities and 68 of the 359 courts with probation service
serving only rural areas. All courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey,
and Vermont were considered to have regular service. Many of
the probation officers in these States devoted a part of their time to
adult work.
T able

X .— N u m b e r a n d p e r cen t o f c o u rts w ith p r o b a tio n service, a n d c o u rts w ith
sp e c ified ty p e o f service, b y p o p u la tio n o f la rg e st c ity i n area served.
Courts with probation servie®.
Type of service.

Population of largest city in Total
area served.«
courts.

Num
ber.

Total..............................

2,391

61,071

25,000-100,000..........................
5,000-25,000..............................
Under 5,000..............................

57
173
742
1,419

57
162
493
359

a According to 1910 census.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Per
cent.

Regu
lar.

457

100
94
66

57
129
203

SchoolPolice
Irreg attend
N ot re
ance probar Volun
teer. ported.
ular. probar
tion.
tion.
375

23
185
167

4
17

14
27

39
18

6 Fifty-eight of these have only part of their area served.

%
3
35
58

HEARING CHILDREN'S CASES.

§5

In a number of States the judge frequently appointed as probation
officer one of the officials attached to the court or police department.
In some places such persons probably did little special work for
children. In many places they received fees but no salary. Kansas
had the largest number of police probation officers of any State.
In Oklahoma, county bailiffs, though not appointed probation officers,
appeared to the judges to be worthy of mention in this connection.
I t is evident from the character of the replies of many of the police
probation officers that they considered their duties in connection with
children to be limited to conveying a child to an institution or jail,
arresting or swearing out a petition against him, or presenting evi
dence in court. The constructive side of case work for children
under their supervision did not appear in many of their reports.
A number of large cities with organized staffs of regular probation
workers also used police officers for particular phases of the work
of the court, but they had other probation workers to supervise the
children.
Besides the combination of probation work with the duties of a
police or school-attendance officer, there is a significant movement,
especially in rural places, to combine this work with th at of other
social work of the community. Many counties appointed the same
individual to several offices. In a county in Illinois the probation
officer was also county relief agent and school-attendance officer.
In another county he was school-attendance officer and secretary
of the associated charities. In a town in Iowa the probation officer
was school-attendance officer and secretary of the welfare association,
which was concerned with public health, family rehabilitation, relief
and employment, friendly visitation, and juvenile work. In Ala
bama, Colorado, and Minnesota the advisory board, board of county
visitors, or county child-welfare board often included as part of its
regular activity the investigation of juvenile cases and such super
vision as the judge desired. Most of the volunteer probation officers
reported for Minnesota were members of county child-welfare boards.
In Colorado, masters of discipline may be appointed by judges, both
as probation officers and as referees with certain authority in hearing
cases. Reference has been made previously to the combination of
duties of the juvenile commissioners in North Dakota and the super
intendents of schools in Utah. The combination of probation work
with the work of private societies undoubtedly raises the standard
of case work, and such coordination of work is often a necessary
expedient in small or rural communities in order to secure trained
workers.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
APPOINTM ENT OF PROBATION OFFICERS.1

The majority of probation officers were reported appointed by a
judge and serving during his pleasure; in 37 States and the District
of Columbia all or most of the appointments were made by judges.
In one county in West Virginia the county commissioner appointed
on recommendation of the judge. In Baltimore the judges of the su
preme bench made the appointment.
Civil service was used generally throughout the States of New
Jersey and New York, for 26 of the 88 courts in Ohio, and in three
cities—Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. In Chicago a citizens’
committee appointed by the judge gives a written and oral exami
nation and the appointments are made from the resultant eligible list.
The governor appointed the probation officers in Florida, in Maine
outside Cumberland County, and in Birmingham, Ala. In Michigan
the largest share of probation work was done by county agents who
were appointed by the governor; other probation officers in the State
were appointed by the judges. "In Utah the juvenile court commis
sion, and in Vermont and Rhode Island the State probation officer,
appointed the probation officers.
STATE SUPERVISION OF PROBATION WORK.

The questionnaires from six States reported agencies which were
supervising juvenile probation work throughout their respective
States, thus tending to standardize and centralize the work of the
various courts. Two States, New York and Massachusetts, had
State probation commissions, and two, Rhode Island and Vermont,
had State probation officers; Utah had a juvenile-court commission;
and Connecticut had a prison association authorized by law to collect
data on probation work.
The New York State Probation Commission exercises general super
vision over the work of probation officers throughout the State. This
commission promotes probation work throughout the State; advises
concerning the work of individual courts; inspects the work of officers;
conducts conferences of probation officers; aids in conducting civilservice examinations; helps to standardize probation work and in
cidentally some of the court procedure; and furthers the passage of
desirable legislation. The commission has introduced a uniform
system of record keeping in a large number of courts. I t publishes
an annual report which contains statistics concerning the work of
the courts and discussions of pertinent subjects, a manual for pro
bation officers, and other literature.
In Massachusetts the commission on probation supervises all
probation work and has authority “ to make such inquiries as it
1See Appendix A, Chart II, p. 79.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

considers necessary in regard to the same.” 1 One of the duties
of the commission is “ To prescribe the form of all records and
reports from probation officers.” 2 The commission publishes annual
reports in which are included recommendations for legislation,
better cooperation of courts, and other pertinent subjects.
The State Penal and Charitable Commission of Rhode Island,
which has charge of all State institutions, has a department of
probation work employing a State probation officer. He appoints
and supervises all probation officers in the State, their salaries
being fixed by the State penal and charitable commission and paid
from a State fund. The records in this State would not appear
to be well systematized, since most of the officers reported that
they kept records only in personal notebooks. The State probation
officer, however, reported that a card index of records was kept
in his office.
Vermont has also inaugurated a system of State supervision.
The secretary of the State board of charities and probation is also
the State probation officer. He has deputy probation officers
working under his direction in all counties of the State. In addition
to his duties as probation officer, he acts as parole agent for insti
tutions, and placing-out agent for the courts. Permanent records
of probation, parole, and child care are kept in the central office
of the State probation officer.
Utah has a juvenile court commission, consisting of the governor,
attorney general, and State superintendent of public instruction,
which has general control and supervision of juvenile courts and
probation officers. This commission appoints the juvenile judges
and probation officers and has the power of fixing salaries. All
probation officers make monthly and annual reports to the com
mission, which publishes them in a biennial report.
The Connecticut statute reads:
The probation service of the State shall be under the general supervision of the
Connecticut Prison Association whose officers shall prepare such blanks for reports
and such books of record * * * as may be required for the efficiency of the
service, and said books and blanks shall be * * * furnished to all probation
officers at the expense of the State * * *. Every probation officer shall make a
quarterly report to said prison association in such form as said prison association shall
direct. 3

The association has given a great deal of its time to research
on problems of courts and probation work.
In addition to these States in which there was more or less actual
supervision of probation work by agencies organized for th at pur
pose, there were eight other States where the courts were respon1Massachusetts, Acts of 1906, C. 413, S. 14.
2Massachusetts, Acts of 1908, C. 465, S. 2.
s Public Acts 1903, C. 126, amended by 1905, C. 142, S. 10, amended by 1913, C. 68.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IF UNITED STATES HEARING CHILDREN S CASES.

sible in a limited way to tlie State board of charities or some similar
body. These States were: California, Colorado, Indiana, Mich
igan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Virginia. In
many parts of these States, to judge from the questionnaire replies,
the supervision over probation work did not extend much beyond
the required reports, though these State bodies exercised super
vision over agencies which frequently performed important work
for the court. In two States, California and Virginia, the State
boards had prepared uniform sets of records, which they were
endeavoring to have the courts of the State adopt.
The Louisiana and Nebraska laws require that annual reports
from all juvenile courts be made to their State boards, but the
replies of the courts did not show whether or not the laws were
complied with. Idaho and Kansas judges stated that they made
annual reports to the governor.
A number of States, among them California, Illinois, Massa
chusetts, and New Jersey, have State probation officers’ asso
ciations. In New York State also conferences of probation officers
are held annually.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

RECORDS AND REPORTS»
One of the essential features of a modern juvenile court is a
system of records giving not only statistical data hut full infor
mation about the study and supervision of individual children
by the court. Without such records a court is unable to estimate
its progress from year to year or to compare its work with that
of other courts.
LEGAL AND SOCIAL RECORDS.

The questionnaire asked the clerk of each court to state the
number and disposition of cases coming before the court during
the last preceding fiscal year. I t asked the probation officer
whether records of investigations were kept and, if they were,
whether in permanent or temporary form. Copies of all forms
used were also requested.
From 233 courts came the statement that the duties of a clerk
were performed by the judge or the probation officer; in 216 of
these courts, in 23 States, by the judge; in 17 courts, in 8 States
by the probation officer.
Two letters received illustrate how inadequate a record of chil
dren^ cases was kept in many courts. The judge of a court serving
a medium-sized city wrote that it took three days to compile the
information for the clerk’s questionnaire, because no statistics
had been compiled previously. A letter from another State said
that there was supposed to be a juvenile docket in the court serving
the largest city of the State, but the clerk had entered thereon only
four cases in two years. All other children’s cases had been entered
on the regular criminal docket, and, since their ages had not always
been noted, the clerk had to depend upon his memory to determine
which cases were those of children.
In the States with State supervision of probation work, statistical
reports are sent at regular intervals to the supervising body, which
prepared a summary for the State. In other States, the methods
of compiling statistics frequently differ in the various courts, and
comparable data are not available even for the courts within a single
State. For the country as a whole, available figures give only the
roughest kind of totals for all courts reporting numbers of cases,
and fair comparisons of any one State with other States are prac
tically impossible.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS 11ST THE UNITED STATES

A general lack of uniformity, in addition to incompleteness of the
records, confuses the data. In the first place, there is wide differ
ence in definition, both in laws and in court usage. For example,
truants are sometimes included as delinquents, sometimes are class
ified separately. The definition of the term “ dependent children”
varies; sometimes it includes also neglect cases; sometimes also the
mothers’ pension cases. In some States, dependent children do not
come before the court, or they come before a court other than that
which hears cases of delinquency. A few courts call all children
wards of the court and do not classify their records to show the
causes which brought the children into court. In the second place,
courts arrive at their totals in different ways. Some count the com
plaints entered, others the petitions or warrants taken out, and others
the number of hearings, excluding all those settled out of court or
never brought to trial. A few courts report only the number of
commitments. And the figures vary still further in that, whatever
the basis, some totals refer to the number of cases and others to the
number of children concerned.
The questionnaire returns indicated that in many courts social
records were quite inadequate. In one of the special juvenile courts
serving a large city the probation officer reported keeping social
records only in his personal notebook.
Reference has previously been made to the work of the State pro
bation associations in Massachusetts and New York in introducing
and promoting uniform systems of record keeping.
Only 255 courts, representing 39 States and the District of Co
lumbia, sent copies of the record forms in use. The most general
response came from courts in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Michigan, and Now York—5 of the 14 States with State supervision
of probation work. The forms received vary from one small sheet
with simple headings to an elaborate set of forms for recording
special items of legal or social information. Several probation
officers of small courts reported using a record sheet prepared as a
page of a loose-leaf notebook. Such sheets sometimes served both
for a docket and as a social history. Blanks received from large
cities included not only legal forms for petition, summons, commit
ment and custody, but also social history records for each child,
forms for mental or physical examinations, and daily and monthly
report forms.
A number of probation officers in the smaller towns and rural
communities wrote of their attem pt to gather social facts concerning
their cases, and of the difficulties of framing a simple and adequate
record system. One wrote that he had ordered, a t a cost of about
$60, a full set of forms like those used in a large city in his State,
but he found them altogether too cumbersome for the work in his

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

district. I t is evident that a definite distinction should be drawn
between the records which are desirable for a “ one-man court,” as
one rural officer described it, and those for a large court which
must subdivide its work and arrange methods to facilitate supervision
of work and current classification of material. Each court should
endeavor to provide a record system which would be adequate for the
needs of the court, and yet not too great a burden upon the staff.
ANNUAL R EPO R TS.1

Probation officers were asked to send copies of published or un
published anntial reports of the court relating to probation work.
The 232 reports received came from courts in 40 States and the
District of Columbia.
The reports published by themselves or included in other pub
lished reports were mainly from special juvenile courts or courts
having special juvenile- sessions. Separately published reports of
the work of the court as a whole or of the probation work were sub
mitted by 31 courts representing 18 States and the District of Colum
bia. Reports included with the report of a State board or with the
annual report of a city or town gave statistics for 113 courts repre
senting 12 States. Typewritten reports or reports published only
in newspapers were sent in by 48 special courts or courts with special
juvenile sessions and by 40 general courts, representing in all 32 States.
From 22 States no formally published report was received, and from
8 States no annual report of any kind.
1For list of published annual reports and other reports containing statistics on courts, see Appendix C.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROVISION FOR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATIONS.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

Physical examinations of children before the courts frequently
disclose conditions, the improvement of which may result in the
removal of important contributing causes of delinquency. Many of
the examinations reported were probably those required by law for
commitment to institutions, rather than for the purpose of securing
complete information in regard to the ease in hand. In the majority
of places where the examination was part of the investigation of the
case and not made in connection with commitment, only those cases
were examined which offered evidence of abnormal physical condi
tions. In some of the places in which there were physicians regu
larly attached to the court, every child who passed through the
detention home was given a physical examination. In a few places
a cursory physical examination was part of the routine investigation.
All courts with probation service were asked concerning physical
examinations. Of the 909 replying to the probation officer’s ques
tionnaire, 671 reported provision for physical examinations. In 23
courts, of which 21 were courts serving large cities, these examina
tions were made by physicians attached to the staff of the court or
regularly making this examination for the court. In the remaining
648 courts, examinations were made by private practitioners or
physicians holding some public office, such as city or county phy
sician or health officer.
NUMBER AND TYPES OF COURTS REPORTING MENTAL EXAMINATIONS.

The relation of delinquency, dependency, and truancy to mental
condition is becoming better known, and an encouraging number of
courts which hear children’s cases have shown an appreciation of the
value of mental examinations in deciding upon the proper disposition
of cases. One hundred and forty-five courts, or 7 per cent of the
2,034 which replied to the questionnaire, reported mental examina
tions in clinics organized for that purpose or by persons having some
psychiatric or psychological knowledge. These courts were located
in 34 States and the District of Columbia. Doubtless in many
communities there were facilities other than the ones reported,
which might be utilized by the courts were they aware of the aid in
comprehending a child’s behavior which scientific knowledge of bis
mental make-up gives.
63

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS m

THE UNITED STATES

Table X I gives the number and distribution of courts reporting
mental examinations, according to type of area served.
T able

X I .— C ou rts r e p o r tin g m e n ta l e x a m in a tio n s, by p o p u la tio n o f largest c ity in
area served.

Courts replying to questionnaire.
Population of largest city in area served.“
Total.

Reporting mental
examinations.

Not reporting men
tal examinations.

Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent.

25,000-100,000....................................................................
5,000-25,000...................................... .................................

2,034

145

1,889

56
166
659
1,153

43
46
44

77
28
7

23
72
93
99

120

615
1,141

a According to 1910 census.

The number of courts reporting mental examinations were practi
cally the same for areas containing large cities, medium-sized cities,
and small cities, with about one-fourth as many in rural areas as in
each of the others. According to the number of courts in each of
these types of areas, there was, however, a great divergence in the
proportion reporting mental examinations. For the courts in large
cities, the percentage reporting examinations was 77, and for courts
serving areas containing medium-sized cities, 28, as against 7 per cent
for courts serving areas with small cities and 1 per cent in the purely
rural areas.
In many courts very few cases were reported examined during
their last fiscal year. The courts having special provision for mental
examination often examined only problem cases or repeaters.
STANDARDS OF MENTAL EXAMINATIONS.

A scientific definition of a clinic was not attempted, nor was it
possible to establish standards or classify types of mental examina
tions. Some courts reported examinations for mental diseases, others
for mental defect. I t is not known how many courts have the advan
tage of examinations by persons with a knowledge of both conditions.
Some examiners reported were evidently experienced in their fields,
while others were as evidently amateurs. Courts which reported
examinations made by teachers, probation officers, or nurses were
not credited as having provisions for mental examinations, unless it
was specified that some of the accepted psychological tests were used.
RESOURCES FOR MENTAL EXAMINATIONS.

The clinics and examiners reported may be classified, according
to their connections and the source of their support, as follows: (1)
Court clinics or examiners who were a part of the court organization;

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES.

(2) clinics or examiners connected with or supervised by institutions,
usually State institutions for the insane or feeble-minded; (3) clinics
maintained by the county or city; (4) clinics connected with univerr
sities, colleges, or normal schools, or examiners who were in most
instances associated with the psychology departments of these
institutions; (5) laboratories or examiners connected with elementary
school systems for the study of subnormal and unusual children; (6)
others, including mental hygiene societies, a miscellaneous group
variously reported as “ experts,” “ specialists,” “ psychiatrists,”
“ psychologists,” and “ alienists,” with no explanation of their
identity or connection, and a group of school teachers, probation
officers, and public health nurses who had some knowledge of and
made mental tests.
Table X II shows the distribution of mental clinics or examiners
according to the type of area served by the court.
T a b l e X II. — Total courts reporting mental examinations in clinics or by mental ex

aminers, with area served, by type o f clinic or examiner.

Type of clinic or examiner.

Total
Court............ ...... -............................... ........
Institution and public department.............................
County or city................................................................
University, college, or normal school................!.!!!!
Elementar^ school.........................................................
Mental hygiene society.......................................
Specialists, auspices not specified (psychiatrists, psy
chologists, “ experts”} ................................................
School teachers, probation officers, and nurses who
give mental tests..........................................................

Total
Courts serving areas whose largest cities
courts re
were of specified size .a
porting
climes or
mental
100,000
25,0005,000Under
examin or over. 100,000.
25,000.
5,000.
ers.
145

15
6 46
4
c 20'
b 14
2

14
8
1
4
8

20
1
4
5

1
13
2
11
1
1

b 31

b 13

12
5
1

<*According to 1910 census.
6 One additional court which secured mental examiners from this source has been rOassjfiAri under an
other heading.
*
c Two additional courts which secured mental examiners from this source have been classified under
other headings.
-•

Court clinics and examiners.
,
In 13 courts there were clinics working in connection with the
court organization, where examinations were made by psychiatrists
or psychologists. Two outside courts, in addition to the 13 reported,
used these court clinics.' The 13 clinics were located in the following
cities, all of which have a population of more than 100,000:
Boston, Mass. (Judge Baker Foundation).
Buffalo, N. Y.
Chicago, 111. (Juvenile Psychopathic
Institute).
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Detroit, Mich.
Los Angeles, Calif.
135315°—20---- 5

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Memphis, Tenn.
Newark, N. J.
New York, N. Y.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
San Francisco, Calif.
Seattle, Wash.

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Institutions and public departments.
Forty-seven courts in 11 States reported the cooperation of institu
tions or public departments in making mental examinations of
children brought before the courts. The majority of these were
State institutions for the feeble-minded or the insane.
In Illinois and Ohio, State departments have been established by
law for the mental diagnosis of any children brought to them from
any court in the S ta te .. The Illinois Juvenile Psychopathic Institute
is a department of the department of public welfare and includes
the Cook County (Chicago) juvenile eourt clinic. The Ohio Bureau
of Juvenile Research is under the direction of the State board of
administration.
Both organizations have staffs of workers and, in addition to the
examinations, are engaged in research work on special problems.
However, the facilities of neither were reported used by the courts
of the State to the extent which would be desirable. Only three
courts in addition to the Chicago Juvenile Court referred to the Illinois
Institute, and only one to the Ohio Bureau. Both departments
had been recently established, however, and had not yet been able
to extend their work very far.
Im three S ta te —Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts—the
State hospitals for the insane held out-patient clinics which were
utilized by certain courts. In three Michigan counties—Jackson,
Kent (Grand Rapids), and Kalamazoo—the courts reported that
physicians were sent from the Kalamazoo State Hospital to hold
clinics in their respective communities at stated times and that
children were sent by the courts to be examined in these clinics.
The Detroit court clinic was under the direction of the superintendent
of the State Psychopathic Hospital at Ann Arbor, but had a local
psychiatrist in charge.
Four courts in New York (Binghamton, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh,
and Yonkers) reported that children had been examined in out
patient clinics of three State hospitals. The Municipal Psychopathic
Hospital of Syracuse held regular out-patient clinics, where children
from the court of th a t city were examined.
In Massachusetts,, the psychopathic' department of the Boston
State Hospital holds out-patient clinics and also receives patients on
commitment of 10 to 30 days for observation. Thirteen Massa
chusetts courts in the vicinity of Boston reported children examined
at this hospital’ One other Massachusetts court reported cases ex
amined in the out-patient clinic of a State hospital for insane, and
another mentioned school clinics attended by doctors from a State
hospital.
Massachusetts was the only State in which out-patient clinies of a
State institution for feeble-minded were reported. The Massachu
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

setts School for the Feeble-minded at Waverley held weekly out
patient clinics at the institution, and three courts reported sending
children to this clinic. Two other courts reported having children
examined in out-patient clinics held by members of the staff of the
Waverley institution in their respective cities. One of these was in
cooperation with physicians from a State hospital for the insane.
Sixteen additional courts in nine States—California, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, and South Dakota—reported that they occasionally
availed themselves of the services of members of the staffs of various
kinds of institutions. One industrial school for boys, one reforma
tory, and one private institution for the feeble-minded were reported,
each by one court. In four cases, State institutions were specified,
without stating the class of patients for which they provided. The
remaining nine courts reported examinations made by public insti
tutions for the feeble-minded and insane. Six of the sixteen courts
were in Massachusetts.
County and city clinics.
Two county agencies were referred to, each by one court/ The
Monmouth County (N. J.) court referred to the county supervisor of
child study as giving mental examinations, and the court in White
Plains, N. Y., mentioned the psychiatric clinic under the commis
sioner of charities and corrections of Westchester County. Indian
apolis, Ind., and Springfield, Mo., each reported court cases examined
in free city clinics.
Universities, colleges, and normal schools.
The universities of the country were also cooperating with the courts
in the m atter of mental examinations. Twenty-two courts reported
that examinations had been made either in organized clinics at
universities or by teachers and professors who were in most cases
connected with the psychology departments. Seventeen colleges,
normal schools, and universities were reported as rendering this
service. A list follows:
California........ ................-Leland Stanford University, Department of Education.
Leland Stanford University Medical School.
University of California.
Colorado.. . . . . . . ______ University of Colorado.
State Teachers’ College.
Indiana..... .........................University of Indiana.
Iowa............ ...................... Iowa State University Medical School.
Kansas................................University of Kansas.
Maryland............................Phipps Psychiatric Clinic of Johns Hopkins University.
Massachusetts....................Westfield Normal School.
Ohio....... ............................ Ohio State University.
Pennsylvania....................University of Pennsylvania.
Wilson College.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Tennessee. . . . . ' _______ University of Tennessee.
Virginia. .........................Medical College of Virginia.
Hampton Institute.
Washington....................... University of Washington.

Elementary schools.
Reports from numerous cities in which provision was made by
boards of education for special study and instruction of backward
and defective children in the public schools, showed th at courts often
made use of the equipment thus provided for mental examination of
children. Fifteen courts reported such examinations by school
psychologists or in school clinics. These courts included the fol
lowing cities in their jurisdiction:
Oakland (also serving Berkeley and San Diego), Calif.
Hartford, Conn.
Dorchester, Brighton, and Springfield, Mass.
Minneapolis and St. Paid, Minn.
St. Louis, Mo.
Rochester, N. Y.
Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio.
Racine and Madison, Wis.
Everett, Wash.

Other clinics or examiners.
Two courts, one in a rural county of Maryland and the other in
a small Illinois city, reported examinations made by physicians
secured through, or clinics held by, mental hygiene societies.
In addition to the more or less organized methods of examination,
there were 32 courts which reported examinations made by indi
viduals whom they specified as psychiatrists, alienists, psycholo
gists, specialists, or experts, without stating whether or not they
were connected with any organization or institution.
Three courts reported examinations made by probation officers,
and three by school nurses who had received some training in mental
testing. Teachers of subnormal children in ungraded rooms were
reported as making examinations for eight courts.
Other examiners reported.
In addition to the 145 courts definitely reporting that mental ex
aminations were made by clinics or specifically qualified examiners,
269 courts reported mental examinations by physicians who, accord
ing to the reports, appeared to be general practitioners. Some of
them were specified as health officers.
There was no evidence that these physicians had any particular
knowledge of mental diseases or defects, and these courts were not
classified as. having provision for mental examination. There were
also a number of courts which reported lunacy commissions as giv
ing these examinations. I t is probable, however, that ii^ most cases

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

these were the examinations necessary in connection with commit
ment to institutions and were not made in order that the court might
have scientific knowledge of the case in hand as a guide to its dispo
sition.
STATES IN WHICH NO COURT REPORTED MENTAL EXAMINATIONS.

From 14 States there was no report of mental examinations in
clinics or by persons having some special psychiatric or psychologi
cal knowledge. The 14 States are:
Alabama.
Arizona.
Delaware.
Idaho.
Maine.
Mississippi.
Montana.

Nevada.
New Mexico.
North Carolina.
Oklahoma.
Rhode Island.
West Virginia
Wyoming.

The probation officer of one court reported frankly that since no
institution Would accept children known to be feeble-minded, the
court was not anxious to be definitely informed as to the mental
status of those whom it wished to commit. This state of affairs
probably existed in other courts as well, but it would seem to be a
short-sighted policy in the end since it should be the aim of courts to
do the best thing for each individual child.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COOPERATION OF THE COURT WITH THE COMMUNITY.
The court fcan hardly maintain a high degree of efficiency without
a definite method for cooperation with the community, as repre
sented by other official departments, public and private agencies and
individuals. Several items in the questionnaires, for both judges
and probation officers gave an opportunity to secure some facts as
to this important feature. Replies from a large number of courts,
representing practically every State in the Union, gave evidence of
such methods of cooperation. Information regarding cooperation
with official departments related only to that with State boards and
commissions, and the police; it has been discussed in connection with
probation service. Most of the facts secured related to local, county,
and State boards and agencies.
Many courts secured advice and help from boards and agencies
which were established for this particular purpose or from others
which cooperated on special phases of work. In some States the
law provided for county boards with specified duties in connection
with the court or other child welfare work of the county.
LOCAL AND COUNTY BOARDS OR AGENCIES.

Practically all the local and county boards were reported by the
judges as serving in an advisory as well as in an auxiliary capacity.
There were 266 of these boards reported for 263 courts ifr 32 States.
In many States there were but one or two. Only 7 States reported
more than five each.
In 17 of the 32 States the advisory board was established through
statutory provision. At least 3 States had legal provision for such
boards but none was reported appointed under this law. In many
States the judges, on their own initiative, had organized committees
to aid and advise them, or they used some existing organization
which had volunteered assistance.
Prom 18 courts in 12 States judges or probation officers wrote of
the important assistance given by local committees, appointed to
cooperate with the court, or by local juvenile protective associations
or committees of local civic or social agencies. In only one place
was such assistance provided by law. This was the Juvenile Court
and Probation Association at Wilmington, Del., which was created
to look after the detention home, cooperate with the judge, and to sug71

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

gest legislation. The other committees were voluntary, acting either
as permanent standing committees or on special appointment as
the need arose. In 4 States—Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina,
and Virginia—the local agencies were called “ Juvenile Protective
Associations.” Success in securing the assistance of citizens of a
community most able to help in the court work was illustrated by
one judge who had formed what he called a juvenile protective asso
ciation, which met once a month, looked after the interests of de
linquent children, inspected the county reformatory for delinquent
boys, and made recommendations according to findings. This
judge made a special point of including all public school teachers in
this association and secured their cooperation especially with delin
quent children of school age. Other places referred to “ Society of
social welfare,” the “ Ladies auxiliary,” “ Civic organization of the
women’s club,” and a “ Committee for dependent children and fam
ilies of the United Charities.”
Various kinds of cooperating county boards were reported for 170
courts in 13 States. They were called variously “ Boards of county vis
itors,” “Advisory boards,” “Child-welfare boards,” “ Boards of chil
dren’s guardians,” “ Probation committees,” and “ Juvenile boards.”
There is wide variation in their duties and importance. In many
replies the description of work is too meager to judge as to the nature of
the activities, and it is known through correspondence with persons
familiar with the State work that frequently the boards had been
organized but were very inactive.
The most common among the county boards were “ Boards of
county visitors,” whose duties were to inspect institutions and
report to the judge with recommendations. They were reported
from 7 States—Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio,
Washington, and Wisconsin—but in only 2—Colorado and Ohio—
are they at all general. In ' Colorado 6 boards were , definitely
reported and 5 others were evidently of the same ’type. Fiftysix such boards were reported from Ohio, though a correspondent
wrote that many of them were unimportant factors in the juvenile
court work.
Boards with general advisory duties were second in prevalence.
Alabama reported 11 such boards serving the courts. A cor
respondent, however, reported these boards inactive except in
four counties. Seven other States—Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa,
Minnesota, Montana, and New Jersey—each reported from one
to five such boards, but gave no information as to their usefulness.
Three States—Arizona, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—reported
county boards of child welfare, which had been authorized by
recent acts of their respective legislatures, and so had not had time
to become very prevalent or active. Twenty-two such boards

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

were reported on the questionnaires as established in Minnesota.
Their duties were to investigate cases, institute proceedings, and
advise and assist the court in all matters pertaining to the welfare
of children. They were appointed by the State board of control
to serve without compensation, but were allowed to have a paid
executive if the county commissioners approved. In Arizona two
and in Wisconsin ten county boards were reported, whose duties
were to look after mothers’ pension cases.
Three other States each reported boards of different types estab
lished by law, which were doing important work. In Indiana 39
county boards of children’s guardians were reported in as many
counties as aiding and advising the courts. These boards inves
tigate cases of dependent and neglected children, institute court
proceedings, receive such children from the court, and place and
visit them in homes. They report monthly to the State board of
charities.
In California, 42 courts reported the services of probation com
mittees. These committees are each composed of seven citizens
whose duties are to investigate institutions and societies that receive
children and report their findings to the court and State board of
charities. They also control the detention homes and can be called
upon for investigation by the court. Practically all these commit
tees seem to be taking an active pait in the work of the juvenile
court.
In Texas the law provides for a juvenile board in counties with
a population over 100,000 and containing a city of 75,000 or over.
This board is made up of the judges of the civil and criminal district
courts, together with the county judge. I t is required to hear
such facts as are brought to its attention, and is empowered to
recommend to the court concerning the care and custody of chil
dren. They have power to file complaints, to be present a t hearings
and to direct probation officers. Three of the four counties having
the designated population requirements (Dallas, Harris, and Tarrant
Counties) reported such boards.
STATE-WIDE AGENCIES.

State-wide agencies which concern themselves primarily with the
work of the courts existed in only a few States and have already
been described as agencies supervising probation work. From prac
tically every State, the questionnaries reported State-wide agencies
organized primarily for work other than th at of the courts, as
cooperating most frequently in the matter of placing children in
homes.
The assistance of children’s home and aid societies, whose activ
ities were either State-wide or extending over a large part of the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN UNITED STATES HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

State, was reported for 23 States. These societies received children
from the courts for placing and often exercised all supervision of
them after they were placed.
Seven States reported the State board of charities as actively
cooperating in the work of the courts. The child-welfare depart
ment of the Ohio Board of State Charities wrote that it had received
children for placement from the juvenile courts in 45 counties.
The Connecticut State Board of Charities had recently established
a child-welfare department which placed out dependent and neglected
children committed by the courts to the county temporary homes
for placing.
In ’Massachusetts agents of the State board of charity cooperate
in many of the activities of the courts. These agents, by order
of the board, attend all Hearings of delinquent and most of the
hearings of neglected children. They also make investigations of
many of these cases. All cases of dependents are referred directly
to them by the overseers of the poor without going through the
juvenile courts. Many Massachusetts courts use the family homes
of the State board of charity for detention, and courts having no
other provision may make arrangements through the board for
mental examinations.
The Indiana State Board of Charities has direct supervision of all
county boards of children’s guardians, which take charge of most,
of the placing of dependent and neglected children in family homes.
New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia courts may commit depend
ent and neglected children to the care of the State boards of charities
for placing in family homes. The courts in New Jersey and the
District of Columbia reported that boards of children’s guardians
received children from the courts for placing.
Three States—Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming—reported bu
reaus of child and animal protection, which were doing some work
in cooperation with the courts. Six other States—Delaware, Maine,
Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and West Virginia—had
societies for prevention of cruelty to children or humane societies
operating over all or a large part of their respective States, reported
by the courts as cooperating.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX A. CHARTS,
C h a r t I .— Juvenile courts established by special laws, and court systems having jurisdic

tion over children’s cases o f delinquency and neglect, by States.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IK THE UNITED STATES

C h a r t I.— Juvenile courts established by special laws, and court systems having jurisdic

tion over children' s cases o f delinquency and neglect, by States—Continued.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES.

C h a r t I .— Juvenile courts established by special laws, and court systems having jurisdic

tion over children’s cases o f delinquency and neglect, by States—Continued.
Court systems given jurisdiction over children’s cases.
Special juvenile
courts with
independent
jurisdiction.

State.

South Carolina...
South D akota...
Tennessee...........
Texas.

.......

County court or
court serving
county.
Probate court (ex
cept as indicated
in column 5).

District
City court or
court or cir
court for
Other courts.
cuit court. police district.
R e c o r d e r 's
court (20).

County, City, or Reeorder’scourt (2 1 ).
County court and
district court (for
county) (1).

Utah.................... Juvenile court of
District court
the second judi
(22).
cial district(Ogden): Juvenile
court of the third
judicial district
*
(Salt LakeCity).
Vermont.............
City and Municipal
City and mucourts for county
nicipalcourts
and justices
(1).
of peace.
Virginia_______ Juvenile and do
Circuit court Policeand jus Other courts
mestic relations
tice courts
o f"'general
court of Rich
c r im in a l
(except in
m o n d ^ ); Juve
j u r is d ic dependent
nile and domes
tion.
court).
tic r e l a t i o n s
court of Norfolk
(e s ta b lis h e d
Jan. 1, 1919).
Washington.......
West Virginia__
Common pleascourt Circuit court
Intermediate
(1 and 23a).
court ¡Crim
(1).
inal court
(1 and 236).
Selectedfrom Courts
' of record (24).
Wyoming (no ju
Districtcourt Justice ofpeace
venile court
and Police
(Dcourt.
law).

(1) Concurrent jurisdiction.
(2) A la b a m a . —Concurrent jurisdiction only in case of violation of city ordinances.
(3) C a lifo rn ia . —In every county and c ity and county having more than one judge
of the superior court those judges shall designate one of their number to hear all causes
under juvenile court act.
(4) C olorado. —Special court in each county and municipality known as a city and
county having population of 100,000 or more.
(5) C on n ecticu t. —Cities having a population of 20,000 or more may provide for a
juvenile court to he conducted by a judge of police or city court.
(6) G eorgia. —A special court in counties having a population of 60,000 or more.
Counties having between 35,000 and 60,000 may establish a special court.
(7) I llin o is . —In counties having a population of more than 500,000 (Cook County)
the judges of the circuit court may designate one of their number to hear all cases under
juvenile court law.
(8) In d ia n a . —Every county containing a city of 100,000 inhabitants (Marion
County) shall establish a special juvenile court.
(9) Io w a . —In counties having a population of 100,000 or more (Polk County) the
district judges shall select one of fheir number to act as judge of the juvenile court.
(10) M a in e. —(a) Jurisdiction of dependency or neglect. (6) In case of delin
quency any court or trial justice having jurisdiction of offense.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS I F UNITED STATES HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

(11) M a ryla n d . —Justices of peace have jurisdiction where the judges of the district
court have not designated one of their number as judge for juvenile causes and where
there is no independent juvenile court.
(12) M in n eso ta . —District court in counties having a population of more than
33,000; probate court in all other counties.
(13) M isso u ri.— Criminal division of circuit court in counties containing city of
the first class.
(14) N ebraska. —County court has concurrent jurisdiction in absence of judge of
district court. *
(15) N ew H a m p sh ire. —In municipalities of less than 2,000 where no municipal
court has been established.
(16) N ew Jersey. —A separate court in counties of first class.
(17) N ew Y o rk . —-(a) In New York City a separate division of court of special ses
sions. (6) Jurisdiction conferred upon county court, children’s part.
(18) O hio.— Judges of these courts designate one of their number.
(19) P e n n sy lv a n ia . —In Allegheny County, the county court.
(20) S o u th C a ro lin a. —In cities having a population of from 20,000 to 50,000.
(21) Tennessee.—City court in counties of 148,000 or more; recorder’s court in coun
ties having between 33,600 and 33,700.
(22) U ta h . —The law provides for a special juvenile court in each judicial district.
(23)
* V irg in ia . —-City of 30,000 or more may establish a special juvenile and domestic
relations court.
(24) W est V irg in ia . —(a) Having chancery jurisdiction. (6) If no court with chan
cery jurisdiction.
(25) W isco n sin . —Judges to designate one of their number.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

©h a r t II.— Methods of appointment o f probation officers reported from the various States.

Civil service:
California.......... . . . . ----- 1 court, Los Angeles.
.
Missouri.............................1 court, St. Louis..
New Jersey............. . ....... All regular probation officers.
New York.........................All regular probation officers.
Ohio....................... : ......... 22 courts regular, 4 courts irregular.
Wisconsin.........................1 court, Milwaukee.
Governor:
Alabama...........................1 court, Birmingham.
Florida.............. . ............. On recommendation of county commissioners.
M aine..................... ......... Except Cumberland County.
Michigan................... . ..County agents, on recommendation of State board of
charities and corrections; judges appoint other proba
tion officers.
State board or State probation officer:
Rhode Island.
Vermont.
Judge:
i0lU
Alabama............................Except Birmingham.
Arizona.
Arkansas.
California — .................E x ce p t Los Angeles; on recommendation of probation
committee.
Colorado.
Connecticut.
Delaware.
District of Columbia.
Georgia.
^
Idaho.
Illinois.
Indiana.
Iowa
Kansas.
Kentucky.
Louisiana.
Maine...............................In Cumberland County only.
Maryland.......................... Except Baltimore City.
Massachusetts.
Michigan...........................4 courts—regular probation officers other than county
agents.
Minnesota.
Mississippi...................... 1 court.
Missouri........................ . .Except St. Louis.
Montana.
Nebraska.
Nevada.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN' UNITED STATES HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.

Judge—Continued.
New Hampshire.
North Dakota.
. .
Ohio............................... . .Except 26 courts.
Oregon.
Pennsylvania.
South. Dakota.
Tennessee.
Texas.
„
Virginia.
Washington.
West Virginia
...........Except 1 court.
W isconsin.
......... Except Milwaukee.
Other methods and special systems:
Illinois...............................1 court, Cook County—Competitive examination given
by committee of citizens, especially appointed by
judge when examination is to be given.
Maryland.......................... Baltimore City—appointed, by law, by judges of su
preme bench.
Utah...................................State juvenile court commission.
West Virginia.................. 1 court, county commissioners on recommendation of
judge.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

135315o—20---- 6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
C h a r t I I I .— Courts reporting spe
Jurisdict

Location. «

Name of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

ALABAMA.
1

2
3

Birmingham................. Juvenile court of Jefferson Independ- County ent.
County.
Juvenile court of Mobile ...d o ..........
County.
Juvenile court of Montgomery Probate...
County.
ARIZONA.
Tombstone.................... Juvenile court
County.

Cochise

Superior.. County.

Bisbee.

ARKANSAS.
5
6

Little Rock................... Juvenile court of Pulaski County— County.
County.
Pine Bluff..................... Juvenile court of Jefferson ...d o ......... ...d o .......
County.
CALIFORNIA.

Superior.. County.

...d o ........ ...d o .......

Fresno........- ................. Juvenile court of Fresno
County.
Los Angeles................. Juvenile court of Los Angeles
County.
Juvenilecourt of Napa County.
9 Nap»
Juvenile court of Alameda
10
County.
11 Redwood City.............. Juvenile court of San Mateo
S a n Mateo.
County.
12 Sacramento................... Juvenile court of Sacramento
County.
13 San Bernardino............ Juvenile court of San Bernardino County.
Juvenile court of San Diego
14 San Diego.............. .
Comity.
San Francisco............... Juvenile court of San Francisco County.
San José........................ Juvenile coun; of Santa Clara
County.
Juvenile court of Marin County
Santa Barbara.............. Juvenile court of Santa Barbara County.
Santa Rosa................... Juvenile court of Sonoma
County.
Juvenile court of San Joaquin
County.

. ..do.......... ...d o .......
...d o ........... ...d o .......
...d o .......... .. .do.......
...d o .......... .. .do.......
...d o .......... ...d o .......
...d o .......... ...d o .......
...d o .......... .. .do.......
.. .do.......... .. .do.......
...d o .......... .. .do.......
...d o .......... ...d o .......
.. .do........

COLORADO.

Colorado Springs........

County court of El Paso
County.
Juvenile court of Denver
County.
County court of. Pueblo
County, juvenile division.

County...

County

Independ- .. .do__
ent.
County...

CONNECTICUT.

City........

Part of
county

excluding courts reporting less than 50 children’s cases heard during the year,
ixaet number of cases heard but which were known to have more than 50 cases ar
estimated'as for July 1, 1917. Department of Commerce, United States Burea
1 138. Estimates of population. For towns having less than 8,000 population ii
e by the Children’s Bureau. Figures starred are for Apr. 15, 1910: it was imp
es in these cases, either because the towns had not been incorporated m 1900 c
i a decrease in population between 1900 and 1910.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
for hearing children's cases, 1918. a
Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.c

Probation
service.«*

Method of detention.«?

Physical and mental
examination.

Fre
Special quency
Pub
court
of
Regular
licly
Pri
room./ ses proba
sup vately
Phys Mental exami
sions.^ tion
ported
sup
Delin
ical
Total. quent.
officers Other. deten ported Other. exami
nation, by
paid
tion
deten
whom given.
nation.
through
home
tion
court.
or
home.
room.

1,380

880

D aily.

—

160

3/w k..

—

General prac
titioner.
....... do..............

273
454

291

■—

1/wk..

—

........do..............

« , 030

*300

N ec...

General prac
titioner.

559

415

3/w k..

—

415

140

—

N ec... ■ Y

■—

—

Y
Y

—

145

N. R.

—

1/w k..

—

1,232

N. R.

**84
473

N. R.
160

N ec...
5/w k..

Y ■
Y

_
—

Y
Y

—

Psychologist..

N. R ................

—

Psychologist..

—

Court clin ic...

Y
Y

....... do..............
Psychologist..

9
10

U n iv e r s ity
clinic.

—

N. R.

N ec...

—

*125

N. R.

—

1-3/wk

—

108

N. R.

1,283
142
116
N. R.

1/wk..

—

l./wk..

902

1/wk..

—

109

1/wk..

32
N. R.

Y
c.
Y

—

145

N. R.

N ec...
1/wk..
N ec...

Y
Y

1/w k..

Y
Y

152

1/wk..

N, R.

N.'R.

N ec...

ìk. R.

N. R.

1/w k..

—

6/w k..

Y
—

—

School psy
chologist.
Court clinic__

—

Y
Y

U n iv e r s it y
clinic.
....... do..............
Psychologist..

—

Y
-

■-

U n iv e r s ity
clinic.
-- •

15
17
18
19
20
21
22

—

General prac
titioner.
U n iv e r s ity
clinic.
—

N. R ................

Y
—

““

11
12

—:

c *Approximate number estimated by court. ** Approximate number estimated by Children’s Bureau
on basis of partial reports sent in by courts.
d Preference is given to the best type.
« City named in italics is largest city in area served.
/ “ C” indicates that hearings are in the judges’ chambers.
o “1/wk.” means once a week. “ 1-3/wk.” means one to three times a week. “Nec.” means when necessary.
* 1/wk. and nec.” means once a week and oftener when necessary.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS I F THE UNITED STATES
Ch a r t II I . — Courts reporting special organization
Jurisdiction.
Population.

Name of court.

Location.

Court
system.

Area
served.

Of
total
area.

Of
largest
city.

N. R.

112,831

N. R.
N. R.

152,275
89,201

95,369

95,389

369,282

101,026

79,065

83,682

56,251

Independ- County..
ent.
City.......... .. .do.......

221,800

196,144

62,645

A0,642

...d o .......... . . .do.......

40,891

26,306

Independ- .. .do.......
ent.
Juvenile court of Chatham ...d o ------- ...d o .__
County.

61,152

46,099

85,859

69,250

41,884
21,742

35,951
=1=6,043

24,746

12,806

CONNECTICUT—Con.

City police court of Hartford,
juvenile division.

Police........ Part of
county.

Hartford...................

26
27

New Haven.................. City court of New Haven........ C ity ..----- .. .do.......
Waterbury....................

Wilmington.................. Juvenile court of Wilmington.. Independ- City.......
ent.

DELAWARE.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Washington.................. Juvenile court of District of Independ- District.
ent.
Columbia.

Jacksonville.................. Juvenile court of Duval County__ County..
County.
Tampa.......................... County court, as juvenile ...d o .......... .. .do.......
court of Hillsboro County.

FLORIDA.

GEORGIA.

Atlanta........................ Juvenile court of Fulton
County.
Angusta........................ Juvenile court of Richmond
County.
Columbus..................... Juvenile court of Muscogee
County.
Macon................. ......... Juvenile court of Bibb County.

Savannah.....................

37
38

B oise............................. Juvenile court of Ada County. Probate... County..
Lewiston...................... Probate court of Nez Perce ...d o .......... .. .do.......
County.
Pocatello....................'. j Probate court of Bannock
County.

32
33
34

IDAHO.

ILLINOIS.

40
41
42

68,127
27,462
Bloomington................ County court of McLean County.... County..
County.
2,818,751 2,547,201
Chicago........................ Juvenile court of Cook County.
87,018
32,969
Danville....................... Juvenile court of Vermillion
County.
Decatur..
Geneva..

County court of Macon Countv. ...d o .......... . . .do.......
County court of Kane County. .. .do.......... . . .do.......

61,618
101,402

84,795

Peoria....
Rockford

County court of Peoria County. .. .do.......... .. .do.......
Comity court of Winnebago .. .do.......... .. .do.......
County.

108,756
74,326

72,184
56,739

Springfield........

County court of Sangamon
County.

105,206

62,623

Waukegan.........

70,060

20,917

115,691

27,016

N. R.

22,273

43
44
45
46

Aurora.

41,483

INDIANA.

Crown Point.. . .

Elkhart..............

Circuit court of Lake County.

Circuit___ County..

H am m ond.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Circuit court (Elkhart County
and La Grange County).
*Approximate number estimated by court.

ties.

HEARING CHILDREN'S CASES,
f o r hearing ch ildren 's cases, 1918 —Continued.
Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Total.

Probation
service.

Method of detention.

Fre
Special quency
Pub
of
court
Regular
licly
ses
room.
proba
sup
sions.
tion
ported
Delin
officers
Other.
deten
quent.
paid
tion
through
home.
court.
or
room.

672

558

6/wk.
and
nec.

437
524

366
429

V
Ÿ

1/w k..
6/w k..

V
if

Physical and mental
examination.

Pri
vately
Phys Mental exami
sup
ical
ported Other. exami
nation, by
deten
nation. whom given.
tion
home.

—

School psychol
ogist
and
mental spe
cialist.
Specialist... .

26
27

957

844

1/wk.
and
nec.

2,152

1,391

6/w k..

—

Mental spe
cialist.

2/w k..

-•

—

Mental spe
cialist.

2/w k..

—

633

487

*309

238

*1,673

1,209

6/w k..

*281

250

1/wk..

*100

100

c.
—

N ec...

V
—

107

104

N ec...

N. R.

N ec...

—
—

—

N. R.

— —
— V
V
— if
— ■—

253
142

N. R.
7

N ec...
N ec...

137

—

N ec...

V
V

—
-

—
—

— —
— - -

/
y*

—

1/w k..

—

6,165
162

3,007
32

if
V

—

114
N. R.

58
N. R.

—

5/w k..
1/wk.
and
Nec.
N ec...
1/wk..

if
V

2 81
*91

103
*27

—

—
—
_
V

*236

*68 N. R.

108

—

1/w k..
N ec...

N. R ..

1/w k..

if
V
if

—

• -—

_
—

N. R ................

—

N .R ....... ..

General prac
titioner.

227

1/wk.
and
Nec.
1/w k..

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

—

V
if

ÿ
V

General prac
titioner.

—

37
38

School nurse..

Institution___

if
V

Court clin ic...
State clinic__

41
42

•—
—

if
V

Specialist........
N. R ................

43
44

N. R ................
Psychologist
and general
practitioner.
M en tal s p e
cialist.
Mental hygi
ene society.

45
46

—

V
V

“

429

47
48

—

S ta te c lin ic
(Illinois).

—

N. R ................

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Ch a r t III .— C ou rts re p o rtin g sp e c ia l o rg a n ization
Jurisdiction.
Population.

Location.

Name of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

Of
total
area.

Of
largest
city.

- '

indiana—continued.

51
52
53
54

Circuit court for Vanderburgh Circuit.... County..
County.
Circuit court for Allen County . . .do..........
Independ
ent.
. County.
South Bend.................. Juvenile court of St. Joseph Circuit___
County.
...d o ..........

81,576

76,981

105,149
312,153

78,014
283,622

102,874

70,967

106,830

67,361

District. . . 4 coun
ties.

N. R.

49,618

Juvenile division, district .. .do......... 1 county.
court, ninth judicial district.
District court for fourth ju ...d o .......... 2 coun
dicial district.
ties.

130, 740

104,052

N. R.

58,568

District court for tenth ju . . .do.......... 4 coun
dicial district.
ties.

N. R.

36,987

119,660

102,096

67,821

49,538

94,305

73,597

IOWA.

56
judicial district.

57
58
59
KANSAS.

60
61
62

Topeka.........................^

Juvenile court of Wyandotte
County.

Probate... Coimty..

County.
Wichita......................... Juvenile court of Sedgwick .. .do..........
County.
KENTUCKY.

63
64
65
66

County.... County..
County.
Lexington.............. ....... Juvenile court of Fayette .. .do.......... ...d o .......
County.
Louisville......................
County.
Juvenile court of Campbell
County.

75,293

59,623

51,834

41,997

285,089

240,808

63,126

32,133

LOUISIANA.

Sixth judicial district court. .. District. . . 2 g a r ishes.
Independ Parish...
ent.

49,751

13,698

377,010

68,200

37,064

Baltimore...................... Juvenile court of City of Balti Independ
594,637
more.
ent.
Bel Air.......................... Juvenile Court of Harford Circuit__ County.. *27,965
Havre de Grace.
County.
72
Juvenile court of Allegany Independ- .. .do.......
68,774
County.
ent.
a Court is also held at county seats of other counties in the district.

594,637

Juvenile court of Parish of
Orleans.

First judicial district court__

District. . . ...d o .......

MARYLAND.

70
71

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4,788

26,686

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES.
fo r hearing ch ild ren 's cases, 1918 —•Continued.

Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Total.

Probation
service.

Method of detention.

Physical and mental
examination

FreSpecial quency
Pubcourt
of
Regular
licly
Priroom.
sesprobasup- vately
Phys Mental examisions.
tion
ported supical
officers Other. deten ported Other. exami
nation, by
quent.
paid
tion deten
whom given.
nation.
through
tion
home
court.
home.
or
room.

*70

N ec...

283
1,145

215
602

Y
Y

1/wk..
3/w k..

. 61

420

379

*272

N. R ................

Y
Y

City clinic.......

52
53

1/w k..

Y
Y
—

N ec...

General practitioner.

1/wk..

•

—

Y
—

—

Y
•

345

167

1-2/wk

—

Y -

—

109

6/w k..

—

*59

*30

* N ec...

—

N .R .

—

1/wk..

N .R .

N .R ..

—

N .R .

N. R ..

—

Y
Y

**200

152

—

1/wk..

. —

*461

461

1/wk..

1,951

1,251

2/w k..

—

1/wk..

V
_

—
—
_

N .R .

N ec...

2,334
N .R .
and
over
500 truancy.
90
84

2 /w k
and
N e c.

—

N ec...

—

Y
Y
. Y

—

54
55

N. R. (Scott
C o u n ty );
general
practitioner
(M uscatine
County).
General practitioner.

Special teacher
of
subnor
mals.
Teacher of ungraded room.

General practitioner.
N. R ................
-

59
60
61
62

—

Probation offleer.
N. R . . . . .........

65
66

N. R ................

Psychologist
and mental
specialist.

General practitioner.

U n iv e r s ity
clinics.
Institution___

3,833

N .R .

6/w k..

—

N ec...

—

' —

N ec...

—

70
71
72

*Approximate number estimated by court.
**Approximate number estimated by Children’s Bureau on basis of partial reports sent in by courts.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Ch a r t

III.
Jurisdici

Name of court.

Location.

Area
served.

Court
system.

Ma r y l a n d — c o n t i n u e d .

Towson.

Barnstable...................

Boston..........................

Juvenile Court of Baltimore Circuit__
County.

County.

MASSACHUSETTS.

Boston (East Boston
district).
77. Boston (Brighton dis
trict).
78 Boston (Charlestown
district).
79 B oston (D orchester
district).
80 Boston (Roxbury dis
trict).
81 Boston (South Boston
district).
82 Boston (West Roxbury district).
83 Brockton......................

First district court of Bamstable County.
Boston juvenile court..............

District... Part of
county.
Indepen- Part of
city.
dent.

Municipal court of Brighton
district.
Municipal court of Charlestown district.
Municipal court of Dorchester
district.
Municipal court of Roxbury
district.
Municipal court of South Boston district.
Municipal court of West Roxbury district.

City.......... ...d o ,." ..
...d o .......... ...d o ___
...d o .......... .. .do___
...d o .......... . . . d o . . . .
...d o ........ . .. .do___
...d o .......... ...d o ___

county.
Municipal court of Brookline.. Municipal. City-----

Brookline............. .......

Cambridge.................. .

Chelsea.........................

Chicopee................ .. .

Police court of Chicopee........... Police....... City-----

D ed h a m ..............

Fall River.'..................

Third district court of eastern District... Part of
Middlesex.
county.
Police court of Chelsea............. City.......... 2 cities..

Fitchburg....................

District court of northern District... Part of
Norfolk.
county.
Second district court of Bris- ...d o .......... . . . d o . . . .
toi County.
Police court of Fitchburg.. . . . City.......... . . . d o . . . .

Gloucester....... ...........

District court of eastern Essex. District... . . . d o . . . .

Holyoke..................—

Police court of Holyoke........... Police....... City-----

Lawrence....................

Lawrence district court...........

Leominster..................

Lowell.

L ynn..

Malden.

New Bedford.

Newton.........

C it y ....

100

Pittsfield___

101

Plymouth__

District court of central Berk- District... Part of
shire.
county.
Third district court of Ply- ...d o .......... ...d o ___
mouth.

102

Q uincy...__

District... Part of
county.
City-----

county.
Southern district court of District__
southern Essex.
First district court of eastern .. .do.......... ...d o ___
Middlesex.
Third district court of Bristol. ...d o .......... . . . d o . . . .

folk.
* Approximate number estimated by court.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN'S CASES,
dren’s cases, 1918— Continued.

Probation
service.

Method of detention.

Fre
Special quency
Pub
of
court
Regular
licly
ses
room.
proba
sup
sions.
tion
ported
officers Other. deten
paid
tion
through
home.
court.
or
room.

N .R .

l/w k ..

Physical and mental
examination.

Pri
vately
Phys Mental examisupical
nation, by
ported Other. exami
deten
nation. whom given.
tion
home.

U n iv e r s ity
clinic and
State
in
stitution.

N ec...

—

N. R ................

1,097

6/w k..

—

Court clinic. . .

N .R .

l/w k ..

—

I n s t it u t io n
clinic.
School clinic..

2/w k..

y
y

N .R .

y
y

142

l/w k ..

247

l/w k ..

. —

—

295

y
y

General prac
titioner.
School clinic. .

l/w k ..

352

l/w k ..

—

l/w k ..

y
y

—

141

y
y

l/w k ..

—

I n s t it u t io n
clinic.
....... do___ .—

149

l/w k ..

....... do..............1 84

444

y
y

l/w k ..

y
y

l/w k ..

y
y

....... d o .. . . —

366

....... do..............

l/w k ..

N .R .

—

y
y

l/wk.&
nec.
l/w k ..

y
y

N .R .

—

276

Clerk’s l/wk.&
nec.
office.
l/w k ..
y

—

l/w k ..

N .R .

y
y

l/w k ..

140

N .R .
94
174

l/w k ..

y
y

—

' —

y
y

—

l/w k ..

N ec...

—

l/w k ..

—

y
y

l/w k ..

—

2/mo.&
nec.

—

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

—

y
—
y

—

y
y
y

—

y
. y

y
y
y

—
-

y
y

80
I n s titu tio n
clinic.
Court clin ic.. J 81

General prac
titioner.
I n s t it u t io n
clinic.
General prac
titioner.
—

I n s titu tio n
clinic.
General prac
titioner and
school nurse.

82
83

89
90
91
92
93
94

—

General prac
titioner.

In s titu tio n
clinic.

—

In s titu tio n
clinic.
General prac
titioner.
In s titu tio n
clinic.

99
100
101
102

COURTS IN" THE UNITED STATES
Chart III. — C ou rts re p o rtin g s p

Jurisdic

Location.

Nam© of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

MASSACHUSETTS— COn.

103

Salem........

104

Somerville.

First district court of E ssex.. . D istrict... Part of
county.
Police court of Somerville....... Police....... C it y ....

105

Springfield

Police court of Springfield..............do..........

106

Taunton..

107

Waltham............

108

Woburn.......

109

Worcester......... .

110

Allegan,

Allegan County probate court. Probate... County.

111

Alpena..............

112

Ann Arbor........

113

Bay City...........

114

Detroit..............

115

Escanaba..........

Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Alpena County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Washtenaw
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Bay County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Wayne County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Delta County.
Juvenile division of-the pro
.do.......... ...d o ----bate court of Kent County.
Probate court of Houghton
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Ionia County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Jackson County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Kalamazoo
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate Court of Ingham
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Manistee
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Menominee
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Monroe County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of Muskegon
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
bate court of St. Clair County.
Probate court of Berrien
County.
Juvenile division of the pro
-do..........
bate court of Saginaw
County.
* Approximate number estimated by court.

Part of
county.
First district court of Bristol.. District... ..d o ___

Second district court of east ...d o ........ . . . . d o . . . .
ern Middlesex.
Fourth district court of east ...d o ........ . ...d o ___
ern Middlesex.
Central district c o u r t of City........ . . . . d o . . . .
Worcester County.

MICHIGAN.

116

Grand Rapids..

117

Houghton.........

118

Ionia..................

119

Jackson.............

120

Kalamazoo.......

121

Lansing.............

122

Manistee............

123

Menominee.......

124

Monroe..............

125

Muskegon.........

Hancock.

126

Port Huron___

127

St. Joseph.........

128

B enton Harbor.

Saginaw............

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES,
f o r hearing ch ild ren 's cases, 1918 —Continued.

Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Probation
service.

Physical and mental
examination.

Method of detention.

FreSpecial quency
Pubcourt
of
Regular
licly
Priroom.
ses
proba
sup vately
Phys- Mental examisions.
tion
ported supTotal. quent.
officers Other. deten ported Other. ical
nation, by
exami
paid
tion detennation. whom given.
through
home
tion
court.
or
home.
room.

196

145

l/w k ..

*269

269

l/w k ..

327

263

l/w k ..

l/wk.&
nec.
l/w k ..

V
V
V
V

294

241

l/w k ..

V
V
V
V
V
V
V

l/w k ..

In s titu tio n

103

—

:—

School clin ic.. 105

—

I n s t i t u t i o n 106
clinic.
N. R ................ 107

—

....... do.............. 104

I n s titu tio n
clinic.

108
109

—

N ec...

—

. —

N ee...

—

333

187

2,126

1,811

/
V

l/w k ..
6/wk..

—

— ■

—

N ec...

—

N .R .

l/w k ..

—

_
-

—

124

Teacher un- 125
graded room.

General prac- 126
titioner.
N .R .............. . 127

N .R .

N ec...

l/w k ..

—

N e c ...

—

—
■y

■

194

124

V
V

l/w k ..

128

l/w k ..

—‘

2/wk..

150

138

—

200

l/w k . .

163

l-2wk.

*141

*58

—

*30

c.
—

l/w k ..

*80

N e c ...

—

388

6/wk..

—

—
—

N e c ...
l/w k ..

General practitionef.
—
" '

General prac-

I n s t it u t io n 116
clinic.
General prac- 117
titioner.
N. R ................ 118

I n s titu tio n
clinic.
Institution
clinic.

115

119
120
121

111

■I 112

General prac- 113
titioner.
Court clinic. . . 114

—

General practitioner.

122

....... d o ............. 123

—

128

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

'- ' '

110

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Chart III .— Courts reporting special organization
Jurisdiction.
Population.

Location.

Name of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

Of
total
area.

Of
largest
city.

MINNESOTA.

129

Duluth..........................

Juvenile court of St. Louis
County (eleventh judicial
district court; southern half
of county).
Juvenile court of Hennepin
County (fourth judicial dis
trict court).
Juvenile court of Ramsey'
County (second judicial dis
trict court).

D istrict... Part of
county.

N .R .

97,077

County..

410,227

373,448

262,450

252,465

County (eleventh judicial
district court; northém half
of county).

county.

N. R.

15,954

Juvenile court of JasperCounty
(division of circuit court;
twenty-fifth judicial circuit).
Kansas City.................. Juvenile court of Jackson
County (division of circuit
court; sixteenth judicial cir
cuit).
Juvenile court of Buchanan
county (division 3 of circuit
court; sixth judicial circuit).
St. Louis....................... Juvenile court (division of cir
cuit court; eighth judicial
circuit).
Springfield.................... Juvenile court of Greene
County
(circuit
court;
twenty-third judicial cir
cuit).
Juvenile court of St. Louis
Wellston.
County (division 1 of circuit
court; thirteenth judicial
circuit).

C ircuit.... 1 county

93,799

33,400

.. .do.......... .. .do.......

347,997

305,816

101,331

86,498

...d o .......... City.......

768,630

...d o .......... 1 county

71,946

41,169

106,049

*7 , 8 1 2

59,574

44,057

80,331

46,957

188,954

177,777

130
131
132

MISSOURI.

133
134

135
136
137

138

Joplin..................... .

MONTANA.

139

Butte............................. Juvenile court second judicial D istrict... 1 county
district (Silver Bow County).
NEBRASKA.

140

District... 1 county

141

Lincoln.......................... Juvenile court of Lancaster
County (third judicial dis
trict court).
Juvenile court of Douglas
County (fourth judicial dis
trict court).

142

Nashua.......................... Municipal court of Nashua___ City.......... County. 135,875

N EW HAMPSHIRE.

27,541

NEW JERSEY.

143
144
145

Jersey City.................... Juvenile court of Hudson
County.
Atlantic County juvenile
court (court of common
A tlantic City7
pleas).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Independent.

County .

pleas.

Independ
ent.
County.
* Approximate number estimated by court.

647,589

312,557

90,501

69,515

625,178

418,789

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
for hearing children's cases, 1918—-Continued.
Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Total.

Probation
service.

Physical and mental
examination.

Method of detention.

Fre
Special quency
Pub
court
of
Regular
Pri
licly
ses probar
room.
sup vately
sions.
Phys Mental exami
tion
ported sup
Delin
officers Other. deten ported Other. ical
nation, by
quent.
exami
paid
tion deten
nation. whom given.
through
tion
home
court.
or
home.
room.

213

167

. 1,011

668

*1,021

l/wk.
and nee.

2/wk..

578

2/wk..

—

164

118

2 /mo.
and nec.

— ■

471

460

Nec. . .

451

193

l/w k . .

*100

100

2/mo..

N. R.

239

N. R ................ 120

School psy
chologist.

—

4/wk.

N. R.

N .R ..

158

Ÿ-

1 /wk.
and nec.

*219

*49

l/w k ..

N. R.

814

592

2,180

1,976

*88

*85

1,261

1,062

130
131

y
-

General prac
titioner.

132

133

134

—

135

School clin ic.. 136

City clinic....... 137

General prac
titioner.

l/w k ..

y■

l/w k .
and nec.

l/w k . .

■y

General prac
titioner.

General prac 143
titioner.
N. R ................ .144

Court clinic. . . 145

138

139

Specialist........ 140
. N. R ................ 141

6/wk'..

l/w k ..

—

2/w k..

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

' -

142

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
C h a r t III .— C ou rts r e p o rtin g sp e c ia l o rg a n ization
Jurisdiction.
Population.

Location.

Name of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

Of
total
area.

Of
largest
. city.

NEW TO RE.

146
147

Albany....... .............
Binghamton............

148 Buffalo.....................
149
160
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159

Canandaigua..........
Geneva.

Cohoes.....................
Lackawanna..........
Mount Vernon........
New Rochelle..........
New York................
Niagara Falls...........
Rochester...... ..........
Schenectady.............
Syracuse.................
Troy.........................

160 Watertown..............
161 Yonkers....................

Police court of Albany............. Police....... C ity .....
City court of Binghamton....... City.......... . ..d o .__

106,632
106,632
54,864 - 54,864

Children’s court of Buffalo___ Independent.
County court of Ontario County__
County, children’s part.
Court of special sessions (police Police.......
court).
City court of Lackawanna....... City..........
Court of special sessions, juve ...d o .........
nile branch (city court).
City court of New Rochelle___ .. -do..........
Children’s court of the city of Independ
New York.
ent.
Police court of Niagara Falls. . Police.......
Monroe County court, chil County__
dren’s division.
Police........
Police court of Schenectady
Court of special sessions, juve ...d o ..........
nile division.
The city police court of Troy . . .do..........
(children’s part).
City court of Watertown......... City...........
Court of special sessions (city . . . d o .......
court).

...d o .......

475,781

County.

54,242

18,915

City.......

25,292

16,219
37,991

475,781

...d o ....... -39,192
39,192
5 coun 5,737,492 5,737,492
ties; city.
City.......
38,466 » 38,466
County. 330,920 264,714
City.......
...d o .......

103,774
158,559

.¡ .d o .....

78,094

.. .do.......

30,404
103,066

Police court of Asheville..........

Police....... City.......

25,656

Municipal court of WinstonSalem.

Municipal. ...d o .......

33,136

NORTH CAROLINA.

162 Asheville..................
163 Winston-Salem.......
NORTH DAKOTA.

164 Fargo....................
165 Grand Forks............
166 Minot.................. .
167 Rugby......................

Juvenile division of district District. . .
court, third judicial district.
District court, first judicial . . .do_____
district.
District court, eighth judicial ...d o ..........
district.
District court, ninth judicial . .do..........
district.

3 coun
ties.
2 coun
ties.
4 coun
ties.
3 coun
ties.

<»60,280

17,872

o 38, 989

16,342

0 54,157

9,773

0 43,990

2,465

OHIO.

168 A k ron .....................

Common pleas court of Sum C o mmon County. 134,924
93,604
mit County, juvenile and do
pleas.
mestic relations division;
169 Bowling Green........
Juvenile court of Wood County Probate...
*46,330
5,335Juvenile court of Harrison . . .do.......... ...d o ..... *19,076
170 Cadiz.........................
2,128
County.
Hamilton County court of C o mmon ...d o ....... 498,143
171 Cincinnati___i ........
414,248
common pleas, domestic re
pleas.
lations division.
Probate court of Pickaway Probate...
172 Circleville___
*26,158
*6,744
County.
173 Cleveland................
Juvenile court of Cuyahoga Insolvency ...d o ....... 782,179 692,259
County.
174 Columbus................
Juvenile court of Franklin
263,253 220,135
County.
175 Dayton.....................
Court of common pleas of C o mmon ...d o ..-.. 188,300
128,939
Montgomery Countyj divi
pleas.
sion of domestic relations.
a State Census, Apr., 1915. No estimate for 1917 because of redivision of State into counties. From
Department of Commerce, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Bulletin 138, p. 38.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
f o r h earin g ch ild ren 's cases, 1918 —Continued.
Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Total.

Probation
service.

Fre
Special quency
Pub
of
court
Regular
licly
Pri
ses
room.
proba
sup vately
Phys Mental exami
sions.
tion
ported
sup
ical
Delin
nation, by
officers Other. deten ported Other. exami
quent.
whom given.
paid
tion deten
nation.
through
tion
home
court.
or
home.
room.

l/w k ..
N e c ...

y
/

—

V
V

3/w k ..

—

N e c ..;.

—

104

—

N e c ...

V
—

N. R.
*110

N. R.
88

V
V

2/wk..
l/w k ..

142
15,656

103
7,357

l/wk .
6/wk..

59
518

50
223

*514
488

464
306

N .R .

*150
*790

*100
600

y
V
y
V
y
y
y
V
y
y
y

N. R.
60

N. R.
48

*1,114

952

119

V
C .

V
y
V

3/m o..
3/w k..
l/w k ..
6/wk..
3/w k..

V
y
V

N ec...
2/w k..

l/w k ..

**200

N .R .

*259

N .R .

—

—
-

‘

—

y
y

—
. —
—
_

157
158
159

General prac 162
titioner.
N. R ................ 163

—

y
y

/■

—

Mental special 164
ist.
N. R ................ 165

—

y
y

Nec.................. 167

N. R ................ 168

y
y
y

N. R ................ 169
Specialist........ 170

N ec...

—

y
y

N ec...
N ec...

.
V

y
y

—

984

680

3/w k..

—

■ —

—

y
y

—

N ec...

V . 6/w k..
2/w k..
—

—

2/w k..

— .
I n s t it u t io n
clinic.
—

N. R ................ 160
State hospital 161
clinic.

40
22

353

—
155
School clinic. . 156

y
y

66
57

'979

—

153
154

1,092

y
y
y

151
152

2,997

_
Special teach
ers.
N. R ................
Court clinic. . .

2/w k..

2,473

150

163 ■ K

N .R .

149

—\

—

N ec...

N .R .

—
_

N ec...

*4,803

146
Institu t i o n 147
clinic.
Court clinic__ 148

—

—
—
_
—
_

y
y
y

—

•-

—
—
—
—
_
. --

y
V

y
y

—

130
N .R .

—

N .R .

*245
N .R .

.**220

Physical and mental
examination.

Method of detention.

y
y

■—

y
y

—. '. . \ y

166

Court clinic, 171
school clinic.
General prac
titioner.
S ch ool p s y
chologist.
U n iv e r s ity
clinic.
Mental special
ist.

172
173
174
175

■
* Approximate number estimated by court, ** Approximate number estimated by Children’s Bureau
on basis of partial reports sent in by courts.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS 1ST THE UNITED STATES
Ch a r t

III. — C ou rts re p o rtin g sp e c ia l org a n iza tio n
Jurisdiction.
Population.

Location.

Name of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

Of
total
area.

Of
largest
city.

om o—continued.
176
177

Elyria...

Lorain.

Findlay.

178

Hamilton.

179

Lima.......

180

Lisbon............ .

181

Mansfield.........

182

Marion___

183

Newark___

184

Ravenna...

185

Springfield.

186
187

East Liverpool.

St. Clairsville.
Bellaire.

Toledo............

188

Troy..............

189

Wapakoneta,

190

Warren____

191

West Union.

Piqua.

S t. Marys.

192 Youngstown.
193

Zanesville...........

Juvenile court of Lorain
County.
Probate court of Hancock
County.
Juvenile court of Butler
County.
Juvenile court of Allen County.
Juvenile court of Columbiana
County.
Juvenile court of Richland
County.
Juvenile court ol Marion
County.
Juvenile court of Licking
County.
Probate court of Portage
County.
Court of common pleas of
Clark County, juvenile divi
sion.
Juvenile court of Belmont
County.
The court of domestic rela
tions for Lucas County.
Juvenile court of Miami
County.
Juvenile court of Auglaise
County.
Probate court of Trumbull
County.
Juvenile court of Adams
County.
Court of common pleas, divi
sion of domestic relations for
Mahoning County.
Juvenile court of Muskingum
County.

Probate... County.

91,497

88, m

...d o .......... . ..d o.......

*37,860

*14,858

.. .do.......... ...d o .......

80,054

41,338

...d o .......... ...d o .......

62,860

37,145

...d o ..........

82,480

82,941

.. .do..........

50,132

23,051

.. .do..........

37,835

24,129

...d o ..........

61,809

30,317

...d o ..........

31,079

6,264

...d o .......

71,907

52,296

88,520

14,575

Common ...d o .......
pleas.
Probate...

221,318

202,010

46,464

14,275

Common
pleas.
Probate..."

...d o ..........

31,285

6,004

...d o ..........

57,271

13,308

*24,755

1,115

149,742

112,282

60,628

31,320

County court of Carter County. County.... County. *»25,358

10/963

Common
pleas.

...d o .......

Probate...

OKLAHOMA.

194

Ardmore.............
O R EG O N .

195

Portland.............

196

Chester................

197

Easton....................

198

Erie........................

199

H arrisburg..........

Juvenile department of the
county court of Multnomah
County.

County.... County.

316,114

308,399

134,800

41,857

PENNSYLVANIA.

200

Hollidaysburg

Altoona.

Juvenile court of Delaware
County.
Juvenile court of Northamp
ton County........................ ;.,
Juvenile court of Erie County

Q u a rter County.
sessions.
Common .. .do___
pleas.
Q u a rter . . . d o . . . .
sessions.
Juvenile court of Dauphin __ do.........
County.
Juvenile court of Blair County ....d o ........ .. . d o . . . .

148,089

30,854

127,960

76,592

151,998

73,276

126,202

59,712

Juvenile court of Cambria ___do......... .. . d o . . . . 210,874
70,473
County.
a Population as for Apr. 15,1910. No estimate made for 1917 as population for 1900 was not available.

201

Johnstow n....

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
f o r hearing ch ildren 's cases, 1918 —Continued.
Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Probation
service.

Method of detention.

Physical and mental
examination.

FreSpecial quency
Pubcourt
of
Regular
licly
Priroom.
sesprobar
sup- vately
Phys Mental examition
ported supofficers Other. deten ported Other. ical
Total. quent.
nation, by
examipaid
tion detennation. whom given.
through
tion
home
court.
or
home.
room.

178

132

2/w k..

1/w k..

*183

*94

N ec...

155

121

2/w k..

*70

*40

N ec...

—

N ec...

—

V
V:

—

• _

' _
V

48
171

■V

6/w k..

—

N ec...

—

N ec...

*245

151

1/wk.
and
nec.
N ec...

N .R .

N. R ..

—

145

N .R .

1/wk..

N ec...

—

174

150

—

2-4/wk.

J.0

N ec...

**990

N .R .

/
-

N. R ................ 178
V

General practitioner.

179

180

N. R ................ 181
182

General practitioner.
.....d o .............

___.do...........

184

183

....... do.............. 185

186
V

N. R ................ 187
U n iv e r s ity
clinic.

188

—

— .

—

3/wk.

State clinic__

192

—

General practitioner.

193

General practitioner.

194

563

214

—

nec.
N ec...

218

148

—

1/w k..

2,650

1,965

6/w k..

N .R .

N. R ..

—

1/wk..

*165

126

—

108

104

*87

*61

177

250

N. R ................ 176

—
_

189
General practitioner.

190
191

Psychologist.. 195

—

N ec...

U n iv e r s ity
clinic.
General practitioner.

Quarterly
ana
nec.
N ec...

_
_

—

__•

N ec...

196
197
198
199

N .R ................ 200

General prac- 201
titioner.
* Approximate number estimated by court. ** Approximate number estimated by Children’s Bureau
on basis of partial reports sent in by courts.

135315°—20----- 7

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Ch a r t III .— C ou rts re p o rtin g sp ecia l org a n iza tio n
Jurisdiction.
Popul ation.

Location.

Name of court.
Court
system.

Area
served.

Of
total
area.

Of
largest
city.

PENNSYLVANIA —C o n td .

202
203

New Castle................... Juvenile court of Lawrence Q u arter County..
sessions.
County.
Norristown................... Juvenile court of Montgomery __ do......... ...d o ___
County.

206
207
208
209

phia*

...d o ......... County.. 1,196,138

586,196

200,454

111,607

307,556

149,541

181,271

22,076

County.
Reading......................... Juvenilecourt of Berks County Q uar t e r ...d o __
sessions.
...d o ..........
• venile branch, Lackawanna .
County.
ington County, juvenile departaient.
West Chester................ Juvenile court of Chester ...d o .......... ...d o ___
County.

2X0

County.

211
212

41,915
31,969

County. . . City....... 1,735,514 1,735,514

204
205

79,512
191,779

County.
Juvenile court ofYork County.

Y ork..

119,082

13,403

406,009

78,334

84,571

34,123

150,997

52,770

RHODE ISLAND.

District. . . City.......

60,666

1 city, 1
town.
dicial district.
Woonsocket.................. Twelfth judicial district court. . ..d o .. . . . . ...d o .. . .

267,048

259,895

48,266

45,365

City........... City.......

35,165

County — County..

33,795

16,887

Citv........... City.......
Knoxville..................... Juvenile court of Knox County C ou n ty... County..

*8,548
108; 702

*8,548
59,112

219,090

151,877

168,942

118,136

213
214
215

dicial district.

SOUTH CAROLINA.

216

pal court.*
SOUTH DAKOTA.

217

Sioux Falls.............. .

Juvenile division of county
court of Minnehaha County.

TENNESSEE.

219

City...........

220
221

County.
TEXAS.

222

A ustin.......................... Juvenile court of TravisCounty. C o u n ty ... County.
...d o ..........

223
County.
225

227

35,612
129,738
69; 149

149,593

109,597

. ..d o ..........

153,582

116,878

Juvenile court of Bexar County ...d o ..........

156,360

128,215

County.
San Antonio................

61,631
174,451
70,801

* Approximate number estimated by court. ** Approximate number estimated by Children’s Bureau
on basis of partial reports sent in ’by courts.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES.
f o r h earin g ch ild ren 's cases, 1918 —Continued.

Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Probation
service.

•

Physical and mental
examination.

Method of detention.

Special quency
court
of
Regular
licly
Priproba
sup vately
sions.
Phys Mental exami
tion
ported
sup
Delin
Total. quent.
officers Other. deten ported Other. ical
nation, by
exami whom
paid
tion deten
given.
nation.
through
home
tion
court.
or
home.
room.

N e c ...

133

—

—
—

6,657

250

1/wk.
and
nec.
6/wk..

1,464

1,036

2/wk..

221

135

2/mo..

718

453

101

—

1/mo.
and
nec.
l/w k ..

208

689

471

c.
c.

137

—

—'

Court clin ic... 204

' V

........do............L 205

N .R ................ 206

N. R ............... 207
N .R ............... 208

_
_

—

210

jit

Physician and 211
school nurse.
Physician....... 212

—

— ■

—

1/m o..

—

1/wk..

—

6/wk..

—

-r-

182

136

1/wk..

529

N .R .

1/wk

203

614

202

—

1/wk.
and
nec.
N ec...

*70

Genera] pracU n iv e r s ity
clinic.

.--

N ec...

682

V
V

General prac-

—

;

209

213

N. R ................ 214

—

Psychologist.. 216

. R . . , : . ....... 215

nec.
*120

*78

N .R .
349

N .R .
257

**1,090

768

1,080

824

—

N ec...

2/wk..
1/wk..

—

/
V

N. R ............... 218
U n i v e r s i t y 219

Court clin ic... 220

221

Specialist........ 222

c.
c.

3/wk..

—

4/wk.
and
nec.

—

N ec...

—

1/wk..
3/mo..

V
V

265
256

N .R .
156

N .R .

1/w k..

312

263

—

2/wk..

**250

N .R .

N .R ..

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

—

—
_

|/(girls)

V ■
V

N. R ................ 217

/
1

N. R ....... ........

223
224

N. R ........ .

225

Mental specialists.
General practitioner.

227

226

100

.COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Ch a r t I I I . — Courts reporting special organization
Jurisdiction.
Population.

Location.

Name of court.
Court
system.

228
229

Area
served.

Juvenile court of the second Independ- 3 counties.
enti.
judicial district.
Salt Lake City.............. Juvenile court of the third ju ...d o .......... ...d o ___
dicial district.

Of
total
area.

57,001
N. R.

Of
largest
city. ,

32,343i
121,623

VIRGINIA.

Juvenile court of Norfolk.

230
231

Richmond..................... Juvenile and domestic rela
tions court of Richmond.

232

Roanoke...................... . Police court of Roanoke.

233

Bellingham-................ L Superior court of Whatcom
County (juvenile depart
ment).
Superior court of Snohomish
County (juvenile depart
ment).
Juvenile court of King County
S p ok ane.................... . Juvenile court; of Spokane
County.
Tacoma......................... Juvenile court of PierceCounty

Independ- City.......
ent.

91,148

158,702

46,282

46,282'

68,048

34,362:

84,946

37,205

412,077
199'160

366,445
157' 655

WASHINGTON.

234
235
236
237
238

Superior. . County..

168,476 : 117,446

Yakima — ..................s. Superior court of Yakima
County (juvenile depart
ment).

62,043

22,058

WEST VIRGINIA.

239

Morgantown.................. Juvenile court of Monongalia
County.

Circuit---- 1 county

28,192

14,444

240

Wheeling....................... Criminal court for Ohio County Criminal. . County..

64,541

43, 657

WISCONSIN

245

Beloit......................... .. Juvenile branch of municipal Municipal. Part of
court of Beloit.
Superior court of Dane County. Superior. . County..
Madison...
Juvenile court of Milwaukee
Milwaukee.
County.
Municipal court of Oshkosh Municipal. ...d o ___
Oshkosh.
and Winnebago County.
Juvenilecourt ofRacine County
Racine. .

246

Superior.

241
242
243
244

Superior court of Douglas
County.

Superior. . ...d o ___

♦Approximate number estimated by court.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

N. R.

18,547

83,275
508,496

31,315
445,008

64,956

36,549

66,023

47,465

55,515

47,167

101

HEARING CHILDREN S CASES,
f o r hearing children’s cases, 1918—•Continued.
.
Number of
cases reported
in last fiscal
year.

Probation
service.

Physical and mental
examination.

Method of detention.

Fre
Special quency
Pub
court
of
Pri
Regular
licly
room.
ses proba
sup vately
Phys Mental exami
sions.
ported
sup
tion
Delin
ical
Total. quent.
officers Other. deten ported Other. exami
nation, by
paid
tion deten
nation. whom given.
through
tion
home
or
home.
court.
room.

N .R .

3/wk..

1,491

1,191

3/wk.
and
nec.

—

N .R .

N .R ..

1,711

1,604

3/wk - -

280

N.R_.

N .R .

white
and
colored.

~ -

N .R ..............

N . R ............... 230

U n iv e r s ity
clinic.

“
V

228

V
*■.

yl 2 for

N . R ..

----

■■

229

231

232

2/mo..

V .

N . R ., phy
sician.

233

—

N ec..

—

School psy
chologist.

234

822
N .R .

551
N .R .

2/wk..
2/wk..

V
l'

—

v
V-

—

V
f

Court clin ic... 235
Specialist........ 236

210

186

—

v -

c.
c.

N ec...

N ec....

*54

*72

*61

N ec...

]/
}/

2/m o..
1/wk..

—

N ec...

1/wk..

1/wk.
and
nec.

*112
2,845

N .R .
1,582

169

121

N .R .

General prac
titioner.

3-4/wk.
and
nec.
N ec...

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

/•

General prac
titioner.

—

General prac
titioner.
N . R . . . ...........
Mental spe
cialist.
Psychologist. .

241

—

—
—

245

246

—

239
240

V
V

237
238

—

V
V

242
243
244

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS.
U n it e d S ta t e s D e p a r t m e n t

L a b o r , C h il d r e n ’s B u r e a u , W a s h in g t o n .

J U V E N IL E C O U RTS O R CO U RTS H E A R IN G J U V E N IL E C A SE S.

Q u estion n aire to be an sw ered by ju d g e.

(We will welcome details about your court. If more space is desired please use an
additional sheet.)
Official name of court -...............................................................................................................
City, town, or village.................................................... District.
County................................................................................... State;
I.

Jurisdiction.

1. Is there a special judge giving his whole time to children’s ca ses? .....................
2. Is there a woman referee to assist the judge in girls’ cases? .......................................
3. Indicate by a check which of the following classes of cases were heard in your juven
ile sessions during your last fiscal year:
(a) Delinquent children.
(&) Neglected children.
(c) Destitute or dependent.
(d) Truant children.
(e) Questions of adoption.
(/) Other children (specify).
(g) Child labor.
(h) Nonsupport or desertion.
(i) Contributing to neglect or delinquency.
(j) Divorce or alimony.
(k) Mothers’ pensions.
(l) Other adult (specify).
4. Is there any effort being made in your community to combine in one court all family
and child problems? ........................................................... - ............................................
5. Does your court have an advisory board of citizens? ............................ - .....................
If so, how is this board secured? ......................... What are its d u ties? ....................
II.

P robation Opficers.

1. How many paid probation officers are there who give full time to children’s cases:
(a) Men? ................................................. (b) Women? ...................................... . . . .
2. Are officers appointed by (a) civil service examination? ....................... (b) The
judge?................................. (c) Other method of examination or appointment?
......................... ........... Is the examination written, oral, or b o th ? ...............................
3. How long is the term of office? ..........................................................................................
. Are officers paid yearly salaries?---- - — ..............How much? ................ .............
If not yearly salaries, how are they paid and how m u c h ? ............. ..........................
4. Are there other persons officially authorized to make investigations or do probation
work for the court?......................... (a) Paid probation officers who give part
t im e ? ...................... (b) Volunteers? ........ ................... (c) Agents from private
societies?............'.......... .
(d) Public officials such as sheriff, truant officer,
public relief agent, police, etc. (specify)?................................................. - ...............
103

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

104

COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

5. Does the court require regular reports of the child’s progress from special Or volun
teer officers?....... ......................................................................... . ...................................
'6. Are children placed on probation to the judge? .......... .......... .................................. ..
III. H e a r in g s .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Are children’s cases heard separately from adults?
Is there a special court-room for children’s eases?
How often are children’s sessions h e ld ? ....... .........
Are delinquent, neglected, or destitute cases heard in separate sessions?................
Are hearings open to the public without restriction? .................................................
Is a parent or guardian of the child always present at the hearing? .........................
Are the children detained before hearing or during continuance in—
(а) Special detention h om e?............................................ .........................................
(б) Jail or lock-up? .............. If so, what provision for separation from adults?

(c) Any other place (specify)? ....... ................................................ ............ ...............
8. If a tepecial detention home is provided, is it supported by public or private funds?
Who appoints the matron?
IY. D is p o s it io n

Ca s e s .

1. Are fines or costs assessed against children? .
If so, (a) may they be paid in installments?
(6) Are parents expected to pay them for the children? ............................................ ............................
2. Is restitution for damages or reparation for injury ordered by the co u rt? ..............
3. Are commitments to institutions indeterm inate?.................................... : ...................
4. Are children released without the consent of the court from institutions—
(a) For delinquents? ......... ..............................................................r ___ ; .................
(&) For neglected children? ........................................................................................
(c) For destitute or dependent children? . ................................................................
(d) For truant children?.................................................. .........................................
5. Are any judgments given when the judge has not seen the child (please give illus
tration)?..... ........ ...................................... ......................................................; .................
6. What disposition does your court make of truant children? ....... ..............................
7. Are complaints against children dealt with informally without a court hearing?..
8. Does the judge inform the parents and the child of his decision so that they may
realize the situation? .......... ............................................................................................
Y. R e l a t io n

P r o b a t io n

and

Ch il d W e l f a r e .

1. Are there any special features of your court to which you would like to call atten
tion? ............................................................... ............ ......................... ............................
2, Does the court take an active part in preventing delinquency and neglect by sys
tematically cooperating with the schools, police, and other agencies, or by pro
moting legislation? (Please give details of such work done by your court.)
Signature of the judge
Official title.
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t

L a b o r , Ch il d r e n ’s B u r e a u , W a s h in g t o n .

j u v e n il e c o u r t .

Q u estion n aire f o r p ro b a tio n officer.

City, town, or village
County.........................

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

District
State. . .

H E A R IN G

C H I L D R E N ’S C A S E S .

105

I. I n v e s t ig a t io n s .

Are all cases investigated before the judge renders his decisions?

What cases, if any, are not investigated?

Who makes the investigation?

4. Does the investigation include:
(а) An interview with the child?.................................... ........
(б) A visit to his home?.......................... - ................................
(c) A visit to his school?............................ . . . ........................
(d) Conference with social agencies?.................................—
5. Is the person making the investigation present at the hearing?.
6. What provision is made for physical examination of children?
Who makes the examination?.. . : .............. ....................................
Who determines what cases are to be examined?........................
How many court cases were examined last year?................
(Give estimate, if exact figures are not obtainable.)

7. What provision is made for mental examination of children?.
Who makes the examination?....................................................
Who determines what cases are to be examined?.......................
How many cases were examined last year?................................
(Give estimatej if exact figures are not obtainable.)

II. S u p e r v is io n a n d P r o b a t io n W o r k .
How often do officers make visits to homes of probationers?...

2. Do delinquent boys report to officers?............ How often?.............. Where?........ .
Do delinquent girls report to officers?............How often?-........... . .Where?...............
3. Are probationary periods indeterminate?..................... ........................ ........................
4. Who terminates probation: (a) The court?..................(b) Probation officer?...........
5. Does the court place out children in family homes:
(a) Delinquent?.........................................Number last year?................... ....... ..
(&) Neglected or destitute?......................... Number last year?-----.rM,.................
6. Are such homes secured by: (a) The court?.............. (&) A private agency?.............
(c) Public agency?..................(d) Who supervises the child while placed out?
7. Is there any agency doing a definite part of the work of the court?.............................
Specify..................................................................................... .......................- ...................
III. R ecords and R eports.
1. Is a written record made of each investigation?............................................................. .
2. Are later visits to the child or reports from him recorded in writing?.........................
3. Are such records kept in permanent form?............................. "... Or in a personal
notebook of probation officer?............................................ Are they considered
confidential?........................................... (Please send copies of all forms used.
Official mail label is inclosed.)
4. Does the court send the institution to which a child is committed a report of the
investigation and history of the case?.................................................................... .......
5.

Does the court compile an annual report of its work?..........................................
(6) Is this published?...... ................................... (Please send last report; or if
it is not published as a separate document, please state where it may be obtained.)
(a )

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

106

COURTS IN

THE

IY . O r g a n iza tio n

U N IT E D

ST A T ES

P r o b a t io n S t a f f .

(This section is to be answered only for courts employing more than one probation
officer.)
1, If there are several probation officers, are cases assigned:
(а) By district?.......................................................................... ....................................
(б) By race or color?................................... •..................................... ............................
(c) By qualifications of certain officers for handling certain types of children?
(d) Are girls assigned only to women?................................... ....................................
(e) Are older boys assigned only to men?...................................................................
( f ) Does the same officer handle both adults and children?.................................
2. Are there officers (a) Of different races?...........................................................................
( b ) Speaking foreign language (specify what language)?........................................
3. Is the work of probation officers supervised and directed by: (a) Chief probation
officer?.....................................( b) Judge?......... ............................ (c) Other (specify)?
How many supervising officers, if any?.......... ............. -.......................
How many cases are assigned to one officer?......................................
Signature of probation officer.................................
Official title.

U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t

L a b o r , C h il d r e n ’s B u r e a u , W a s h in g t o n .

JU V E N IL E CO U RTS OR COURTS H E A R IN G JU V E N IL E C A SE S.

Q u estion n aire f o r cleric o f court.
S p e c ia l n ote to the cleric.—These questions refer to juvenile cases, and adult cases
heard in your juvenile court during the last fiscal year of the court. If no statistics
have been compiled, please give estimates.
Name of court................................................................ .............................................................
City, town, or village.............. D istrict............. County.............. S tate..................
1. Delinquent cases:
(а) Number of cases heard............. ................................... ........... ..........................
If possible give also:
(б) Number dismissed upon hearing.. . .................................................. ......... .....
(c) Number placed on probation..............................................................................
(d) Number committed to institutions.......... ............... .'.....................................
2. Neglected cases:
(а) Number of cases heard........................... ...........................................................
If possible give also:
(б) Number of families from which these children came. 1 . . . . . , ......................
(c) Number dismissed upon hearing.....................................................................:
(d) Number placed under supervision.......................................................... .........
(e) Number committed to institutions..... ............................... .................. .........
3. Dependent cases:
(а) Number of cases heard........................................................................ ..............
If possible give also:
(б) Number of families from which children came.................................... .........
(c) Number placed under supervision................................. .............................. ..
(d) Number committed to institutions....................................................................
4. Other children’s cases, e. g., Number of truant cases, Cases of mental defectives,
etc........................................................................... ......................... ..................................

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

107

H E A R IN G C H IL D R E N ’S CASES.

Adult cases heard in juvenile sessions or family court: :
Number of cases of the following classes:
Child labor................... ........... : .......................... .......
Nonsupport or desertion................. .............................................
Contributing to neglect or delinquency........................... .................
Divorce or alimony....................... ................................ ...................
Mothers’ pensions.........................................................................
Other adult (specify)..................... .. ..................................................
Please state if figures given are estim ates:..................................................
Yes.

Signature of clerk

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

No.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX C. REPORTS RELATING TO WORK OF COURTS
HEARING CHILDREN’S CASES.
Child Welfare in Alabama, “ Juvenile Courts and Probation, ” b y Mrs.
W. L. Murdoch, pp. 147-162. National Child Labor Committee, New York., 1918.
C a l if o r n ia . San Francisco. Annual Report San Francisco Juvenile Court, 1916,
and Report of the San Francisco Juvenile Detention Home, 1916-17.
Co lo rad o . Denver. Report of the Juvenile Court, C ity and County of Denver,
Colorado, 1909-10.
C o n n ec t ic u t . Bailey, William B., Ph. D. Children Before the Courts in Con
necticut, pp. 35-53, 71-88. U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 43, De
pendent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes Series No. 6, Washington, 1917.
— -- Report of the Connecticut Prison Association Concerning the Operation of
the Probation Law, 1915 and 1916. Hartford, 1917.
——— Hartford. Melvin, Anna D. (Juvenile Probation Officer): Hartford Chil
dren and Hartford Courts.
----- — Manchester. Annual Reports of the Selectmen and Town Officers of the
Town of Manchester, 1917.
-------— New Britain. Municipal Record, New Britain, Connecticut, 1916-17, pp.
107-108.
D e l a w a r e . Richardson, C. Spencer: Dependent, Delinquent, and Defective
Children of Delaware, pp. 10-16. Department of Child-Helping, Russel Sage
Foundation, New York City, March, 1918.
— -- Wilmington. Report of the Wilmington Juvenile Court and Probation
Association, 1916-17.
D istr ic t o f C o l u m b ia . Reports of Clerk and Chief Probation Officer, Juvenile
Court, District of Columbia, 1916-17. U. S. House of Representatives, 64th Cong.,
1st sess., Document No. 594, Washington, 1918.
I l l in o is . Chicago (Cook County). Juvenile Court and Juvenile Detention Home,
Cook County, 111. Annual Reports of Chief Probation Officer, and Superintendent
Juvenile Detention Home, 1917..
I n d ia n a . Indianapolis (Marion County). Biennial Report of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court of Marion County, Ind., 1910-1912.
I o w a . Davenport (Scott County). Financial Report of Scott County, Iowa, for the
Year 1917, pp. 58-60. County Auditor.
/
L o u is ia n a . New Orleans. General Summary of Work in the Juvenile Court of
New Orleans, 1917.
M a in e . Calais (Washington County). Report of the Probation Officer to County
Commissioners. (In other document.) 1917. Foster, George M., Probation
Officer.
•-------- Portland. Report of Probation Officer to County Commissioners. (In other
document.) 1917. Grover, George W., Probation Officer.
M a r y l a n d . Baltimore. Report of the Juvenile Court of Baltimore City, 1912-13.
-------- ---------- Report of the Board of Police Commissioners for the City of Baltic
more for the Year 1917, pp. 38-39.
— -- Cumberland (Allegany County). Report of the Juvenile Court in and for
Allegany County, 1912-13.
109
A la ba m a .

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

110

COUKTS I N T H E U N IT E D STATES

Boston. Baker, Judge Harvey H.: “ Procedure of the Boston
Juvenile. Court.” In The Survey, vol. 23 (Feb. 5, 1910), pp. 643-652.
—— — Boston and all other courts in State. Second Annual Report of the Bureau
of Prisons.of Massachusetts, 1917, pp. 150-153. Public Document No. 115, Boston,
1918.
>—----- Tenth Annual Report of the Massachusetts .Commission on Probation, Year
Ending September 30, 1918. Public Document No. 85, Boston, 1919.
--------* Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Thirtyeighth Annual Report, 1917-18, Boston.
M ic h ig a n . Bay City (Bay County). Report of the Probation Officer for Bay County*
1916-17. ,
M in i iESOTA. Minneapolis (Hennepin County). The Juvenile Court of Hennepin
County, Minn., 1916-17.
■ ---- St. Paul (Ramsey County). The Twelfth Annual Report of the Chief Proba
tion Officer of Ramsey County, 1916-17.
M is s o u r i . Kansas City (Jackson County). Eighth Annual Report of Juvenile Court,
Jackson County. Kansas City, Mo., 1911.
■ ---- St. Louis. Report of the Juvenile Court and Probation Office for the Years
1914 and 1915. St. Louis, 1917.
N e w H a m p s h ir e . Twelfth Biennial Report of the New Hampshire State Board of
Charities and Corrections, 1917-18, pp. 75-77.
-------- Franklin. Twenty-third Annual Report of the Municipal Government of the
City of Franklin for the Financial Year 1917, p. 81.
N e w J e r s e y . Jersey City (Hudson County). Report of the Probation Officer of th e
County of Hudson, N. J., 1911 and 1912.
• ---- Newark (Essex County). Seventeenth Annual Report of the Probation Offi
cer of the County,of Essex, State of New Jersey, 1917-18.
N e w Y o r k . Eleventh Annual Report of the New York State Probation Commis
sion for the year 1917, Albany, 1918.
• ---- Albany (Cohoes, Watervliet, Rensselaer, Troy). Condensed Report of the
Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society, 1917, p. 11.
• ---- Buffalo. Seventh Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Buffalo, N. Y.,
1918.
• ---- Gloversville. Mayor’s Annual Message with the Annual Reports to the Com
mon Council of the City'of Gloversville, 1917, p. 60.
-------- Lackawanna. Annual Report of the City Court and Probation Office, Lacka
wanna, N. Y., 1916.
• ---- New York City. Annual Report of the Children’s Court of the City of New
York, 1917.
• ---- Ogdensburg (St. Lawrence County). Annual Report of John M. Nichols,
Probation Officer, St. Lawrence County, 1916-17.
-------- Syracuse. Special Sessions Court, Syracuse, N. Y. Annual Report of the
Children’s Court and Chief Probation Officer, for the year ending November 30,
1918.
-------- Yonkers. Report of the Chief Probation Officer of the Court of Special Ses
sions of Yonkers, N. Y., 1918.
N o r th Ca r o l in a . Child Welfare in North Carolina, “ Dependency and Delin
quency,” by Mabel Brown Ellis, pp. 0-105. National Child Labor Committee,
New York, 1918.
• ---- Winston-Salem (Forsyth County). First Annual Report of the Chief Proba
tion Officer, Winston-Salem and Forsyth County, March 1, 1918, to February 28,
1919.
M a ss a c h u s e t t s .

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

H E A R IN G C H IL D R E N S CASES.

Ill

Cincinnati (Hamilton County). First Annual Report, Court -of Common
Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Hamilton County t Cincinnati, Ohio, 1915.
-------- Columbus (Franklin County). Fifth Annual Report of the Juvenile Court,
Franklin County, Ohio, 1910-11. Columbus.
-------- Dayton (Montgomery County). First Annual Report, Court of Common
Pleas, Montgomery County, Division of Domestic Relations, 1917.
O k la h o m a . Child Welfare i n Oklahoma, “ Juvenile Courts and Probation,” by
Mabel Brown Ellis, pp. 141-163. National Child Labor Committee, New York,
1917.
O r e g o n . Slingerland, W. H., Ph. D.: Child Welfare Work in Oregon, pp. 10-14,
32-34, 103-106. Extension Division, University of Oregon, Salem, 1918.
P e n n s y l v a n ia . Allentown (Lehigh County). Report of the Probation Officer of
Lehigh County, Pa., 1917.
■
-------- Media (Delaware County). Fifteenth Annual Report of the Juvenile Court
Committee of Delaware County, Pa., 1916-17.
•------ — Norristown (Montgomery County). Thirteenth Annual Report of the Pro
bation Officer of the Juvenile Court of Montgomery County, 1917.
-------- Philadelphia. Fourth Annual Report of the Municipal Court of Philadel
phia. 1917.
-------- Pittsburgh (Allegheny County). Annual Statement of the County Court of
Allegheny County, Pa., 1917.
-------- Reading (Berks County). Seventeenth Annual Financial RepKgrt of Berks
County, Pa., 1917, pp. 4 4 -4 6 , County Comptroller.
U t a h . Biennial Report of the Clerk of the Juvenile Court Commission, 1915 a n d
1916. • Salt Lake City, Utah, 1917.
~
. <• to V ir g in ia . Alexandria, Clifton Forge) Danville, Lynchburg, Portsmouth, Norfolk,
Richmond, Roanoke. Ninth Annual Report of the State Board of Charities and
Corrections, 1916-17, pp. 70-80, Richmond, 1918.
-------- Richmond. Third Annual Report of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court of the City of Richmond, Va., 1918.
W a s h in g t o n . Seattle. The Seattle Juvenile Court Report for the Year 1918.
W is c o n s in . Milwaukee (Milwaukee County). A Report of the Juvenile Court of
Milwaukee County, Wis., 1910-11.
W y o m in g . Biennial Report of the Wyoming Humane Society and State Board of
Child and Animal Protection 1915-16, pp. 11 38, 50-51.

O h io .

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

INDEX
Adoption cases, 18,31.
Advisory boards, 19, 71.
Agencies, cooperation with., 9,17,19,71.
(See also Boards, bureaus, children's home
and aid societies, humane societies, juvenile
protective associations, Juvenile Court and
Probation Association of Wilmington'
societies for prevention of cruelty to chil"
dren, State boards.)
Almshouses as places of detention, 49.
Annual reports, 61.
Areas served by courts, 11, 16, 27,34.
Boarding in family homes, 13, 48.
Boards:
Advisory, 19, 71.
Child-welfare, 72.
Local and county, 9,17,19,71.
Of children’s guardians, 73,74.
Of county visitors, 72.
State boards of charities, 19,57,58,73, 74.
Boston State Hospital, Psychopathic Department,
66.

Bureaus of child and animal protection, 74.
Cases, juvenile:
Annually before courts, 11.
Number reported, 11.
Chancery procedure, 8, 29, 33.
Chicago Juvenile Court:
Complaint department, 43.
Establishment of, 7.
First juvenile court, 7.
Juvenile Psychopathic Institute, 65.
Chief probation officers, 25.
Child:
A ward of the court, 8,31.
Treated as a criminal, 41.
Child-welfare boards, 72.
Children’s home and aid societies, 73.
Circuit courts, areas served by, 34.
City clinics, 67.
City courts as juvenile courts, 35, 75.
Civil procedure in juvenile cases, 8.
Civil service appointment of probation officers, 56.
Classification of courts:
According to organization, 29.
According to population of area served, 27.
Clinics, 64.
{See also Mental examinations.)
College clinics and examiners, 67.
Colorado:
Juvenile court law, 7.
Masters of discipline, 38,55.
Commissions on probation, 18, 56.
Commission :rs, juvenile court:
North Dakota, 34, 38.
Utah, 56, 57.
Commitment to institutions, 43.

135315°—20-----8

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Community cooperation, 19.
Complaints, handling of:
Chicago Juvenile Court, 43.
Informal, 42.
Concurrent jurisdiction, 34.
Conferences of probation officers, 58.
Connecticut Prison Association, 56,57.
Contributing to delinquency or neglect, 18, 30.
Cooperation of court with social agencies, 9,17,19,
71.
County boards:
And agencies, 71.
Of child welfare, 19, 72.
Of children’s guardians, 73, 74.
County clinics, 67.
County courts as juvenile courts, 33, 34, 75.
County organization, possibilities of, 16.
County system:
Advisory boards, 16, 34.
Chautauqua County, 16.
Clinics, 16, 34.
Detention homes, 16, 34.
Erie County (N. Y.) probation system, 16.
Financial benefits resulting from, 34.
Of courts, 33, 34.
Of probation, 16, 34.
Possibilities of, 16.
Prevalence, 33, 34.
Court clinics and examiners, 65.
Court systems having jurisdiction over children’s
cases, 75.
Courts:
City, 35, 75.
County, 33, 34, 75.
District, 33, 34, 75.
Established by special laws, 37, 75.
General or not specially organized, 12, 29, 31.
Independent, 12, 30, 33, 75.
In rural areas, 15,32, 35.
Juvenile cases reporting, number, 11.
Municipal, 35, 75.
Number handling children’s cases, 25.
Omitted from the study, 22.
Replying to questionnaires,.11, 25, 26,28.
Specially organized, 12,29,82.
Systemshaving juvenile jurisdicticn, 33, 75.
Criminal, child treated as, 41.
Criminal procedure in juvenile cases, 8,33.
Delinquent children:
Girls’ cases, 9,29, 39.
Jurisdiction of court, 7.
Number of cases reported, 11.
Denver Juvenile Court, establishment of, 7.
Dependent children:
Jurisdiction of court over, 7.
Number of cases reported, 11
Desertion cases, 18,30.

113

114

IN D E X .

Detention:
Almshouse, 49.
Area served, 46,47.
Family homes or homes of court officials, 48.
Homes and rooms, 13, 46.
Institutions, 48, 49.
Jails, 13, 45, 49.
Methods of, 17,29, 45.
Other expedients, 48.
Parental homes, 45.
Provision limited to certain classes of children,
47.
Requirements for, 9.
Support of homes, 46, 47.
Determinate commitment, 43.
Development of specialization, 15.
Disposition of cases, 40.
Commitments, 43.
Comparison of, in Chicago and other Illinois
courts, 40.
Fines, 9, 42.
Punitive in nature, 9,41.
(See also Probation.)
District courts:
Areas served, 34.
As juvenile courts, 33, 75.
Divorce cases, 18,30.
Domestic relations cases, 18, 30.
Elementary schools, mental clinics and examiners
in, 68.
Erie county (N. Y.) county plan of probation, 16.
Evidence, legal and social, 9.
Family cases, 18, 30.
Family courts, 18.
Family homes as places of detention, 48.
Filing system for legal and social information, 9.
Fines, 9,42.
Forms for record-keeping, 60.
G-eneral courts, 31.
Areas served, 32.
Lack of organization, 31.
Results secured, 31.
General practitioners as mental examiners, 68.
Girls’ cases, 13, 39.
Guardianship cases, 18,30.
Hearings:
Children separate from adults, 8, 12, 29, 39.
Girls’ cases, 9,12.
New York City Children’s Court, Manhattan
branch, 40. .
History of juvenile court movement, 7.
Homes of court officials as places of detention, 48.
Humane societies cooperating with courts, 74.
Illegitimacy cases, 18, 30.
Illinois:
Comparison of dispositions, Chicago and rest of
State, 40.
Juvenile court law, 7.
Juvenile Psychopathic Institute, 65, 66.
(See also Chicago Juvenile Court.)
Independent juvenile courts, 12, 30, 33, 75.
Indeterminate commitment, 43.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Informal handling of complaints, 42.
Institutions:
As places of detention, 48, 49.
Commitments and release, 43.
Mental examinations, provision for, 66.
Investigation, 17.
Jails as places of detention, 13, 45, 49.
Judge Baker Foundation, Boston, 18, 72.
Judges:

Lists obtained for study, 21.
Method of appointment, 37.
• Replying to questionnaire, 25.
Rotating, 34.
Specialized, 37.
Specially assigned, 22, 29,34.
With general powers, attitude of, 41.
Women, 39.
Jurisdiction:
Concurrent, 34.
Juvenile court, 7.
Juvenile boards, 72, 73.
Juvenile court acts upheld by courts, 9,10.
Juvenile court movement:
History, 7, 8,15.
Origin, 7.
Tendencies, 15.
Juvenile Court Commission of Utah, 56, 57.
Juvenile Court and Probation Association of Will
mington, Del., 71.
Juvenile courts established by special laws, 75.
Juvenile protective associations, 71.
Juvenile Psychopathic Institute of Illinois, 17, 65,
66.
Laws:
Codification of juvenile, 33.
Establishing first juvenile courts, 7.
Interpretation of, 26.
Under which children’s courts operate, 33.
Legal records, 29.59, CO.
Local boards and agencies, 9,17,19, 71.
Masters of discipline, Colorado, 38, 55.
Medico-psychological work in courts, 17.
Mental examinations:
Bureau of Juvenile Research, Ohio, 66.
City and county clinics, 67.
College clinics and examiners, 67.
Court clinics, 14,17,65.
Courts reporting mental examinations, 14,63.
Elementary school clinics, 68.
General practitioners as examiners, 68.
Institution clinics and examiners. 66.
Judge Baker Foundation, 18.
Juvenile Psychopathic Institute, Illinois, 65>66.
Mental hygiene societies, 68.
Normal school clinics and examiners, 67.
Other examiners, 68.
Out-patient clinics, 66.
Resources for, 64.
Standards of, 64.
States reporting none, 69.
University clinics and examiners, 67.
Method of conducting survey, 11,21.
Municipal courts as juvenile courts, 35, 75,

INDEX.
National Probation Association:
Committee on Domestic Relations Courts, 18.
Committee on Children’s Courts, 21.
Survey made at request of, 11.
Neglected children, jurisdiction over, 7.
New York City Children’s Court, hearings in Man
hattan branch, 40.
Nonsupport cases, 18, 30.
Normal schools, provision for mental examinations,
67.
Number of juvenile cases annually before courts, 11.

Records—Continued.
Legal and social, 29, 59,60L
State supervision of probation, 59.
Uniformity, lack of, 60.
Referees:
Authorization, 16,38.
For girls’ cases, 13, 39.
In various States and cities, 16, 38, 39.
Juvenile court commissioners in North Dakota,
34, 38.
Masters of discipline in Colorado, 38.
Release from institutions, 43.
Reports:
Annual reports, 61.
List of, received by Children’s Bureau, 109.
(See also Records.)
Rotating judges, 34.
Rural areas:
Advantages of county plan, 16.
Children in, 34.
Courts in, 15, 32, 34, 35.
Detention homes serving, 46.
Mental examinations, 64.
Probation service, 52, 54, 55.
Proportion of courts serving, 11, 27.
Record system for courts, 60.

Ohio Bureau of Juvenile Research, 66.
Organization:
City and rural courts, 27.
For hearing children’s cases, 8.
Probation staffs, 51.
Out-patient clinics of State hospitals, 66.
Petition and summons, 9.
Physical examination, 14,17,63.
Police probation officers, 55.
Prevention of juvenile delinquency, 19
Probate courts as juvenile courts, 33.
Probation commissions, State, 18, 56..
Probation committees, 72, 73.
Probation officers:
Classification, 13, 53.
Duties, 51.
Lists obtained for study, 21.
Method of appointment, 56, 79.
Police, 55.
Replying to questionnaire, 25, 26.
School attendance officers, 55.
State conferences, 58.
Probation service:
Amount, 13, 51.
County plan, 16, 34.
Courts without, 13, 52.
Disposition of cases in Chicago and rest of State,
40.
Erie County (N. Y.) plan, 16.
Necessity for, 9, 51.
Organized staffs, 51.
State supervision, 56.
States reporting, 53.
Types, 53.
Procedure in juvenile cases:
Elimination of criminal aspects, 8,10.
Indicated by laws, 33.
(See also Hearings.)
Purpose of survey, 10.
Purpose of juvenile court action, 8, 9, 41.
Questionnaire:
Forms used, 103, 104, 106.
Method of study, 10, 21.
Replies, 26.

Records:
Forms, 60.
Inadequate in many courts, 14,59.
In rural courts, 60.

Small-town courts, necessity for organization, 15.
Social evidence necessary for proper disposition of
child, 9.
Social records, inadequacy of, 14.
Socialization of courts dealing withfamily cases, 18.
Societies for the prevention of cruelty to children,
47, 74.

Specialization:
Development of, 15.
Judges, 37.
Specially organized courts, 12, 29, 82.
State boards of charities:
Cooperation of, 19, 74.
Reports required by, 73, 74.
Supervision of probation work, 57.
State hospitals, out-patient clinics, 66.
State institutions, mental clinics and examiners, 67.
State Prison Association, Connecticut, 56,57.
State probation commissions, 18, 56.
State probation officers, 56, 57.
State probation officers’ associations, 58.
State supervision of juvenile court and probation
work, 13,14,18, 56.
State-wide agencies, 73.
Superior courts as juvenile courts, 33.
Supervision of probation work. (See State super
vision.)
University clinics and examiners, 67.
Wards of the court, 8, 31.
Whipping, 42.
Women:
Assistants in hearing girls’ cases, 39.
Judges, 13, 39.
Referees, 12, 39.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

115

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Full text of Courts in the United States Hearing Children's Cases : Results of a Questionnaire Study Covering the Year 1918, Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes Series No. 8, Bureau Publication No. 65

FRASER