The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
U . S. D E P A R TM E N T OF LA B O R
JAMES J. DAVIS. Secretary
CHILDREN’S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK
A STUDY OF THE ORGANIZATION
AND METHODS OF TEN COURTS
By
KATHARINE F. LENROOT
and
EMMA O. LUNDBERG
«
Bureau Publication No. 141
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1925
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SINGLE COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE
OBTAINED FEEE UPON APPLICATION TO THE
CHILDREN'S BUREAU. ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY
BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT
45 C E N T S P E R C O P Y
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
# i 4-1
C O N TE N TS.
Page.
Letter of transmittal____________ ______________________________ _________
Progress of the juvenile-court movement. _ ____________________________
Method of study. ___________________________________ __________________
Jurisdiction of the courts:
Court system___ -__________________________________________________
Area served________________________________________________________
Type of j urisdiction_____ ________________ _________________________
Classes of cases____________________________________________________
Court room and probation offices:
Location________________________________ ;__________________________
Arrangement of court room _____________ __________________________
Arrangement of probation offices___________________________________
Staff of the court:
The judge--------------------------------Probation staff____________________________________________________
Physicians and mental specialists_______
Clerical staff____________________________________ ;__________________
Staff of detention home______ ________________ ______ ______________
Other employees of the court_________________________ _____________
Advisory boards_____ ______________________________________________
Preliminary steps in court procedure:
Cases referred by individuals, schools, and social agencies, and by
p olice_________
Reception of complaints___________________________________________
Relation between police and juvenile court_________________________
Investigation prior to filing of petition or com plaint._______________
Legal processes prior to hearing____________________________________
Detention:
Prihciples governing detention in children’ s cases__________________
Methods of detention in the courts studied_________________________
Extent to which detention facilities were used______________________
Detention in police stations and jails______________
Equipment and management of detention homes__ ________________
The Boston plan of detention__ _____ ,______________________________
Study of the case:
Importance of adequate study_________________ _____ ______________
Social investigation__________________________ ______________________
t , * Study of the child____________________________________ _____________
.C o rre la tio n of physical, mental, and social findings_________________
Recommendations as to treatment and follow-up work______________
Children studied by the Judge Baker Foundation of Boston________
Cases adjusted without formal court action:
' Policy of informal treatment of delinquency problems______________
'
Methods of informal adjustment in the courts studied__________ _____
¡jig Extent to which cases were adjusted without formal court action____
i
Comparison of formal and informal cases___________________________
Dispositions in cases adjusted informally___________________________
Success of informal adjustment as a method of treatment___________
ni
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Vn
1
4
6
g
8
9
ig
17
18
19
22
34
34
3g
37
37
40
41
42
50
50
52
55
5fi
g2
67
78
88
88
94
100
101
103
109
109
114
115
118
119
IV
CONTENTS.
Hearings:
'
Socialization of procedure_____________________________
Frequency of hearings_______ _________________ ____________________
Privacy of hearings_______________________________________________
Provision for children awaiting hearing_____________________________
Delinquency hearings__________________________
Hearings in girls’ cases__________________________
Dependency hearings____________
Jury trials_________________________________
Appeals________ _________________ ________________________ 1 _______
The court order:
Orders in delinquency cases________________________________________
Orders in cases of dependency and neglect__________________________
Provision for mentally defective children________________________
Adequacy of the court’s resources__________________________________
Probation:
Organization of the probation staff_________________________________
Number of cases under supervision of one officer___________________
Conditions of probation_______________________
Planning individual treatment________________ ________ ____________
Reports by probationers________________
Home visits___________________________ 1______________________ ____
Safeguarding health of children on probation_______________________
Relation of probation officer to school______________________________
Relation of probation to recreation___________________ , ____________
Advising in choice of occupation and supervising employment of
children on probation____________________________________________
Supervision of case work_______________________________
Length of probation periods and termination of probation__________
Results of probation_______________________________________________
Records and statistics:
Importance of records and reports_____ !___________________________
Legal records__________________ .___________________________________
Social records______________________________________________________
Reports and statistics______________________________________________
Administrative work of the court:
Mothers’ allowances_______________________________________________
Placing children in family homes_________________________________ _ _
Management of institutions________________________________________
Relation of juvenile court to adult criminal cases involving children:
Adult cases dealt with by juvenile court____________________________
Cooperation of juvenile court with other courts_______ ____ ’ ________
The court and the community:
The school and the court___________________________________________
Relation of the court to social-service agencies and institutions_____
Participation of juvenile court in child-welfare movements__________
Page.
123
123
124
125
126
129
130
132
134
137
155
158
159
161
171 _
172
175
175
179
182
184
186
186
188
191
194
199
200
205
209
216
219
220
221
224
226
244
246
APPENDIXES.
Appendix I.— Juvenile-court standards_________________________________
Appendix II.— Selected forms used by courts studied___________ _______
Petitions_____________________________________________________ _____
Notices and sum m ons.__________________________________________ _
Warrant ________________________________________ ,________ __________
Waiver of service__________________________________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2*51#
257
257
260
264
265
CONTENTS.
Appendix II— Continued.
Detention order____________________________________________________
Promise to appear_____________ __________________ __________________
Findings and orders_________
Indexes____________________________________________________________
. Police reports and complaints______________________________________
Investigations_____________________________________________________
Reports o f physical and mental examinations________________ ______
Detention-home forms___________
Records of supervision_____________________
Other probation forms_____________________________________________
Report on application for custody of child__________________________
Monthly and daily reports_______________________________
Appendix III.— Outline used by Children’s Bureau in juvenile-courtinquiry.
V
Page.
266
266
267
271
273
276
285
289
291
295
300
301
307
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Facing page.
Juvenile court and detention home, Seattle, Wash____________________
56
Children’s building (juvenile court and detention home), St. Louis, Mo__
56
Juvenile Hall (detention home), Los Angeles, Calif_____________________
57
Juvenile court and detention home, San Francisco, Calif________________
57
Detention home, Denver, C olo_________________________________________
80
Private homes used for detention, Boston juvenile court________________
80
Hearing, juvenile court of Denver County, Colo_______________________
81
Hearing, juvenile court of King County [Seattle], Wash________________
81
Hearing, juvenile court, St. Louis, M o__________ ______________________
128
Hearing, juvenile court of the District of Columbia______________________
128
Hearing, children’s court of Buffalo, N. Y _____________
129
Referee’s hearing, juvenile court of Los Angeles County, Calif__________
129
CHARTS AND FLOOR PLANS.
Urban and rural distribution of the population of the United States and
proportions served by courts with special organization for children’s
cases_________________________________________________________
Juvenile court of St. Louis [plan of organization]___________________ _
Hennepin County juvenile court— Minneapolis [plan of organization]____
King County juvenile court— Seattle [plan of organization]_____________
Juvenile court— District of Columbia [plan of organization]_____________
Los Angeles County juvenile court [plan of organization]__________ ;___
Juvenile court of the City and County of San Francisco [plan of organiza
tion]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------First-floor plan, King County [Seattle] juvenile court and detention home_ _
Second-floor plan, King County [Seattle] juvenile court and detention
h om e____________________ . __________________________________________
First-floor plan, City of St. Louis children’s building______ _____ ______
Typical floor and eighth floor, juvenile court and detention home, City of
' 1 San Francisco.____________________________ __________________________
Comparison of formal and informal cases of delinquency in four courts,
1920__________________________
Hrhe juvenile court in relation to social forces of the community________
Percentages of truancy cases among delinquency cases dealt with by eight
juvenile courts__________________________________________
Delinquent children: Parental homes of 10,845 children dealt with during
one year by seven city juvenile courts__ _____________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page.
2
20
25
26
29
32
35
53
54
66
75
111
227
229
236
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LETTER OF T R A N SM IT TA L.
U. S . D epartment
of L abor ,
Children ’s B ureau ,
Washington, D. C., December 15, 19%4Si r : There is transmitted herewith a report on Juvenile Courts at
Work, by Katharine F. Lenroot and Emma O. Lundberg, which is
based on a study of the organization and methods of work of 10
juvenile courts in different parts of the country, serving cities of more
than 100,000 but less than 1,000,000 population. The study was
directed primarily toward discovering successful methods of juve
nile-court work.
The inquiry led to conferences on juvenile-court standards and
to the formulation by a committee of judges, probation officers, and
others directly concerned with juvenile-court work, of the standards
which should govern juvenile-court organization and administration.
The report of the committee, which was approved by a national
conference held under the joint auspices of the National Probation
Association and the Children’s Bureau, was published by the bureau
in 1923.
Respectfully submitted.
Grace A bbott, Chief.
Hon. James J. D avis ,
Secretary o f Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE COURTS A T WORK.
PR O G R ESS OF T H E JUVENILE-COUR T M O V E M E N T .
In the 25 years since the first juvenile courts were established every
State but one has adopted legislation providing for one or all of the
characteristic features of juvenile-court organization. Every city
having 100,000 or more inhabitants has a court especially organized
lor children s work. As a result of the activities of State agencies
which have undertaken to promote the organization and develop
ment of juvenile courts marked progress has recently been made in
their extension to rural areas. Nevertheless, in all parts of the
country many rural communities and small towns are without
facilities for dealing with children in need of the protection’ that a
juvenile court can give. Even in the larger cities the staff of the
court is often inadequate, means for the intensive study of the child
are lacking, and results are obtained chiefly by the *ftrial and error
method” 1 and are not based upon scientific study followed by treat
ment adapted to the needs discovered.
/^i^T1Ven^e-C0*11'^ studies were among the first undertaken by the
Children’s Bureau, and in 1918 certain facts for the entire United
States were obtained through questionnaires and correspondence2
from 2,034 courts having authority to hear children’s cases that in
volved delinquency or neglect. The purpose of that survey was to dis
cover the status of the juvenile-court movement and to secure a
basis for more intensive inquiries. In order to be able to measure in
a general way the extent of special organization for children’s work,
a very simple standard was formulated, including only: (a) Separate
hearings for children, (b) officially authorized probation service, and
(c) the recording of social information. Courts having these features
were classed as specially organized for dealing with children’s cases.
Only 321 of the 2,034 courts from which information was obtained
could be classified as specially organized for juvenile-court work. In
half of the 48 States less than a fourth of the population was within
reach of the courts equipped for children’s work according to the
minimum standard adopted for the purpose of the study, and in
several States no court with special organization was reported.
Specially organized courts were found in all the cities with popula
tions of 100,000 or over and were available to 70 per cent of the total
population living in cities of 25,000 to 100,000. Courts with special
equipment for dealing with children were available to 29 per cent of
the total population of cities of 5,000 to 25,000 and to only 16 per
cent of the population of rural communities. (See chart, p. 2.)
a discussion of the common sense versus the scientific method of dealing with delinquents, see
Practical Value of Scientific Study of Juvenile Delinquents, b y William Healy, M . D .. d . 10 (U S
Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 96, Washington, 1922).
2 Courts in the United States Hearing Children’s Cases, b y Evelina Belden. U . S. Children’s Bureau
Publication N o . 65. Washington, 1920.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
JUVENILE COURTS AT W ORK.
Although the problem of extending juvenile-court work to small
towns and rural communities urgently demands consideration,
it is chiefly the older and better-equipped courts in the larger cities
that offer the most fruitful field for study of methods of application
of juvenile-court principles. Accordingly, the inquiry which forms
CL
the basis of this report covered the organization and methods of‘
work in 10 juvenile courts in different parts of the country, serving
areas containing populations of 162,000 to 936,000.
The inquiry mto the work of representative courts not only fur
nished the basis for this report but also led to a series of monographs
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROGRESS OP TH E JUVENILE-COURT MOVEM ENT.
3
by experts in special fields,3 to conferences on juvenile-court standards
held under the joint auspices of the Children’s Btn-eau and the
National Probation Association,4 and to the formulation by a com
mittee appointed by the Children’s Bureau of a statement of the
standards which should govern juvenile-court organization and
administration. This statement was adopted, after-discussion and
amendment, by a national conference hela by the Children’s Bureau
and the National Probation Association in May, 1923.5 A com
mittee of the National Probation Association has drafted a standard
juvenile-court law, based on these standards, which was approved
at the eighteenth annual conference of the association in June, 1924.
a Probation in Children’s Courts, b y Charles L . Chute (T7. S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 80,
Washington, 1921); The Practical Value of Scientific Study of Juvenile Delinquents, b y W illiam Healy,
M . D . (U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 96, Washington, Î922) ; The Legal Aspect of the Juvenile
Court, b y Bernard Flexner and Reuben Oppenheimer (U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 99,
Washington, 1922).
.
"
4 Proceedings of the Conference on Juvenile-Court Standards Held under the Auspices of the U. S.
Children’s Bureau and the National Probation Association, Milwaukee, W is., June 21-22, 1921. ü . S.
Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 97. Washington, 1922.
» The standards are published in full on p . 251n.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M E T H O D O F STU D Y.
The selection of the 10 courts to be included in the study was de
termined largely by the information secured from the earlier ques
tionnaire inquiry which covered the entire United States. Courts
representing various types of jurisdiction, procedure, and equipment,
and various sections of the country, were chosen. The study was
directed primarily toward discovering successful methods of court
work and was descriptive rather than statistical, though a consider
able amount of statistical data was obtained in order to supplement
and verify the observations made and the information secured
through interviews. The courts included are shown in Table 1,
together with the areas served and their population.
T able
1 .— Areas served by courts studied and population o f areas in 1920}
Nam e of court.
Areas served.
Central district of Boston________
C i t y .. ______________________________
Juvenile court of the District of C olum bia........................
District of Columbia______________
Juvenile court of Hennepin County (M inneapolis)........... C ounty........... .........................................
Juvenile court for Parish of Orleans (N ew Orleans)_____ Parish (county).....................................
Juvenile court of the city and county o f San Francisco» _ C ounty.....................................................
C ity—' . .....................................................
Popular
tion, 1920.1
* 162,091
506,775
256,491
437,571
936,455
415,419
387,219
506,676
389,273
772,897
1 Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, Vol. I l l , Population, pp. 114, 118, 142, 178, 396, 512,
562, 690, 1088.
* United States Census returns for the city of Boston, b y judicial districts (unpublished figures).
The writers of this report spent from three to four weeks in each
city. The study of the first court began in March, 1920, and the
inquiry continued, with intermissions, until May, 1921. At the
close of the study of each court the principal findings and the charts
were reviewed with court officials. The Children’s Bureau has
kept in touch with the work of these courts since the original field
study was made; in 1924 the report was sent to each court, and
statements as to changes in organization or method have been
incorporated in footnotes. The secretary of the National Probation
Association, Mr. Charles L. Chute, kindly gave the Children’s
Bureau access to reports of studies of probation in Minneapolis and
St. Louis made by him in 1924.1
The study involved repeated attendance at hearings; interviews
with the judge, chief probation officer, all or most o f the members
of the probation staff, the clerk of the court, the persons making
physical and mental examinations, and the superintendent of the de
tention home; visits to the detention home; and reading of records
and compiling of statistical data, with special attention to facts
i
Th e St. Louis report has been published in The Com m unity Courier [published b y the Com m unity
Council of St. Louis], vol. 3, N o . 9 (M a y , 1924).
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
method of study .
5
that were not included in the annual report of the court and to
points needing verification. In order to ascertain the relation of the
court to the police, the schools, and the social agencies of the com
munity, information was secured from officials and workers in these
departments and agencies. Although as many as possible of the
institutions and agencies utilized by the court in caring for children
were visited, no detailed studies of their equipment or methods were
made.2
a See Appendix II I, p . 307, for schedule used.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JURISDICTIO N OF T H E CO U R TS.
COURT SYSTEM .
The juvenile court may be an independent court established
especially for work with children, or it may be a branch or division
of a court. Independent courts are not practicable in communities
where the number of cases is too small to require the full time of the
court staff. Some difference of opinion exists with regard to whether
in populous communities, the juvenile court should be independent.
The principal arguments in favor of an independent court are that
the judge can be selected with special reference to his qualifications
for work with children and that he can give full-time service to the
juvenile court. If the necessary provisions are inserted in the law
these conditions can also be obtamed when the juvenile court is a
division of another court and not an independent unit.
In 12 States special juvenile courts, independent of other courts,
have been created for the larger cities or counties and in the District
of Columbia an independent court has been established. In most
States jurisdiction over children’s cases has been vested in county or
district courts, though in some States police or municipal courts or
justices of the peace have been given such jurisdiction.1
Five of the 10 courts included in this study were independent
courts; namely, the courts in Boston (central district), Buffalo,
Denver, New Orleans, and the District of Columbia. Three— those
in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle—were branches of the
superior court of the county; in Minneapolis the juvenile court was
a branch of the district court, and in St. Louis of the circuit court.
These three court systems represented— the superior, circuit, and
district— were similar in jurisdiction.
During the last few years the tendency has been to enlarge the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court and, in some localities, to unite the
jurisdiction over juvenile and domestic-relations cases in one court.
While some of the courts represented in this study had jurisdiction
over nonsupport and desertion, no court designated as a court of
domestic relations was included.2 This policy was followed chiefly
because a special study of courts of domestic relations was planned
and is now under way.
AREA SERVED.
The area served by the court is of great importance in considering
methods by which juvenile-court facilities can be extended to all the
children of the country. The 1918 survey showed the county unit
to be the most prevalent system.3 Courts with jurisdiction includ1 See Courts in the United States Hearing Children’s Cases, b y Evelina Belden, p. 33 (U . S. Children’s
Bureau Publication N o . 65), and Th e Legal Aspect of the Juvenile Court, b y Bernard Flexner and Reu
ben Oppenheimer, p. 12 (U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 99). Washington, 1920 and 1922.
2 In St. Louis, under the terms of a law passed in 1921 (Laws of 1921, p. 225), a court of domestic relations
has been created, with jurisdiction over divorce and civil actions relating to the custody of children. The
new court includes two divisions of the circuit court; and the judge of one of the divisions is also judge of
the juvenile court.
8
Courts in the United States Hearing Children’s Cases (U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 65),
p . 34.
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS.
7
ing only urban population were the least common. The advantages
of the county unit are greatly lessened if, as often happens, the needs
of the children living outside the city are lost sight of in the press of
urban work.
The county was the unit of jurisdiction for 6 of the 10 courts
included in this s t u d y b u t in 3 cases the city and county were co
extensive. In Buffalo and St. Louis the unit was the city, and in
Boston the jurisdiction extended only over the central district, which
included 21.7 per cent of the population of the city. The population
of the District of Columbia is urban. Only three of the courts,
therefore, served any considerable population outside the cities in
which they were located.
Excluding the district served by the Boston juvenile court, the
total population of the areas over which the courts had jurisdiction
ranged from 256,000 to 936,000. The part of Boston over which the
Boston juvenile court had jurisdiction included the most congested
residence sections and the business section. Over 30 per cent of the
children coming before the court resided in other districts but had
committed offenses within the central district. Hence, the prob
lems dealt with affected, both in extent and type, a population much
larger than that resident in the central district.
Courts in cities of over 1,000,000 inhabitants were excluded from
this study; the organization of these courts is so complex and the
volume of work so large that their methods can not readily be adapted
to the needs of smaller communities.5
The populations of the different communities varied widely as to
race and nationality. The types of problems coming before the
courts and the forms of organization of the staff reflected to some
extent these differences. Table 2 shows the distribution of the popu
lations of the communities served by the courts included in the
study, according to race and nativity.
* The parish in Louisiana corresponds to the county in other States.
6
The Children’s Bureau has issued a separate study of the Chicago juvenile court— The Chicago Juvenile
Court, b y Helen Rankin Jeter (U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 104, Washington, 1922). Descrip
tive and statistical material on the work of the children’s court of the C ity of New York and the municipal
court of Philadelphia, of which the juvenile court is a branch, is included in the annual reports of these
courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
T a b l e 2 .— Race and nativity o f populations served by courts studied.1
Per cent of population of specified race and
nativity.
W hite.
Popula-
Court.
area
served
(1920).
Boston juvenile court_________ ___________
3 162,091
Buffalo children’s court________________
506,775
Denver juvenile court (county). . .
256,491
District of Columbia juvenile court_____
437, 571
Los Angeles juvenile court (cou nty)............. _ 936,455
Minneapolis juvenile court (Hennepin
County)______ _______ ___________
415,419
N ew Orleans juvenile court (county)_______
387, 219
San Francisco juvenile court (county)............
506,676
Seattle juvenilè courtf King C ounty).............. 389,273
St. Louis juvenile court.............................
772,897
Native,
Native, of for
Negro.
of
eign
Foreign
Total. native
or
born.
parent mixed
age.
parent
age.
Other
races.
99.1
97.3
74.7
95.5
32.6
56.4
54.7
55.1
42.5
26.3
13.4
22.6
24.0
14.7
6.5
17.8
0.9
2.4
25.1
2.0
( 3)
99.0
73.8
96. 7
95.8
90.9
35.7
49.2
33.0
44.0
46.5
40.6
17.9
36.0
28.4
31.0
22.7
6.7
27.7
23.4
13.4
1.0
26.1
0.5
0.8
9 .0
(3)
(3)
0.3
0.2
2.5
2.8
3.4
(3)
1 Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, Vol. I l l , Population, pp. 114, 118, 142, 178, 396, 512.
562,690, 1088.
’
’
2 United States Census returns for the city of Boston by judicial districts (unpublished figures).
3 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.
TYPE OF JURISDICTION.
In general the jurisdiction exercised over children by juvenile
courts is chancery or equity and not criminal in nature. Higher
courts have repeatedly held that juvenile-court proceedings are not
criminal.6 In a few States the juvenile procedure retains many of the
characteristics of criminal procedure, though the aim of the proceed
ing is held to be the protection and not the punishment of the child.
When the juvenile court is given jurisdiction over parents and over
other adults who contribute to delinquency or commit an offense
against a child, it is of course necessary that the court have criminal as
well as equity jurisdiction.
The procedure in children’s cases was in the nature of chancery or
equity procedure in 6 of the 10 courts studied— the courts of Denver,
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Seattle, and St. Louis.7
In New Orleans the procedure was quasi criminal but partook more
of the nature of civil than of criminal action. In Buffalo and in
Washington, D. C., the juvenile court was hampered by the limita
tions of the criminal procedure, though in both these courts the hear
ings were informal and as free from technicalities as the judges be
lieved they could be made and still conform to the legal require
ments. The Massachusetts law 8 provided that proceedings under
the act in the cases of delinquent and wayward children should not be
6 The Legal Aspect of the Juvenile Court, p. 9.
7 The law governing the St. Louis court [Missouri, Rev. Stat., 1919, sec. 2592 (Laws of 1911, p . 177, sec. 2)]
provides as follows: “ The practice and procedure prescribed b y law for the conduct of criminal cases shall
govern in all proceedings under this act in which the child stands charged with the violation of the crim
inal statutes of the State, and in such proceedings the child, his parent, or any person standing in loco
parentis to him m ay on his behalf demand a trial b y jury. In all other cases the trial shall be before the
court without a jury, and the practice and procedure customary in proceeding in equity shall govern except
where otherwise provided b y the act. ’ ’ Jury trials were very seldom demanded, and in hearings without
jury no difference was found in the procedure in the two types of cases
8 Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, sec. 53 (Acts of 1906, ch, 413, sec. 2).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS.
9
deemed criminal, but some aspects of the procedure were criminal
in form; the action in neglect cases was civil.
The question of exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction has been
dealt with in another publication of the Children’s Bureau.9 All the
5 courts included in this study had by law or by consent of the authori
ties exclusive jurisdiction in children’s cases, with certain exceptions
defined in the laws under which some of the courts operated. With
respect to adults, the jurisdiction, when it covered such cases, was
often concurrent with that of other courts.
CLASSES OF CASES.
In Boston the jurisdiction of the court was confined, in practice, to
delinquent and neglected children.10 The court had jurisdiction
concurrent with that of the municipal court over cases of contributing
to delinquency, but it was seldom exercised. The jurisdiction of the
St. Louis court was practically the same as that of the Boston court,
being limited to delinquent and neglected children, except that the
court also had jurisdiction over adoptions. The other eight courts
had jurisdiction over dependent, neglected, and destitute children,
and also over certain types of adult cases.
Delinquency.
The jurisdiction of the courts over delinquent children differed
with respect to the nature of the offense and the age limits.
Nature o f offense.— In the two California courts included, and in
Denver, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Seattle, the law did not restrict
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court with reference to the seriousness
of the offense.10“ In California and Colorado the court might deter
mine, upon hearing or thereafter, that the person was not a fit and
proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law and
might then dismiss the petition and direct that the person be prose
cuted under the general law.11 The Minnesota law had a similar
provision applicable onlyto children 12 years of age or over.11 Under
the law of the State of Washington the juvenile court might order a
child arrested upon the charge of having committed a crime to be
turned over to the proper officers for trial under the provisions of
the criminal code.13
The law under which the New Orleans court operated gave the
court jurisdiction over all except capital offenses, and even in the
case of such offenses the preliminary statements were taken in the
juvenile court. The Boston juvenile court had jurisdiction over all
offenses except those punishable by death or life imprisonment.
9 The Legal Aspect of the Juvenile Court, p. 14.
10 In the Massachusetts law a separate classification is made of “ wayward” children— a wayward child
being defined as “ a child between 7 and 17 years who habitually associates with vicious or immoral persons,
or who is growing up in circumstances exposing him to lead an immoral, vicious, or criminal life.” The
“ wayward” complaint was seldom used in the Boston juvenile court, the children being brought in as de
linquent or neglected.
ioo The Colorado law has since been amended so that the definition of delinquency applies to children
under 18 instead o f under 16 as formerly, and the amendment provides that the act shall not apply to crimes
of violence punishable b y death or imprisonment for life when the accused is pver 16 years of age. (Colorado,
Laws o f 1923, p. 197, ch. 76.) However, such cases m ay be tried under criminal procedure in the juvenile
court.
11 California, Laws of 1915, ch. 631, sec. 4c; Colorado, Com p. Laws, 1921, see. 660. The Colorado pro
vision is, however, applicable only in cases where the delinquency charged would constitute a felony.
12 Minnesota, Laws of 1917, ch. 397, sec. 21.
is Washington, Remington’s Com p. Stat., 1921, sec. 1987-12 (Laws of 1913, ch. 160, sec. 12),
80306°— 25t------ 2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
The law provided that in any case of a child violating a law or ordi
nance, if the court was of the opinion that his welfare and the interests
of the public required that he be tried for the offense instead of being
dealt with as a delinquent, the court might, after hearing, order the
delinquency complaint dismissed.14 The Buffalo children’s court had
jurisdiction over all charges against children of the grade of misde
meanors, charges against children permitted to be tried as misdemean
ors, and charges for which children could be found guilty of juvenile
delinquency.
The juvenile court of the District of Columbia was limited in
jurisdiction to offenses against the United States or against the
District of Columbia “ not capital or otherwise infamous and not
punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary” and not including
libel, conspiracy, and violations of the post-office and pension laws
of the United States.15 Preliminary examination might be made by
the juvenile court in any case of an offense committed by a child.
In order to bring under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court chil
dren committing offenses classified as “ infamous,” the charge was
usually reduced by agreement between the court and the police and
prosecuting authorities. For instance, a charge of larceny was
usually lessened to that of “ taking property of another.”
Truancy was usually included in the definition of delinquency,
truant children being dealt with as delinquents. However, in Boston
truants and in the District of Columbia truants and incorrigible
children also constituted special classes. In the District of Columbia
truancy cases150 and cases involving incorrigible children were heard
under chancery procedure on a special day.
The California juvenile court law was unique in that the classifi
cations of delinquency and dependency did not appear. The law
defined 14 conditions which brought a child under the jurisdiction of
the court, including conditions usually covered by definitions of
delinquency and of dependency and, in addition, insanity or mental
defect.
Age limitation.— The California courts had jurisdiction over chil
dren under 21 years of age, but jurisdiction was exclusive only up to
the age of 18 years. It was within the discretion of the prosecuting
authorities to bring minors above this age to the attention either of
the juvenile court or of some other court having jurisdiction. Pro
ceedings in a superior court involving a person between the ages of
18 and 21 years accused of a felony or misdemeanor other than a
capital offense or attempt to commit a capital offense might be
dropped, and the court, after investigation, might deal with the
person under the juvenile court act.16
The Minneapolis and Seattle courts had jurisdiction over delin
quent children under the age of 18 years.10“ In Minneapolis children
11 Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, sec. 61 (Acts of 1906, ch. 413, sec. 11).
» 34 Stat. 73.
180 In the case of Brown v. Sellers (Fed. Reporter 292, pp. 655-657), decided Apr. 3, 1923, the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia held that the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia does not have
jurisdiction in truancy cases. Petition for writ of certiorari was denied b y the United States Supreme
Court (263 U . S. Reports 702, Oct. 8, 1923).
16
In the San Francisco juvenile court in 1919-20,128 boys, or 18 per cent of those dealt with b y the boys’
department, and 57 girls, or 25 per cent of those dealt with b y the girls’ department, were 18 years of age
or over. In the Los Angeles juvenile court in 1919,27 boys and 36 girls, or 2 per cent and 8 per cent, respec
tively, of the total number, were between the ages of 18 and 21 years. T h e smaller percentages in Los
Angeles are partly due to the fact that dependency cases were included in the totalsifor Los Angeles and
not for San Francisco.
lea The Denver and St. Louis courts in 1923 wefre also given jurisdiction over delinquent children under
the age of 18 years.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JURISDICTION OR THE COURTS.
11
could not be continued on probation beyond the maximum age,
except in case of stay of commitment to a State institution, but in
Seattle jurisdiction over children declared wards continued during
minority. The laws under which the St. Louis and Denver courts
operated contained provisions giving the juvenile court concurrent
criminal jurisdiction over minors above the delinquency age. In
St. Louis the definition of delinquency applied to children under 17
years of age.*7 _ Children over this age might be proceeded against as
delinquents if jurisdiction had been acquired while they were under
17, but such jurisdiction was concurrent and not exclusive. By a
law passed in 1917— one of the bills proposed by the Missouri Chil
dren’s Code Commission— and amended in 1919, boys above the age
of 17 but under 21 and girls 17 but under 18 years of age (then the
age of majority for girls),18 who had committed acts which would
constitute delinquency if the children were under 17, might be tried
as for a misdemeanor in any court of record having jurisdiction over
misdemeanors. The juvenile court came within this definition and
might therefore exercise jurisdiction, over minors of the ages speci
fied. A few cases had been brought into court under this law.
The Colorado law limited jurisdiction in delinquency cases to chil
dren under 16 years of age, but under a law of 1897, which was still
in effect, girls 16 and 17 years of age might be brought in as incor
rigible, so that the delinquency jurisdiction of the court in practice
applied to girls under the age of 18 years.19 The court had concurrent
criminal jurisdiction over boys ana girls between the ages of 16 and
21 years, and this jurisdiction was sometimes exercised.20 It was pos
sible also to bring in minors of that age under chancery proceedings
provided by the ‘'redemption of offenders act” of 1909.21 Probation
might be continued beyond the upper age limit, but not for a longer
period than two years.
Laws passed in Colorado in 1923210 raised the age of delinquency
for both boys and girls to 18 years, and the Denver juvenile court
now has exclusive jurisdiction, subject to appeals and writs of error,
in cases concerning delinquent children and in all cases concerning
the adoption, custody, or disposition of persons under 21 years of
age and their protection from neglect, cruelty, and abuse.216
This has been interpreted by the Denver juvenile court to
mean that it has exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance as to
the custody and disposition of all children under the age of 21 years—
whether the case be one of delinquency or a criminal case— but it
may direct that children under 21 not included in the definition of
delinquency, who are brought to court on criminal charges be tried
either in the criminal court or under criminal procedure in the
juvenile court. The Supreme Court has pending before it cases in
17 The age is now 18. Missouri, Laws of 1923, p. 153.
18 B y Missouri Laws of 1921, p. 399, the age of majority for girls was raised to 21 years, and the provision
now applies to girls as well as to boys above the juvenile-delinquency age but under the age of 21 years.
19 Colorado, Laws of 1897, ch. 15. However, in the case of a girl 16 years of age or over i t was impossible
to file a charge of contributing to delinquency.
89 Colorado, Com p. Stat., 1921, secs. 5796, 5797 (Laws of 1903, p. 188, sec. 9, p. 189, sec. 11) authorized pro
bation in the case of minors. Com p. Stat., 1921, sec. 5811 (Laws of 1907, p. 325, sec. 2) gave the juvenile
court original jurisdiction in all criminal cases or other actions or proceedings in which the disposition,
custody, or control of any child or minor was involved.
11 Colorado, Com p. Stat., 1921, secs. 6508-6515.
210 Colorado, Laws of 1923, pp. 197, 208.
216 It also has exclusive jurisdiction in neglect and dependency eases and in cases of other types, and co
ordinate jurisdiction in proceedings concerning the annulment of marriage where either of the parties is
under the age of 21 years, and in cases under the redemption-of-offenders act.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
which it will be called upon to pass on this interpretation of the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court.210
In Boston the juvenile court had jurisdiction over children under
17 years of age, and its jurisdiction continued until they were 18 years
of age if they became 17 while adjudication was pending or during
continuance, or after cases were placed on file. The Massachusetts
law was peculiar in that acts relating to juvenile offenders, dating
back in some instances to 1847, were still in force, and some of their
provisions paralleled those of the delinquency law passed in 1906. It
was within the discretion of the court to try children 14 years of age
and over under a delinquency complaint or under the criminal proce
dure provided by the acts relating to juvenile offenders.22 Children
under 14 might also be proceeded against as juvenile offenders if a
delinquency complaint had first been made and dismissed. The Bos
ton juvenile court used the delinquency procedure in almost every
case, but some of the other courts in the State frequently used the
other form. The principal difference in the two proceedings was that
under the delinquency act it was impossible to impose a fine or to
sentence to jail or to a house of correction except for violation of pro
bation. The procedure under the juvenile offenders act constituted
a criminal record against the child.23
The Buffalo juvenile court had jurisdiction only over children under
16 years of age. However, children on probation might be kept
under supervision until the age of 18 years. The courts in New
Orleans and the District of Columbia had jurisdiction over children
under the age of 17 years. In the District of Columbia children
could not be continued under supervision beyond the maximum
age limit.
Neglect and dependency.
The jurisdiction of the court over neglected and dependent chil
dren extended in Los Angeles and San Francisco to 21 years, in
Minneapolis and Seattle to 18, in the District of Columbia,23® New
Orleans, and St. Louis 24 to 17, and in Boston, Buffalo, and Denver 24a
to 16 years. The jurisdiction of the Boston, Buffalo, and St. Louis
courts did not include dependency cases that involved no question
of neglect;25 in these cities public provision for dependent children
was made without recourse to the court.
The courts of Denver, Minneapolis, and Seattle administered the
law providing public aid for dependent children in their own homes.
The Denver court had worked out a plan of cooperation with the
bureau of charities of the city and county department of health and
lle See Brief and Argument of Petitioners in N o. 11009, People ex rel. Buckanan and W hite v. District
Court of C ity and County of Denver. A case involving the same question, N o. 10997, People ex rel. M anue
Cruz v. Clarence J. M orley, Judge of the Fifth Division of the District Court, Second Judicial District,
C ity and C ounty of Denver, was decided July 7,1924, in favor of the respondent. The attorney general of
the State and a number of Denver lawyers joined in a petition for rehearing as “ amici curiae” on behalf of
all the children of the State, whose rights are seriously involved, and on November 19, 1924, the Supreme
Court withdrew its opinion and granted a rehearing.
22 Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, secs. 61, 74 (Acts of 1906, ch. 413, sec. 11).
23 The “ juvenile offenders” procedure was not strictly criminal, since the child and witnesses were
"exam in ed” and the law specified that commitments were to be for the child’s welfare; moreover, the
parents were made parties to the proceeding. Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, secs. 73-77
230 Destitute children under 17 might be committed to the national training schools, but children above
16 could not be committed to the Board of Children’s Guardians. (31 Stat. 266; 27 Stat. 268.)
24 Raised to 18 b y act of April 6, 1923. Missouri, Laws of 1923, p. 153.
240 In 1923 the age was raised to 18 years. Colorado, Laws of 1923, p. 204.
26 For distinction in Massachusetts between dependent and neglected children, see Commonwealth v
Dee, 222 M ass. 184.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JURISDICTION OR THE COURTS.
13
charities whereby mothers’ compensation cases were investigated and
supervised by that bureau, as agent of the court. The California
juvenile courts had power to order county aid to dependent children
in their own homes and to obtain State aid for certain classes of cases.
In San Francisco a separate widows’ pension bureau had been estab
lished, but the classes of cases eligible for aid through this bureau
were very limited and the court granted county aid to many children
in their own homes. In Los Angeles such aid was granted by the
court in a smaller number of cases, the general plan being for the
county department of charities to deal with cases of dependency.
Adoptions.
In, Denver 26 and St. Louis the juvenile court had jurisdiction over
adoption cases, and in Seattle the court, with the written consent of
the parents or other person having the right to dispose of a dependent
or delinquent child, might make ah order or decree of adoption with
out the personal appearance of the parent or guardian. The judge
of the Los Angeles juvenile court heard adoption cases in his capacity
of superior-court judge.
M entally defective children.
The two California courts had jurisdiction over insane and feeble
minded children and had authority to place them in institutions or
under supervision.26“ The Los Angeles court was utilizing boarding
homes for the care of feeble-minded children.27 The Seattle court
had authority to commit mentally defective children to the State
school for the feeble-minded.
Contributing to delinquency or dependency.
\
All the courts studied except the St. Louis court had jurisdiction
over cases of contributing to the delinquency or neglect of children,
but the two California courts conducted the preliminary hearing only,
holding the defendant to another branch of the superior court if the
evidence was sufficient. In San Francisco the defendant was often
placed under supervision at the time of the preliminary hearing, the
case being continued and the defendant agreeing to the conditions
prescribed. In some of the courts the jurisdiction over cases of con
tributing to delinquency or dependency was seldom exercised.
The contributing to delinquency laws differed in their scope and
efficacy. In Massachusetts, for mstance, the law applied only to
parents or guardians or persons having custody, and in some courts the
child had to be found delinquent before complaint could be made.
The District of Columbia court was greatly hampered by the fact that
a child had to be “ found guilty” more than once before prosecution
for contributing to delinquency could be initiated. The procedure
under the laws relating to contributing to delinquency was criminal
except in the Denver court. Colorado had two such laws— one pro
viding for criminal and the other for chancery proceedings. When the
contributing to delinquency law applies to others than parents and
guardians it can often be used effectively in cases in which the out
come of rape proceedings in the criminal court would be doubtful.
29 The jurisdiction of the Denver court in adoption proceedings involving persons under 21 years is now
exclusive. Colorado, Laws of 1923, p. 208.
290 In 1923 the Denver juvenile court was given exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning feeble
minded children under 21 years of age. Colorado, Laws of 1923, p. 208.
22 See p. 158.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14
JUVENILE COURTS AT W ORK.
Offenses against children.
The Buffalo children’s court had the jurisdiction of a court of spe
cial sessions, and the judge had concurrent jurisdiction over charges
against adults for the violation of any section of the penal law amount
ing to a felony, when such violation necessarily involved a child.
The court also had concurrent jurisdiction with the city court over
charges of the grade of misdemeanors when the charge appeared to
have contributed to the misdemeanor of a child or to involve a child.28
Under this law any offense against a child might be brought before
the children’s court, and many such cases were heard, thereby making
it unnecessary for child witnesses to be subjected to the surroundings
of the criminal court. The New Orleans court had similar jurisdic
tion, including offenses against children not punishable by death or
hard labor. The District of Columbia court, under laws in existence
prior to the passage of the juvenile court law, was given jurisdiction
over specific offenses, including among others the exposure of a
child under 14 with intent to abandon and the abuse and maltreat
ment of a child under 18. This jurisdiction has seldom been exer
cised. The Denver court from 1907 to 1915 exercised concurrent
jurisdiction in all cases of offenses against children. By a supremecourt decision in 191529 it was held that jurisdiction did not
extend to cases of statutory offenses, but this jurisdiction has been
restored by an act passed in 1923.
Violations o f child-labor laws.
Three of the courts— those in Buffalo, Denver, and New Orleans—
had jurisdiction over violations of the State child labor law, and the
juvenile court of the District of Columbia had such jurisdiction in the
District.
In Seattle the judge was charged with the duty of issuing employ
ment certificates to certain classes of children, but this duty had been
delegated by him to the school-attendance department. The New
Orleans court granted theatrical permits to children under 16, the cases
first having been investigated by the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children. The judge of the juvenile court of the District
of Columbia was given power under the child labor law to issue a
permit to a child between the ages of 12 and 14 years upon satisfac
tory evidence that the labor of the child was necessary for his support
or for the support of a disabled or invalid father or mother, a widowed
mother, or a younger sister or brother. The court might also waive
the schooling certificate required before children between the ages of
14 and 16 years could be granted employment certificates,30
Nonsupport and desertion.
The Denver,31 New Orleans,32 and District of Columbia33 juvenile
courts had broad jurisdiction over cases of nonsupport and deser88 New York, Laws of 1911, ch. 561, sec. 516, as amended b y Laws of 1917, eh. 571.
n Colias v. People, 60 Colo. 230; 153 Pac. 224.
»» 35 Stat. 420.
81 Colorado, Com p. Stat., 1921, secs. 5566, 5569, 5811, and 5812. In 1923 a plan was worked out with the
district attorney whereby the juvenile court will investigate all nonsupport cases in which the fathers fail
to pay for the support of their children. If court action is justified charges of contributing to dependency are
filed in the juvenile court under chancery procedure. In seriously contested cases or extradition cases
criminal procedure is resorted to.
38 Louisiana, Constitution of 1921, A rt. V I I , sec. 96. Acts of 1921 (extra session), N o - 126, sec. 2, p . 317.
33 37 Stat. 134.
........, r
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS.
15
tion.34 The California statute35 gave the juvenile court original
jurisdiction in cases of willful failure to provide food, clothing,
shelter, or medical attendance, but this jurisdiction was not exer
cised by the Los Angeles court and was exercised by the San Fran
cisco court only in cases in which the children were already wards
of the court. Thé San Francisco court had worked out a special
system for the collection of support in such cases. The juvenile
courts of Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Seattle had power to order
' their children who had been adjudged delinIn Denver the juvenile court was dealing with a considerable
number of children involved in divorce cases. Children whose cus
tody was in controversy were considered as coming under that section
of the law which gave the juvenile court jurisdiction in all criminal *
cases or other actions or proceedings in which the disposition, custody,
or control of any child or minor might be involved under the acts
concerning delinquent, dependent, or neglected children or other
acts concerning the person, control, or disposition of any infant
child or minor.36
Other jurisdiction.
In the District of Columbia the juvenile court had jurisdiction
over cases involving the determination of paternity and the support
of children bom out of wedlock. The Minnesota law included
illegitimate children in the definition of dependency, and many
illegitimate children were brought before the Minneapolis court
for the purpose of having guardians appointed; but proceedings
for the determination of paternity were not held in the juvenile court.
The St. Louis juvenile court had jurisdiction over all cases of trans
fer of custody or control of a child under a law providing as follows:
No person shall surrender control or custody of a child, or transfer the control
or custody of a child to another, and no person shall take possession or charge
of a child so transferred, without having first filed a petition before a juvenile
court having jurisdiction, praying that such surrender or transfer may be made,
and having obtained such an order from such juvenile court, approving or ordering
transfer of custody.37
The New Orleans court had jurisdiction over the violation of any
law “ now in existence or hereafter enacted” for the protection of the
physical, moral, and mental well-being of children not punishable by
death or hard labor.38
31 In the case of United States v. Moreland (258 U . S. 433), April 17,1922, it was held that inasmuch as the
punishment which m ay be imposed under the nonsupport statute, viz, imprisonment at hard labor, is
infamous within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, such cases must be brought
by indictment or presentment b y a grand jury and not b y information— as are cases brought before the
juvenile court. The juvenile court has since been without jurisdiction in these cases.
35 California Penal Code, sec. 270 as amended b y Laws of 1921, ch. 911, p. 1723.
36 Colorado, Com p. Stat., 1921, see. 5811. See answer and opinion of the Juvenile Court of Denver in N o .
10817 in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, in which the court sustained the contention of the
Denver Juvenile Court, People ex rel. Heyer v. Juvenile Court of Denver, decided June 2, 1924 (not yet
published). The Supreme Court in this case held that even though the custody of a child was given to the
father b y the district court in a divorce or separate-maintenance case, the juvenile court in a dependency
case could give the custody of the same child to the mother without conflicting with the jurisdiction of the
district court; that the jurisdictions of the two courts over the custody of the child are not conflicting nor
concurrent but simultaneous, that of the juvenile court being superior to that of the district court.
“ 37 Missouri, R ev. Stat., 1919, sec. 1103.
33 Louisiana, A cts of 1921 (extra session), N o . 126, sec. 2, p. 317.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
COURT R O O M AN D PR O BATIO N OFFICES.
In considering the location and arrangement of the court room and
the probation offices, several points must be borne in mind. These
include: (1) The extent to which the children are protected from
contact with the participants and onlookers in criminal proceedings;
(2) the accessibility of the court room and probation offices to the
population served; (3) convenience in the work of the judge and the
•probation staff; and (4) the adequacy of the space allotted for the
probation offices.
LO CATIO N .
In most cities the court room and the probation offices are
located either in the courthouse or in the detention home. Of the
courts included in this study the offices (i. e., court rooms, chambers,
and probation offices) of five— Boston, Denver, Los Angeles, Minne
apolis, and New Orleans—were in the county courthouse. However,
in Los Angeles all girls’ cases and all cases of boys under the age of
13 years were heard in a room of the detention home. In Buffalo,
San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis the court room and probation
offices were in the detention home. In the District of Columbia a
separate building, a remodeled private residence, was devoted to the
court and the probation staff. The Buffalo court had extensive adult
jurisdiction and was required by law to hear children’s cases and adult
cases in separate buildings. The adult court room and the offices of
the judge, clerk, reporter, and adult probation officer were in an
office building in the business district, some distance from the deten
tion home where children’s cases were heard.
When the court room is in the detention home or in a building
devoted to juvenile-court purposes, the danger of subjecting the
children to criminal-court surroundings is usually entirely removed.
However, in one city included in the study the juvenile-court and
detention-home building was on the tract of land occupied by the
city hall, courthouse, and jail, and the windows of one side of the
children’s building faced the jail.
The court room used for the children was entirely separate from
the rooms used for adult hearings in three of the five courts located in
the county courthouse. In Los Angeles the court room used for cases
of boys 13 years of age and over was also used for superior-court
cases heard by the judge who was assigned to the juvenile court;
but at the time of the study the judge was assigned only psychopathic
cases and adoption cases in addition to his juvenile-court work, and
the psychopathic cases were heard at the county hospital. The
judge of the Minneapolis court was assigned no criminal cases, and
the court room was used only for children’s cases and for civil cases."
In New Orleans the juvenile-court room was on the first floor of the
courthouse and was reached by a separate entrance. Practically the
same condition existed in Boston. In Minneapolis, Denver, and Los
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
COURT ROOM AND PROBATION OFFICES.
17
Angeles the children had to go through halls and use elevators
frequented by those interested in the various courthouse activities.
The building used by the juvenile court of the District of Columbia
was at some distance from the courthouse and from the detention
home, in a residence district fairly convenient to those districts
which contributed the greatest proportion of juvenile delinquency.
The detention homes of Buffalo, Los Angeles (used for hearings of
girls’ cases and cases of boys under 13), and Seattle also were at some
distance from the downtown districts. The St. Louis juvenile-court
building was one of a group of city buildings near the center of the
city. The San Francisco juvenile-court and detention-home building
was in a business district several blocks from the county courthouse.
When the juvenile-court judge gives only part of his time to the
work of that court, placing the juvenile-court room and the probation
offices in the courthouse results in economy of the judge’s time and
in his greater accessibility to the probation offices in cases of emer
gency and for purposes of consultation. It often happens, moreover,
that the courthouse is conveniently located with reference to car
lines and center of population. These advantages are offset if the
children can not be protected from the surroundings of the criminal
court. Especially if children on probation are expected to report to
the probation office, it is undesirable that the office be in the court
house. This difficulty is sometimes met by arrangements whereby
children report at settlement houses, libraries, or other places con
venient to their homes.
A point to be considered in the location of the court room is the
transportation of children from the detention home to the place where
the hearing is held. This question is solved if the court is in the
detention-home building.
A R R A N G E M E N T O F CO U R T R O O M .
In children’s cases a small court room is preferable to a large one,
for it is impossible in such a room to have many present at the
hearings. Some of those engaged in juvenile-court work consider it
desirable to preserve something of the arrangement of a formal court
room, as it is believed that such a plan tends to impress the child and
his parents with the dignity of the court. It is more commonly held
that the arrangement of the juvenile-court room should approximate
that of a small office. The descriptions and pictures of hearings
given later in this report will show the simplicity of the Buffalo court
room and of the room used by the Los Angeles referee.1 In Seattle the
court room was small and very simple in its appointments. In
Boston all the hearings were in the judge’s office and in the District
of Columbia the judge’s chambers were used for all delinquency
hearings. In Denver, also, most of the hearings were in the judgers
office. The children’s building in St. Louis was designed especially
for the purpose it served, and the court room, though small, had in
modified form some of the features of the ordinary court room.
A similar situation existed in San Francisco, and the court room there
was far less desirable because it combined in one rooili the waiting
i See p. 123. Th e illustration of the Buffalo hearing shows a room of a building no longer used b y the
court. The new court room is more comfortable and quite as informal as the old,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
room and the court room.2 In New Orleans some cases were heard
in the judge's chambers. For the hearings of older boys in Los
Angeles and for all the hearings in Minneapolis an ordinary court
room was used, though in Minneapolis the arrangement of the room
had been changed by the removal of the usual court-room benches,
and persons awaiting hearing remained in an adjoining room.3
A R R A N G E M E N T O F P R O B A T IO N O FFICES.
In planning probation offices it is important that the amount of
space allotted to each officer be adequate and that the arrangement
be such as to insure privacy in interviewing children, parents, and
others concerned in the cases. It is essential that each officer have a
desk of his own. If more than one officer must occupy a single
office, the hours should be so arranged that only one is holding con
sultations at any given time. Large offices, even with enough space
between desks so that simultaneous consultations may be practically
private, are not so conducive to frankness and confidence as are
small, single rooms. How to secure space and privacy was found to
be a serious problem in several of the courts studied.
A waiting room located conveniently to all the probation offices,
space for files and records, and office room for the clerical and steno
graphic staff are essential parts of the probation-office plan. In
addition, the offices should be near the court room. In one court
studied the probation offices were in the basement of the courthouse
and the court room was on the second floor, an arrangement causing
much loss of time and energy. This situation has since been remedied.
Sketches of the floor plans of the St. Louis and Seattle probation
offices are given on pages 53 and 66.
* Girls’ eases were heard in a separate room in another part of the building.
8 Th e Minneapolis court room has since been further modified b y the removal of the lawyer’s bar and the
raising of the bench only 6 or 8 inches from the floor.
/
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
STAFF OF TH E CO U RT.
TH E JU DGE.
Amount o f time devoted to juvenile work.
The courts of Boston, Buffalo, Denver, New Orleans, and the
District of Columbia were served by judges devoting full time to
juvenile-court work. Four of these courts had adult jurisdiction
which required a considerable amount of time, but the Boston court
served the smallest population of any of those studied and dealt only
with delinquent and neglected children. The frequent sessions of
this court also tended to keep at a low figure the number of children
detained.
The juvenile-court judge in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle,
Minneapolis, and St. Louis was one of the judges of the superior,
district, or circuit court and devoted only part of his time to children’s
work. In Los Angeles at the time of the study the judge gave four
half days a week to the juvenile court and the referee gave full time.
In Minneapolis juvenile sessions consumed two and one-half days,
but the extra time bestowed upon the work by the judge probably
brought the total up to considerably more than half of each week.1
In St. Louis the judge gave the major part of the forenoon four days
a week to the juvenile court and devoted some'other time to special
appointments connected with the court. The Seattle judge spent
two days a week in the juvenile court and whatever additional time
was needed. The San Francisco court— one of the largest included
in the study—had the least amount of time from the judge, regularly
only one day and a half each week, though extra time was frequently
devoted to consultations in chambers on juvenile-court matters, and
the referee hearing girls’ cases gave one day a week to the court.
M ethod o f appointment and term.
Of the five judges selected especially for juvenile-court service,
three— those in Buffalo, Denver, and New Orleans— were elected by
popular vote, the first for a 10-year term and each of the others for
4 years.2 The judge of theBoston court was appointed by the governor
for life, and in the District of Columbia the judge was appointed by
the President of the United States for a term of six years.
In the five courts which were branches of other court systems, the
judge was designated by the full bench for service in the juvenile
branch of the court.3 The term was usually one year, but in all
the courts except that of St. Louis it was the custom for the judge to
be continued in his assignment for several years. In St. Louis it
was the practice at the time of the study to change the assignment
every year, but later a law was passed providing for not less than
1 Th e judge in Minneapolis is now appointed under the act of 1923 authorizing a special judge assigned to
juvenile cases. H e sits two days a week and occasionally, in chambers, on other days.
2 In 1921 the term of office of the judge of the N ew Orleans court was made eight years.
8 B y a M innesotalaw passed in 1923 (ch. 387) an additional judge of the district court for the fourth judicial
circuit (which includes Minneapolis), with juvenile-court assignment, has been authorized. This will
mean that the juvenile-court judgq will he elected b y popular vote.
19
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to
o
C H IL D R E N ’S
US-D EPA RTM EN T
BUREAU
OF
U B O P t
oc-jv/
eomil- e:
c o u
OF* 3*T. L O U I S .
p a ri
<?f
»he Cooi-i 0>-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ilk Ju< C*
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
ç,rol
O r A t t o gc A C y coopero I >n<2 i
o f f i e i r ' Ô A JiçA A â Í r ç w o íh «>
STAFF OF TH E COTTBT.
21
two-year terms. Under this law the same judge presides over the
juvenile court and one branch of the domestic-relations court.
Previous experience and interests.
All but one of the judges were lawyers. One of them, in addition
to law, had studied both medicine and psychology, and was particu
larly interested in psychology and the care of the psychopathic.
Several of the judges had taken an active part in general child-welfare
movements. One of them had contributed notably to the popular
understanding of the aims and methods of the juvenile court, in this
and in other countries. Another had served as chairman of a com
mission in his State which revised’ the laws relating to children and
had taken part in State and local child-welfare activities. One judge
had been a member of the school board for a number of years, part of
the time serving as president; he was also an officer of a boy-scout
organization.
U se o f referees.
Juvenile courts with chancery jurisdiction have power to appoint
referees with authority to hear cases and to make findings of fact and
orders, subject to approval by the judge. Some of the juvenile-court
laws have specific provisions relating to referees, and a few contain
clauses providing for the appointment of a woman to hear girls’ cases.
The Colorado law authorized the judge to appoint masters of disci
pline with powers similar to those of masters of chancery. A peti
tion for review of the proceedings might be filed within 10 days.
The California law provided that in counties of the first class— of
which Los Angeles was the only one in the State— a woman referee
should be appointed wherever possible to hear girls’ cases and that
paid referees might be employed by the court.
In only two of the courts studied— Los Angeles and San Francisco—
was the work of referees part of the regular routine, at the time of the
inquiry.4 The Los Angeles court was the only one having a paid
referee for girls’ cases. She heard all girls’ cases and all cases of
boys under 13 years of age, and gave full time'to this work. In San
Francisco a member of the probation committee— an unpaid board
of citizens— served in all girls’ cases as referee, without compensation.
In the District of Columbia the judge was a woman, so that the need
for a woman referee did not exist. In Denver the clerk of the court, a
woman, was authorized to act as referee or “ master of discipline”
and sometimes entered minor orders, but all official cases were heard
by the judge.
A judge of the St. Louis court in 1914 appointed two of the women
probation officers as referees or advisers to hear all girls’ cases jointly
and to make recommendations to him. Later a plan was adopted by
which one of the women sat with the judge. After a year, a new judge
having been assigned to the court, the arrangement was discontinued.
The Los Angeles court not only had a woman referee, but a begin
ning had been made in carrying out a plan for appointing referees for
4 In Minneapolis the chief probation officer now (1924) acts as referee in cases of truancy (unless repeated) ,
incorrigibility, trespass, and minor offenses. Petitions are filed, but a majority of these cases áre settled
without court appearance.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
outlying districts. The territory served by this court was large, and
some difficulty had been encountered in securing the transfer of cases
from the lower courts outside the city, to the juvenile court. The
justice, recorders’, and police courts, instead of immediately sus
pending proceedings when it appeared that a child was under 18, as
the law required, sometimes heard the evidence and placed the child
on informal probation, thus depriving the child o f the benefit of
supervision bv a trained worker. To avoid this difficulty the plan
was conceived of having some of the local magistrates appointed as
referees of the juvenile court, thereby bringing them under the super
vision of the court and making the court’s probation facilities avail
able to the children. Only one such magistrate had been appointed
at the tune of the study. The plan was to have this referee and an
attorney who had also been appointed referee, hear cases in their
districts involving boys 13 years of age and over. The plan had not
been in operation sufficiently long to determine its success and has
since been abandoned.
P R O B A T IO N STAFF.
Number o f officers.
The 10 courts varied greatly in respect to the size of the probation
staff, and these differences did not always correspond to variations
in the volume of work. Including those doing administrative work,
investigation, or supervision of children’s cases but not including
officers specializing in aid-to-mothers cases, the smallest number of
paid officers engaged in probation work in any of the 10 courts was 4
and the largest number was 26. Table 3 shows for each court the
number of children’s cases and the size of the paid probation staff.
The numbers of aid-to-mothers cases, adoption cases, and adult cases
are not shown. In Boston and Minneapolis private agencies, and in
the District of Columbia, a public agency, did most o f the investiga
tion and supervision of neglect cases, and in San Francisco many
cases of dependency and neglect were investigated and supervised by
private agencies cooperating with the court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
STAFF oF The court.
23
T a b le 3. — Number o f children's cases in one year and size o f 'probation staff.
N um ber of children’ s
cases during one year.
•
Court.
Probation officers dealing w ith children's
cases. i
D e
Delin pend
Total.
ency
Total.
quency.
and
neglect.
Chief probation Officers engaged
officer and de in investigation
partment su
and supervision
pervisors.
of cases.
M en. Women.
Boston j uvenile court 2_
Buffalo children’ s cou rt8_____________
Denver j uvenile court4.......... _
District of Columbia juvenile court L
Los Angeles j uvenile cou rt8__________
Minneapolis] uvenile court *__________
N ew Orleans juvenile cou rt18____
San Francisco juvenile cou rt11______
Seattle juvenile cou rt12__________ .
St. Louis juvenile cou rt18_________
1,015
1,176
3,358
2,000
1,787
1,549
1,512
1,825
1,345
2,064
952
1,143
(<)
1,641
1,314
1,000
1,434
795
997
1,708
63
33
301
359
473
549
78
1,030
348
356
4
4
6
12
26
6
4
13
5
17
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
M en. Wom en.
1
1
3
12
7
11
5
2
2
3
Q
8
8
I N ot including probation officers dealing only w ith adult or mothers’ aid cases.
a Year ended A u g. 31, 1920. Figures compiled from court records.
8 Calendar year 1920. N in th Annual Report of the Children’ s Court of Buffalo, N . Y ., 1920, pp. 19,20.
In 1923 there were 973 delinquency cases and 75 cases of dependency and neglect. (Report for 1923, p 2 3 )
‘ Year ended June 30, 1920. Manuscript report of court. Delinquency cases not given separately for
the reason that the total number of children coming before the court informally on other than dependency
-and neglect charges (1,770) included a great m any children who applied to the court for assistance in find
ing work or for advice. T h e majority of the children dealt with b y the Denver Juvenile Court come vol
untarily, frequently on their own initiative. (See description of the informal work of the court, p. 110)
T h e number of delinquency cases in which petitions were filed during the year was 287.
6 One officer gave most of his time to adult cases.
« One officer employed on half time. There are now (1924) 6 probation officers giving their time to de
linquency, dependency, and domestic-relations cases.
i Year ended June 30, 1920. Manuscript report of court. Cases dealt with informally not included, as
probation work was not done in these cases. T h e clerk of the court, formerly the chief probation officer,
now (1924) acts as director of administrative work, including the work of the probation office. The chief
probation officer and the assistant chief probation officer are both women. T h e probation staff handling
children s cases now consists of 1 investigating officer, 3 white and 2 colored men probation officers, 2 white
women probation officers, and 1 colored woman probation officer. In the year ended June 30, 1924, the
number of official delinquency cases was 1,904, and the number of dependency and neglect cases was 279.
8 Calendar year 1919. Annual report, Los Angeles C ounty Probation Department, for the Year Ending
December 31, 1919, p. 9. N um ber given represents only new cases filed, and cases dealt w ith informally
are not included, as probation work was not done in these cases. Dependency cases include 21 insane or
feeble-minded. In 1922 there were 1,744 cases of delinquency and 178 cases of unfit home, no proper guardm i ) 1^ ’ no parental control, or mental defect or disorder (manuscript report for the year ended Dec. 31,
* Calendar year 1919. The Juvenile Court of Hennepin County, M in n ., 1918-1919, pp. 13,15, 24. Th e
staff now (1924) consists of the chief probation officer and 6 probation officers— 5 men and 1 woman. T h e
person designated as chief probation officer serves as complaint clerk and court assistant.
10 Calendar year 1920. Annual Report, Juvenile Court for the C ity of N ew Orleans, 1920, p. 8.
II Year ended June 30, 1920. Manuscript report of court. Cases dealt with informally not included,
as probation work was not done in these cases. Dependency cases include 86 dealt with b y the boys’ and
girls’ departments and 944 dealt with b y the family-relations department.
12
Calendar year 1921. T h e Seattle Juvenile-Court Report for the Years 1920-1921, p. 11. Includes cases
in which petitions were filed and cases dealt w ith informally. In 1922 the number of delinquency cases
was 1,138 and of neglect cases, 507 (T h e Seattle Juvenile-Court Report for 1922, p. 9); in 1923 there were
1,189 delinquency cases and 420 neglect cases (Report for 1923, p. 9).
. » Calendar year 1920. Report of the Juvenile Court and Probation Office for the Years 1916 to 1920,
inclusive, p. 38. Cases dealt with informally not included, as probation work was not done in these cases.
In 1922 there were 1,564 delinquent children and 421 neglected children before the court (manuscript report).
M ethod o f selection.
In nine courts the probation officers were appointed by the judge,5
but in Los Angeles the judge had no control over appointments.
The chief probation officer was appointed by the county board of
supervisors from a civil-service list, and he in turn appointed his
subordinates, also from a civil-service list. In St. Louis the chief
probation officer was appointed by the judge, and other probation
officers were appointed by the judge in consultation with the chief
probation officer
« In the Minneapolis court the power of appointment rested with the judges of the district court, but in
practice appointments were left to the juvenile-court judge.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE COUNTS AT WORK.
In only three courts— those of Buffalo, Los Angeles, and St.
Louis— were probation officers appointed as a result of competitive
examinations. In Buffalo the city civil-service commission, com
posed of three attorneys in private practice, conducted the exami
nations with the aid and advice of the State probation commission.
The judge was required to select from the first three on the list.
The Los Angeles County civil-service commission conducted ex
aminations for juvenile-court probation officers and for the referee.
In St. Louis a special board of examiners of three members was
appointed by the circuit judges to conduct competitive examinations
for probation officers.
, . ,
In the San Francisco court appointments were made by tne judge
upon the nomination of the probation committee— an advisory
committee of seven members appointed by the judge.6 A form was
filled out by each applicant interviewed by the committee. .Personal
ity was given the greatest weight in considering qualifications. Id
Boston the State probation commission was usually consulted
before appointments were made. The commission kept on hand a
list of applicants, but no formal examination was held.
Save for a requirement sometimes found, specifying that the
probation officers must be u of reputable character or discreet
persons of good character,” none of the laws governing the juvenile
courts studied specified the qualifications which probation officers
should have. Wfiere competitive examinations were held no mini
mum requirements were specified with regard to education or ex
perience, except that in Buffalo graduation from grammar school
was required. It was generally recognized that the personality of
the officer was of fundamental importance.
.
.
In Buffalo 30 points were allowed for the written examination, 30
for the oral, and 40 for education and experience. In the examina
tion for chief probation officer 40 per cent was allowed for the written
examination and 30 per cent for each of the other subjects, tide
point was given for each year in high school and from two to lour
points for college education. For the purpose of rating, experience
was divided into two parts— general experience and special experi
ence giving a knowledge of juvenile-court problems. Candidates
for the position of chief probation officer were expected to have a
greater amount of education and experience and to show- executive
ability. In the last examination prior to the time of the inquiry
the State probation commission assisted in the preparation or tne
questions and in the oral examinations.
.
,
„
Fifty points were allowed “for the written examination and 50 lor
education, experience, and personality in St. Louis. A special
examination was given for chief probation officer.
The examination given in 1920 for deputy probation officer in
Los Angeles allowed four points for the written test and six points
for education, experience, and training, verified by personal interview
and references. Candidates had to attain at least 70 per cent in
education, experience, and training. The announcement stated that
candidates must possess a good education and be well informed
concerning methods of dealing with wayward and delinquent juve
niles. The written examination included practical questions and a
« See p. 37 1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
<M
F.br.mrf t I U
err o ffic e r o a flig n e d
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
fro m
other
D eportm ent.
80306°— 25|
STAFF OF THE COTJET.
M
E3JV
4
P
v
4
e:R IM OOLJrsJ'T"Y' S
_
JLJ\/ ET IV
I1
1
_E
Z
. COUR .T-M IN N EAPO LIS.
to
05.
K
IIN
C
5 COUNTY
ÚUV/EUNIL-E COURT - SEATTLE.
C H IL D R E N S B UR EA U
U S . D EPA R TM EN T OF L A B O R
JÜ V E îflL E CÔTJRÏS A ï \VÓRK.
■i - L » t « grò I p o rt of »»>o
------- Superate agency coo
o ffic e r ^ seigned fr
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
afing wifK •->«
other- Depart
S T A F F
O F
T H
E
27
C O U R T .
mental test. For chief probation officer a special examination was
given; three points were assigned to the written test and seven to
education, experience, and training.
The term of office for probation officers was almost always in
definite, the judge having the power of removal except in Los Angeles,
where such authority rested with the chief probation officer ana the
county board of supervisors. In San Francisco a term of two years
was specified and in Minneapolis a term of four years, in both cases
subject to removal for cause within that period. In practice, how
ever, the tenure of office was indefinite. A probation officer could
not be removed in San Francisco without the approval of the pro
bation committee.
Salaries.
Great variation in the salaries of the probation officers was found
in the courts studied. Table 4 shows the salaries of various classes
of officers, as reported in 1920 or 1921.
T a b l e 4. — S a la ries o f 'p robation officers i n 1 9 2 0 or 1 9 2 1 .
Yearly salaries.
Court
Chief
probation
officer.
$1, 740
$2,160- 2,400
Investi
gators.
o ©
5 ©
i-TcC
*9-
$2,500
2,040
1,800
District of C olum bia2______________________ _
2,240
...
$2, 700- 3, 300
2,000
Minneapolis4_______________________________________
1.500
3,600
3,000
Seattle_______________ ______ ............................................
2.500
St. Louis6______________ ____ __
________________
Assistant
chief proba
tion officer
and super
visors of
departments.
1,800- 2,400
1,800
1,500
Assistant
probation
officers.
$1, 700-$2,100
1,800
11,500- 1,620
1, 240- 1,440
1, 680- 1,920
1.080- 1,380
1.080- 1, 200
1,800
1,680- 1,800
1,000- 1,500
1 N ot including salary of a probation officer giving part time to adult and part time to children’s work
nor salary ($600) of a half-time officer.
J The probation officers of the District of Columbia court come within the provisions of the classification
act of 1923. Th e salaries of the chief and assistant chief have been placed in grade 2 of the professional and
scientific service, with a range of $2,400 to $3,000. T h e investigating officer has been placed in grade 1
($1,860-$2,400) and the assistant probation officers in the subprofessional service, grade 5 ($l,680-$2,040).
3 The salary of the chief probation officer of the Los Angeles court on July 1,1924, was $4,500; of the assist
ant chief probation officer, $2,700; of the supervisors of the boys’ and girls’ departments, $2,280-$2,520; and
of assistant probation officers, $1,800-$2,100.
1 The salary of the chief probation officer of the Minneapolis court, who under a recent consolidation has
charge of the district-court and the juvenile-court probation offices, is now (1924) $3,600. Th e assistant
chief probation officer receives $2,400 and the deputy probation officers from $1,080 to $1,800.
3 The salary of the assistant chief probation officer in San Francisco is now (1924) $2,700, and the assistant
probation officers receive $2,100.
6 The salary of the chief probation officer in St. Louis is now (1924) $3,000, and the maximum salary of
deputy probation officers is $2,000; 14 of the 16 deputy probation officers are receiving this maximum.
7 The maximum is now $4,500 (1924).
8 The range is now from $2,100 to $2,700 (1924).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
In general, the salaries paid the assistant probation officers were
far lower than the salaries which competent people who do the actual
work of supervising the boys and girls on probation and who make
the investigations should receive. In three courts some of these
salaries were as low as $1,000 or $1,080, and the maximum was not
above $1,500. In the court with the highest salaries for assistant
probation officers the range was from $1,700 to $2,100. In two
courts all the assistant probation officers received $1,800.9
Only two courts had definite plans for increases according to
length of service and efficiency. In one appropriations for the proba
tion office were made in three classes, A, B, and C, class A carrying
the lowest and class 0 the highest salaries. Class A salaries were
paid the first year of service, promotions to class B coming at the
end of that period. Promotions to class C were made on recommen
dation of the civil-service commission, with the approval of the
board of supervisors. For instance, the entrance salary for chief
probation officer was $2,700, the B grade salary was $3,000, and the
C grade, $3,300. In the other classes, the interval between grades
was $120 a year, except that a flat rate was provided for special
investigators.
In another court the entrance salary was $1,260, and periodic
increases of $60 a year were usually given until the maximum of
$1,500 was reached. At the time of the inquiry a yearly bonus of
$300 was allowed, and all the officers were receiving the maximum,
which, with the bonus, amounted to $1,800.
Hours o f work and provision for vacations.
The hours of work were usually from 9 a. m. to 5 p. m., though in
one court they were from 9 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., and in a few they
were from 8.30 a. m. until 5 p. m. Saturday half holidays were
usually allowed, though sometimes the officers had Saturday half
holidays only in alternate weeks, so that some were on duty every
Saturday afternoon.
In practically all the courts a great deal of overtime work was
necessary. In Boston each man probation officer was on duty one
month out of every three for night service and was notified and
required to go to the precinct stations in case of night arrests of
juveniles. In two courts the officers were required to be on duty
one evening a week from 7 until 9 to receive reports. Probation
officers frequently stated that they made many night visits to their
probationers, some also visiting places of commercialized amusement
where their charges were likely to be found. A probation officer, like
a physician, must be constantly within call to deal with situations as
they arise.
The most common annual vacation period was found to be two
weeks, though sometimes 20 days or even a month was allowed.
In several o f the courts it was stated that when necessary, generous
periods of sick leave were allowed.
The Minneapolis, Buffalo, and Boston courts reported some pro
vision for the expenses of probation officers while attending State gt^
9
In two of the three courts with the lowest salaries in 1920 or 1921 the maximum is now (1924) $1,800 an d
$2,100, respectively; there are now two courts with a maximum of $2,100 and one *n which all the assistant
probation officers receive $2,100.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vJ.S.
C H IL D R E N ’S
BUREAU
d e p a r t m e n t
o f
nei
l a b o r
^
_
JLJ\/EZ K|
E: C O U R T — D I S T R I C
OF" C O L U M B IA
S T A F F
O F
T H
E
C O U R T ,
» f f i c c r aa^ìgnctìl from otHor D ep ort ment.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
National conferences in line with their work. In Buffalo the expenses
of probation officers, and in Boston their railroad fares, were allowed
for attendance at conferences called by the State probation com
missions. In San Francisco and the District of Columbia expenses
were not paid, but additional leave with pay was granted for study
or attendance at conferences.
No provision was found, in most cases, for subscriptions to period
icals or dues to associations concerned with subjects pertaining to
juvenile-court work, nor were funds provided for the purchase of
books. In only two courts was there any collection of books on pro
fessional subjects. In one of these the judge’s private library was
available to the staff of the court. In the other there was a small
collection of books in the office of the chief probation officer.
Training and experience.
The low salaries paid in most of the courts studied and the absence
of defined requirements for entrance into the probation service
naturally resulted in probation staffs whose members, as a rule, had
little preparation for their work through education or previous expe
rience. Study of the child and his family and successful recon
structive work not only call for certain indispensable personal quali
ties but also demand the knowledge and skill which come only from
training and experience. * To secure such service it is essential that
the authorities to whom probation officers are responsible and the
general public recognize its character and importance and provide
compensation adequate to attract and hold a qualified personnel.
Of the chief probation officers in the courts studied, six had college
or professional training, one of the six was also a graduate of a school
for social work, and two were lawyers. Seven of the chief probation
officers had had previous experience in family case work, boys’ work,
social work in connection with the public schools, or probation work
in another court. In most instances the chief probation officer had
been promoted from the ranks of probation officers. A physician
had been chief probation officer of the Seattle court for many years;
he had resigned just prior to the time of this study but has since
returned to the court. His full title was “ chief probation officer
and diagnostician.”
Of the department supervisors, investigators, and assistant proba
tion officers, a small minority were college graduates. Two or three
had studied law, and less than half a dozen had attended schools
training for social service.
In most of the courts the proportion of probation officers with pre
vious experience in social work was small. In one court all three
assistant probation officers had had experience either in child-caring
or in boys’ club work. Including work as volunteers before their
appointment to paid service, 6 of the 12 department supervisors a n df
probation officers in another court had had experience, and 2 of the 4
probation officers in a third court. In seven of the courts studied,
however, the majority of the probation officers had had no previous
experience in occupations allied with probation.
When this lack of~>
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T A F F
O F
T H
E
C O U R T .
31
experience was combined, as was very often the case, with relatively
little educational equipment, it is clear that the probation work itself
must have had to serve for some time as training and practice.
Length o f service.
In a majority of the courts studied the members of the probation
staff had been connected with the court for a considerable period of
time, often for many years. For instance, the chief probation officer
of one court had served 14 years, and the length of time the 13 mem
bers of his staff had been with the court was as follows: 14 to 16
years, 3; 11 years, 2; 5 to 7 years, 5; 3 years, 1; less than 1 year, 2.
Ip another court the chief probation officer who had just resigned
had been with the court nearly 7 years, and 14 of the 25 members of
the staff had been with it 5 years or more.
Use o f police officers, volunteers, and public and private agencies.
In Buffalo and in Denver a police officer was detailed to give full
time to the juvenile court. This officer in Buffalo acted as probation
officer in adult cases. In Denver the police officer gave the greater
part of his time to preliminary work in adult cases but also served as
liaison officer between the police and the court in juvenile cases in
which arrests were made, all such cases being referred to him by the
police.
Three police officers were assigned to the New Orleans juvenile
court, each officer serving 8 hours in every 24. The court was kept
open day and night, and the police officers assisted in receiving com
plaints and in caring for children arrested, taking them, if detention
was necessary, to the institution in which they were to be detained.
The court thus served in reality as a precinct station for children.
Volunteer probation officers were used by only one court, the New
Orleans court, which employed no negro probation officers. All
cases of negro children placed, on probation were assigned to volun
teers, six o f whom were more or less active at the time the study was
made. A white volunteer officer, a representative of a church, super
vised all boys from that church who were on probation. Other courts,
notably those in San Francisco and Seattle, used volunteers to some
extent, but their service was always under the supervision of paid
probation officers and was confined to such tasks as making sup
plementary home visits or special investigations, or taking children
to clinics.
The San Francisco court was cooperating with the University of
California b y giving students practical experience and by lectures
to students by the chief probation officer on the work of the court.
Nurses taking the public-health course in the University of California
were assigned to the court in groups of four, each group giving four
half days a week to the court for periods of one month. University
students taking courses in social work gave two and one-half days a
week to the court. The students assisted in clerical work and in
special investigations, and made supplementary home visits for the
iris’ department.
In Seattle six students of the University of Washington gave
volunteer service under close supervision. Some of them were post-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
03
to
IU 0
l—CDS AMGC 1
—E
=S C O U N TY
_Jl_J
E
Dr-JIL
_E
C COURT
C H IL D R E N S B UR EA U
u;& d e p a r t m e n t o f
labo r
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
;
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T A F F
O F
T H E
C O U R T .
33
graduates, and at least five had had field work before coming to the
court. They were used chiefly in girls’ cases, making home visits
and helping with the girls’ recreation. Each volunteer was giving
one day a week to the court during one college term, and one of the
group was staying throughout the year. Reports as to the interest
and sympathy, accuracy, judgment, persistence, readiness to grasp
ideas, and initiative shown by each student were made by the chief
probation officer to the professor supervising their work.
Seven courts utilized^ in probation work in certain delinquency
cases the services of agents of other public departments or of private
societies, including the Big Brother or Big Sister organization. The
Seattle court was working out a plan whereby cases of delinquency
involving school children would be turned over to school-attendance
officers for probationary supervision. The supervisor of school
attendance was to be responsible to the chief probation officer for
these cases and to see that regular probation histories were kept on
the forms used by the court. At the time of the study only about 12
cases had been placed on probation to school-attendance officers.
In Boston a representative of the Council of Jewish Women made
the investigations and served as probation officer in all cases of Jewish
girls. The Boston Children’s Aid Society placed in family homes a
small number of difficult children who were on probation and did
intensive work with them. The secretary of the Louisiana Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children made special investiga
tions for the juvenile court, and school-attendance officers super
vised probationers in truancy cases. The judge in St. Louis as
signed a few cases for probationary supervision to the Big Brother
organization, and any probation officer might ask assistance from
the Big Brother or the Big Sister organization, or from representa
tives of Protestant or Catholic churches. Some of the probation
officers made use of such aid to a much greater extent than others.
The Buffalo court also utilized to a small extent the services of Big
Brothers to supplement probationary supervision.
In Los Angeles County, where the juvenile court served a large
territory outside the principal city, agents of societies in the out
lying territory were called upon to assist the probation officers in the
supervision of cases. These volunteers did not assume full responsi
bility for cases but kept the probation officers in touch with the situ
ation, reporting to them from time to time by letter or telephone.
The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Chil
dren did all the work of investigation and follow-up in neglect cases
for the Boston juvenile court, and the Children’s Protective Society
of Minneapolis rendered similar service in cases of dependency and
neglect. In the District of Columbia a public organization— the
Board of Children’s Guardians:—made all investigations in depend
ency and neglect cases and presented the evidence. This juvenile
court had the benefit for the year ended July 1, 1921, of the full
time service of a trained investigator detailed to the court by the
District of Columbia Chapter of the American Red Cross.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
84
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
PH Y SIC IA N S AN D M E N TA L SPECIA LISTS.
The importance of the probation staff has been recognized from
the time the first juvenile courts were organized, but the need of
provision for study of the child’s physical and mental condition was
not realized for many years. The 1918 survey of children’s courts
in the United States showed that provision for physical examinations
was more common than for mental. About one-third of the courts
from which information was obtained in that survey reported pro
vision for physical examinations, but only 7 per cent reported mental
examinations in clinics organized for the purpose or by persons having
some psychiatric or psychological knowledge.10
In 2 of the 10 courts included in the present study— those in New
Orleans and the District of Columbia— no provision whatever was
made for physical and mental examinations. In the District of
Columbia a clinic had been operated for 14 months in connection
with the court by the United States Public Health Service, but it
had been discontinued just prior to the time of this study. In the
Denver court no provision for paid service by physicians or psychi
atrists had been made, but volunteer medical, psychiatric, and psy
chological service was given by physicians and psychiatrists and by
the department of psychology of the University of Colorado. The
St. Louis court utilized the services of a hygiene inspector from the
school department, who came to the detention home to give physical
examinations. For knowledge of the mental condition of the children
the court was dependent upon volunteer psychiatrists.11 In Buffalo
a psychophysiological examiner from the school department came to
the detention home every morning and made physical examinations
and mental tests. The provisions for the study of the physical and
mental condition of the children made by the courts of Boston, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Seattle will be described
in a later section of this report.12
CLERICAL STAFF.
In most of the courts the clerical staff was divided into that under
the supervision of the clerk of the court and the clerks and stenograhers of the probation office, responsible to the chief probation officer,
n Boston the clerk of the court was appointed by the governor for a
term of five years. The incumbent was a lawyer; the salary was
$3,000. In four courts which were independent of other court sys
tems the clerk was-appointed by the judge. In those juvenile courts
which were branches of other court systems the clerk was a deputy
of the county clerk (in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle) or
?
W Courts in the United States Hearing Children’s Cases, p . 63.
11 After the time of the study a psychiatric clinic was established in St. Louis, operated for eight months
b y the division on the prevention of delinquency of the National Committee for M ental Hygiene, as part
of its activities under the Commonwealth Fund program for the prevention of delinquency. A s a result
of this demonstration a psychiatric clinic has been established b y the city to serve mainly the juvenile
court, the public schools, and those agencies that deal with the problem children in the city. For a
report of the demonstration clinic see Th e Psychiatric Clinic in the Treatment of Conduct Disorders of
Children and the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, b y V . V . Anderson, M . D . (The National C o m .
mittee for M ental Hygiene, N ew York, 1923.)
13 See p. 94 ff.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1921.
v
_
J|
_
JN
^EZM
I I_
_
E
Z
. CIOLJFVr OF THE CITY AND CZOLJKlT'-t'' OF SAM PRANCISCO.
S T A F F
O F
T H E
C O T T F T .
.... i.. Iw ^cgt'a l [ s o r t o f
ih e
O r ^ a n ‘t | a r i o n .
“"*■ Separate- a^cnc.f cooperating with JiwCtw
o ffic e r
N o t«
i-&o^>i;«a bY ^
u«u'v«-r» itY
”
c tA sig n e d
C o o p e r a tiv e
fro m
oth e r
D e p o rtm e n t
r e la t i o n s h ip ; a s s i g n e d by.
co u n ty c le r k
w h o is e * o f f i c i o
c le r k o f
the S u p e r i o r C o u r t .
co
cn
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
a deputy of the clerk of the circuit or the district court. In Minne
apolis the judge approved the appointment of the deputy so assigned.
In 9 of the 10 courts the clerk was paid a salary, but in St. Louis,
contrary to generally accepted standards of juvenile-court organiza
tion, the fee system prevailed in the clerk’s office. Fees were charged
for issuing warrants and subpoenas and filing papers, as well as for
serving papers, which came under the province o f the sheriff’s office.
The costs were usually from $2 to $5 per case.
In the clerk’s office there were usually assistants who helped with
the records, and stenographers. Most of the courts had official court
reporters, but where there were no regular court reporters, as in
Boston, St. Louis, and Seattle, other members of the staff who were
stenographers were called in occasionally to report particularly im
portant cases. When the juvenile court was part of another court
system, one court reporter was usually assigned to the judge for both
juvenile and adult work. Deputy sheriffs and bailiffs were usually
assigned to the juvenile court. The total number employed as court
reporters, deputy clerks, and court attendants varied from one to
seven, the usual number being from two to four.
The number of stenographers and clerks in the probation office was
inadequate in most courts. Usually these employees received com
plaints, answered inquiries, and kept the records of the probation
office. In two courts the clerical staff of the probation office num
bered seven or eight, and in two others, three or four; in the re
mainder not more than one or two persons were available for these
duties, and in one the probation staff had no separate clerical or
stenographic service.13 In several courts considerable saving in the
time of the probation staff and more complete and systematic records
might have been effected if a larger clerical and stenographic force
had been available.
STAFF OF D ETEN TIO N H O M E .14
Six of the 10 courts had detention homes managed by or closely
connected with the court. In Buffalo all the appointments to the
staff of the detention home were made by the judge from civil-service
lists. In Denver the superintendent and matron of the detention
home were appointed by the mayor on the recommendation of the
judge, and the teacher was appointed by the board of education on
the recommendation of the judge. The superintendent of the St.
Louis detention home was appointed by the judge without exami
nation, and she appointed her subordinates with the approval of the
judge. The judge in Seattle appointed the superintendent of the
detention home who also served as his assistant and sometimes as
probation officer in certain girls’ cases; other members of the staff
and the house physician were appointed by her.
In Los Angeles and San Francisco the control of the detention
home rested with the probation committee, and the judge had noth
ing to do with its management. The chief probation officer in San
13 See charts, showing plans of court organization, pp. 20, 25, 26, 29, 32, and 35. The clerical staff of the
San Francisco court has since heen increased so that there is bow (1924) a full-time stenographer in each
department and an office attendant in the girls’ department,
14 F o r a m o r e c o m p l e t e d i s c u s s i o n , s e e p . 7 2 ,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T A F F
O F
T H
E
C O U R T .
37
Francisco was the executive officer of the probation committee, and
so the administration of the probation office and that of the detention
home were closely coordinated. In Los Angeles the position of super
intendent was under civil-service regulations. In both cities the
superintendent had the power to appoint the other members of the
staff; in Los Angeles such appointments were made from civilservice lists, and m both cities they were subject to the approval of
the probation committee. In four detention homes the teachers were
assigned and paid by the city school department.
O T H E R E M PLO Y E E S OF TH E CO URT.
In Minneapolis fou r15 and in Seattle five special members of the
staff with the same status as probation officers devoted full time to
aid-to-mothers cases. All four in Minneapolis were designated
“ investigators” and did the work both of investigation and of super
vision. In Seattle the mothers’ pension department was in charge
of a commissioner who had under her supervision an investigator,
two field supervisors, and a stenographer.
A D V ISO R Y B O A R D S.
In some States the juvenile court law provides for a local board or
committee of citizens to advise and cooperate with the court. In
connection with only two of the courts studied— those in Los Angeles
and San Francisco— had such boards been organized.
The California law provided for the establishment of a probation
committee of seven members appointed by the judge for terms of four
years. The terms overlapped in such a way that the committee was
a continuous body, and the members served without pay. The com
mittee was required under the terms of the law to inquire into the
qualifications and management of associations and societies other
than State institutions receiving wards of the court and to manage
the detention home. The development and functions of the proba
tion committees of the two California courts studied were quite
dissimilar.
;
In San Francisco the committee was appointed by the judge and
consisted of five men and two women. The chief probation officer
was the executive secretary, and thus a unified control of the proba
tion office and the detention home was made possible. The com
mittee nominated the probation officers, appointed or approved the
appointments of members of the staff of the detention home, exer
cised close control over its management, and was active in securing
legislation. The committee was divided into five subcommittees;
namely, the house Committee, the office committee, the committee on
relations, the committee on institutions, and the committee on legis
lation. Aid was given by the probation committee in securing the
approval of the board of supervisors for the budgets of the probation
office and the detention home.
15
In 1924 the number was 6.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
38
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
The Los Angeles probation committee, though technically ap
pointed by the judge, was in reality appointed by the board of super
visors, and neither the court nor the probation office had any organic
relation to it. As a result, the cooperation between the committee
and the court had not always been so harmonious as it had been in
San Francisco. The work of the Los Angeles committee was con
fined to the management of the detention home and El Retiro, a
school for girls,16and appointments of officers of these institutions were
made or approved by the committee. Four members of the com
mittee were women and three were men. The committee appointed
the following subcommittees: Hours, building, entertainment, amuse
ment, El Retiro, publicity, law and legislation, and emergency.
10 Seepp. 146,220.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PR ELIM IN AR Y STEPS IN COURT PROCEDURE.
The methods of apprehension of the child and of receiving and
filing complaints and the care of the child during the interval between
apprehension and the disposition of the case are matters the impor
tance of which has not always been fully recognized. Inadequate or
careless work in these preliminary processes may result in faulty
selection of cases for formal court action and injury to the child
through unfortunate contacts with other children or with adult
offenders.
The need of detention facilities for children entirely separate from
those for adults was recognized from the beginning of the juvenilecourt movement. Many States have laws prohibiting the detention
in jail of children under specified ages. Yet in 1918 it was found that
children were being detained in jails in every State in the U nion;1
and in this study of 10 more or less highly organized courts in lame
cities, 1 court was found in which jail detention— in separate wards,
to be sure—was almost the only method of detention used, and in most
of the other courts children were at least occasionally detained in
jail.2
&
Much less consideration has been given to the other aspects of
the preliminary processes. The relation between the police and the
court has sometimes occasioned considerable difficulty. One of the
first problems a juvenile court must solve is winning the cooperation
and understanding of the police department. The policeman
usually has a sincere desire to “ keep the kids out of mischief” and to
“ give them another chance,” coupled with a natural resentment-if
the result of court proceedings is negative in cases which he believes
demand decisive action. In working out plans of cooperation with
the police the demarcation between the field of the police and the
field of the court must be plainly indicated. The jurisdiction of
the court should begin the moment the child is taken into custody.
The facilities of the court for social investigation make it the logical
agency to determine whether a case demands formal court action or
whether it can be settled informally, and whether or not detention is
required. This does not mean that the police should not. exercise
discretion with regard to the children whom they take into custody or
report to the court and those whom they merely warn.3
i Courts in the United States Hearing Children’s Cases, p. 49.
3 For further discussion of jail detention, se e p . 62.
. . .
. . . . . . .
___ .
3 For a discussion of the place where the responsibility of the pohce should end and that of the court
should begin, see: Proceedings of the Conference on Juvenile-Court Standards, pp. 44-54 ( U .S . Children s
Bureau Publication N o. 97, Washington, 1923); Juvenile-Court Standards: Report of the committee
aunointed bv the Children’s Bureau, August, 1921, to formulate juvenile-court standards, m 2 (U . S.
Children’s Bureau Publication N o. 121, Washington, 1923). Th e latter publication is reprinted on pp.
251-256 of this report.
39
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
CASES RE FE R R E D BY IN D IVID U A LS, SC H O O L S , AN D SO CIAL
AGEN CIES, AND BY PO LICE .
The proportion of delinquency cases coming to the juvenile court
through parents, relatives, schools, and social agencies, as contrasted
with the proportion coming through arrest by police officers, gives
some indication of the success of the court in winning the confidence of
the community. Although it would be extremely unfortunate for
parents or schools to become dependent upon the court for help in
minor problems of discipline which should be their own responsibility,
nevertheless many cases of developing delinquency might well be
referred to it for constructive action before the police have found it
necessary to arrest the children or report them to the court.
For four courts information was available showing the number of
delinquency cases referred to the court by the police and the number
coming to the court’s attention from other sources. (Table 5.)
In Boston and St. Louis more than four-fifths of the delinquency
cases were referred to the court by the police, in Buffalo less than
half, and in Minneapolis only slightly over half came from this
source. For Seattle and Los Angeles it was possible to secure
similar information for delinquency and dependency cases combined
but not for cases of delinquency alone. The Seattle figures included
cases dealt with informally as well as those heard by the judge.
Of 1,787 new cases in the Los Angeles court in 1919* petitions were
filed by the police in 1,099, or 61 per cent; and by parents or guardians
m 216, by school authorities in 21, and by others m 452.4 In Seattle,
of the 1,345 cases of dependency and delinquency dealt with formally
or informally in 1921, 718 (53 per cent) were referred by the police,
143 by parents, 179 by school authorities, and 305 by others.5
T a b l e 5.— P r o p o r tio n o f d elin q u en cy cases referred to the court b y the police a n d
b y others i n f o u r ju v e n ile courts.
Delinquency cases before the courts in specified period.
.Referred by
police.®
Court and period.
Total.
Boston juvenile court— year ended Aug. 31,
1920 *________
Buffalo children’s court—6 months, 1919
Minneapolis juvenile court— 1919 d
St. Louis juvenile court— 1920 J.
952
491
•906
f 1,708
Referred b y others.
Source
not
Par
re
School
N u m Per N u m Per ents
ported.
au
A
ll
ber.
cent. ber. cent. and thori others.
guard
ties.
ians.
799
226
477
1,473
° Including in Buffalo special detectives employed
b D ata Compiled from court records.
• Information not available.
83.9
46.0
52.6
86.2
150
247
429
235
15.7
50.3
47. 3
13.8
(*)
51
82
2
(«)
90
22
0
196
257
211
3
18
by railroads.
d D ata secured from annual report of court.
* N ew cases filed during year.
Figures refer to number of children, not to number of cases.
f
^ eP°rt °U h e Los Angeles County Probation Department for the Year Ending December 31,
1919, p. 4. In 1922, 952, or 50 per cent, of the 1,922 new cases were filed by the police; 308 by families; 118
by school authorities; and 544 b y others.
*
’
J T h eSeattle Juvenile-Court Report for the Year 1922, p. 12. In 1922 the total number of cases was 1,645.
b ^others927’ OT ™ ^
C6nt' Were referred by the PoIicei 142 by parents; 221 b y school authorities; and 355
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R E L IM
IN
A R Y
S T E P S
I N
C O U R T
P R O C E D U R E .
41
RE C E PTIO N OF C O M PLA IN TS .
The receiving of complaints 6 and the decision with reference to
the action which should be taken are of great importance. It is at
the complaint desk that the first contacts are made and the first
impressions are received. This is true not only of personal interviews
but also, to some extent at least, of telephone calls. Even though
the complaints are referred to another officer for decision, it is impor
tant that the person first receiving them be courteous, intelligent,
familiar with the function and methods of the court, and keen in
judgment. Juvenile-court organization is frequently weak in this
respect, and this deficiency may contribute, in some instances, to
the court’s failure to win the confidence of the community and its
social agencies.
The amount of information obtained at the time the complaint
was received was usually limited to names and addresses of those
concerned, the child’s age, the facts of the offense, and the names
of witnesses and. interested parties. In two courts information
as to school attended, and in one, as to school grade, was also obtained,
and in two other courts as much of the history of the case as could be
secured from the informant.
Table 6 shows that in one court the judge passed upon complaints,
in six courts the chief probation officer or department supervisor,
and in three the clerk of the court or some other officer. The
discretion exercised in the different courts by the persons passing
upon complaints is also shown in Table 6. The terms “ petition,”
“ complaint,” and “ information” are terms used under different
laws and forms of procedure to indicate the legal process which brings
a case formally to the attention of the court.7
T
a b l e
6 .—
P e r s o n s receiving and p a ssin g u p o n c o m p la in ts, a n d d iscretion exercised .
Court.
B o sto n
court.
ju v e n ile
Officer receiving
complaints.
Clerk of court_____ Judge................................
Buffalo children’s .........do_____________
court.
D e n v e r ju v e n ile
Complaint clerk -.
court.
District of Colum
bia juvenile court.
Los Angeles juve
nile court.
Minneapolis juvenile court.
Officer passing upon
complaints.
Clerk or telephone
operator in pro
bation office.
Complaint clerk. .
C on su ltin g and
court officer.
Clerk of court.________
Chief probation officer
or probation officer
for girls.
Chief probation officer.
Boys’ or girls’ super
visor. In doubtful
cases, chief proba
tion officer.
Consulting and court
officer.
Discretion exercised b y officer
passing upon complaints.
Approval of complaint “ or refusal to
entertain, after preliminary examina
tion of complainant.
Filing of information or refusal to file.
Decision as to whether case required
investigation, and assignment for
investigation; decision as to whether
case should be dismissed, dealt with
informally, or dealt w ith formally on
filing of a petition.
Decision as to whether case should be
dealt with formally or informally, or
whether no action should be taken.
Assignment for investigation; decision
as to whether or not petition should
be filed.
Decision as to whether petition should
be filed or case should be dealt with
informally.
° Used here in its technical sense; approval of complaint means that court assumes jurisdiction.
6 Th e word “ complaint” in connection with juvenile-court procedure is here used in the usual sense
—8Í a report o f some difficulty that has arisen and an informal request for aid. In this sense it is compar
able to the term “ application” used b y other types of agencies. In its technical sense it is a legal process
used b y some courts to initiate formal action, serving the purpose of the “ petition” in a chancery
proceeding.
7 In N ew Orleans the term “ affidavit” signified the same thing.
80306°— 25t------- 4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
T a b l e 6 . — P e r s o n s receivin g a n d p a ssin g u p o n com p la in ts,
a n d discretion ex er
cised —‘Continued.
Court.
Officer receiving
complaints.
Officer passing upon
complaints.
N ew Orleans juvenile court.
C lerk o f cou rt,
affidavit clerk,
or chief proba
tion officer.
Information clerk.
Clerk of court, affidavit clerk, or chief
probation officer.
San Francisco juve
nile court.
S e a ttle ju v e n ile
court.
.........d o ........................
St. Louis juvenile .........do................ ........
court.
B oys’ supervisor or
office manager of
girls’ department.«
Chief probation officer
or (in girls’ cases)
superintendent of
detention home.
Chief probation officer
and investigators.
Discretion exercised b y officer
passing upon complaints.
justed cases without formal court
action.
Assignment for investigation; in police
complaints,» decision as to whether
petition should be filed or case
should be dealt with informally.
Decision as to whether petition should
be filed or case should be dealt with
informally.
Decision as to whether investigation
should be made, parties should be
called in for conference, or other
action should be taken; assignment of
cases for investigation. Investiga
tors determined whether or not in
formation should be filed.
»Stenographer of boys’ department made a note of the facts, sometimes taking as much of the history
of the case as could be secured from the complainant; the complaint was then referred to the hoys’ super
visor. The office manager of the girls’ department interviewed the complainant.
* See p. 49.
RELATIO N BETW EEN PO LICE AN D JUVENILE C O U R T.8
Special juvenile bureaus had been created in the police depart
ments of two of the cities studied— Los Angeles and Seattle— and in
the District of Columbia the women's bureau of the police depart
ment was responsible for all work with women and girls and man
aged the detention home in which both boys and girls and also
women, were cared for.
In Los Angeles work which should have been centralized in the
juvenile court was performed by other agencies, and the resulting
lack of cooperation and duplication of effort was unfortunate. The
juvenile bureau of the police department, according to its annual
report,9 dealt with minor children who had been placed under arrest
by any officer of the department or against whom reports were re
ceived from parents or other citizens. It also dealt with reports and
charges made against adults when children were the victims. The
officers of the department inspected dance halls, skating rinks, cafés,
penny arcades, picture shows, public parks, and other places fre
quented by children. The staff comprised 16 persons and was under
the direction of a police lieutenant. One man and three women gave
the greater part of their time to juvenile work. The offices of the
bureau were in the central police station. It was reported for the
year 1919-20 that 1,711 juveniles under the age of 16 years and 1,338
over 16 but under 21 years of age were dealt with. Reports of chil
dren arrested were made by the arresting officer to the juvenile
bureau, and complaints were made direct to the bureau. It was re
ported that arrests were rendered unnecessary by the work of the
bureau in more than half the cases coming to its attention. The regu*jEor a description of the Chicago plan b y which police officers are assigned to the juvenile court and work
under the general supervision of the chief probation officer, see The Chicago Juvenile Court (U . S. Children’s
Bureau Publication N o. 104), pp. 32-33, 40-41.
i ’ Anni*al ReP °rt> Police Department, C ity of Los Angeles, California, for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
■
p, ol.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PRELIMINARY STEPS IN COURT PROCEDURE.
48
lar police officers made most of the investigations in boys’ cases, but
conferences with parents and children were frequently held at the
office of the juvenile bureau by the member of the staff who specialized
in work with boys. Investigations in girls’ cases were made by
women officers. Many cases were adjusted without court action,
and children were often released on promise of good behavior.
Another bureau in the Los Angeles police department, known as
the city mother bureau, was described in the annual report of the
department as a “ confidential office,” sufficiently removed from police
headquarters, to which parents and juveniles might go for advice and
assistance without fear of publicity. Cases in which court action
was required were turned over to the juvenile bureau. The city
mother bureau dealt with delinquent and dependent children, run
aways, children “ in danger,” ana domestic-relations cases.
In Seattle two divisions of the police department— the juvenile
bureau and the women’s protective bureau— the activities of which
were closely coordinated, had charge of children’s work, the juvenile
bureau dealing with boys and the women’s protective bureau with
girls and women. All juvenile cases in which arrests had been made
were reported to one or the other of these bureaus, which had the
power to make investigations or to refer directly to the juvenile
court, and to adjust cases informally. The two bureaus occupied
adjoining rooms in the central police station.
It has already been noted 10 that in Denver a police officer was
assigned to the juvenile court on a full-time basis and that in New
Orleans three police officers assigned to the juvenile court served
as desk sergeants in cases coming before that court. The Denver
officer received reports of children arrested and of children with
whom the police had had difficulty, obtained information from the
officer making the arrest or complaint, and reported to the police
department the disposition of each case referred from that source.
He also made arrests in some instances.
In the other five courts studied no special details had been made
b y the police for children’s work,11 but in four of these, special ar
rangements had been made by the court with the police department.
The procedure in each of the cities covered by this study is described
below.
Boston.
The best example of early control by the juvenile court over chil
dren arrested was found m the central district of Boston. The
Massachusetts law required that a probation officer be notified
whenever a child was arrested and that children held for examina
tion or trial, or on appeal, if unable to furnish bail, should be com
mitted to the State department of public welfare or to the care of a
probation officer. Children arrested were taken on foot or in police
automobiles— never in patrol wagons— to the precinct stations, where
they were booked. At the station the captain might reprimand
them and release them to their parents, no further action being
taken; some of the police captains released children in this way,
and some did not. If the child was not released a report was made
10 See p. 31.
11 In Buffalo a police officer was assigned to the adult part of the juvenile court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
44
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
by telephone to police headquarters, and from there notice was given
immediately to the probation officer on duty and to the parents.
The probation officer receiving the notice went to the precinct
station, or if there seemed to be no doubt as to what should be done,
gave directions by telephone. Each of the three men probation
officers in turn served a month on night duty, being subject to call
whenever an arrest was made. If the offense was trivial and the
arrest was made during the day the child might be sent home with
instructions to bring his parents to the station or with a note direct
ing his parents to take the child to the juvenile court. Children
under 14 years of age were not held in police stations except for vio
lation of probation, save for the short time necessary to get in touch
with the probation officer and parents. Children held were usually
kept in the guardroom or signal room. The probation officer went
to the precinct station if the child was under 14 and it was not clear
that he could be released safely, or if he was over 14 and it was not
plainly evident what the disposition should be. As a matter of
fact, even in cases where it had been decided to release the child,
the probation officer often went to the station to talk with him and
frequently accompanied him to his home to check up the address
and make a preliminary investigation. If there was doubt as to
whether or not the child should be released a thorough investigation
was made. The police officer had the right to make a written re
quest that a child over 14 be held, and this could not be overruled
by the probation officer. This right, however, was seldom exercised,
as the probation officers had made it a practice to give consideration
to the police officer’s point of view.12 Detention in police stations
could not continue for more than 24 hours.
Children who could not be released to their parents and who were
not held in the precinct station were taken by the probation officer
to one of the boarding homes maintained jointly by the court and the
Boston Children’s Aid Society. The plan was that in the case of a
girl arrested in the evening or at night the probation officer should
notify one of the women maintaining boarding homes for the court
and send a taxicab to take her to the police station to get the girl.
During the day a man officer might take a girl to a boarding home,
but the woman probation officer usually did this. If a child was
arrested before 2.30 p. m. he was usually taken direct from the pre
cinct station to the court, where the complaint was made, and if one
of the parents was present and accepted service of summons the case
was usually heard forthwith. If the arrest was later in the day the
child was brought to the court the following morning. After the
complaint had been approved the judge could make an order as to
the custody of the child, pending further disposition of the case.
Neglected children were cared for in the shelter maintained by the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Taking the
children to the precinct stations was an unfortunate feature of the
plan, even though the probation officers had discretion in the matter
of release or detention. If the children could have been brought
dire'ctly to the court during the day and to a designated boarding
home in the center of the city at night they would have been more
completely protected.
h
For number of children held in police stations overnight, see p. 63.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R E L IM
IN
A R Y
S T E P S
I N
C O U R T
P R O C E D U R E .
•
45
New Orleans.
The New Orleans court furnished an example of the early control
of the court over the child through what was in effect a children s
precinct station established in the offices of the juvenile court.
Children arrested during the day were brought by the police to the
juvenile court by street car, police automobile, or on foot. The
judge was authorized to use money collected through fines to reim
burse the police for car fares paid for children. Official cases were
entered in the desk book kept by a police officer assigned to the court.
Children were never taken to a police station, and no information
concerning them was entered on police books except those at the
juvenile court. However, the police officer making the arrest wrote
a letter to the chief of police, stating the facts of the arrest and the
disposition of the case. A copy of this letter was sent to the juvenile
court.
Children brought to the courthouse were released to then’ parents
if the offense was a minor one and the parents appeared to be re
sponsible. An appearance bond of $100 to $200 was usually required
if the child had previously been before the court. Boys not released
to their parents were taken by the police to a city institution for
delinquent boys for detention pending hearing. Girls were detained
at the House of the Good Shepherd, white girls being taken to this
institution by the woman probation officer and negro girls by the
police or by men officers of the court. They were transported by
street car or automobile.
Boys arrested at night were taken directly to their homes and
were ordered to appear at the offices of the court the next morning,
or else they were taken to the city institution for delinquent boys.
Negro girls arrested at night were taken immediately to the House of
the Good Shepherd ; but white girls were taken to the juvenile court,
the woman probation officer being notified to come and take them
to the institution used for detention. Children taken to places of
detention during the night were brought to the courthouse the
following morning, and the same procedure was followed as if they
had just been arrested and brought in.
Minneapolis.
The Minneapolis juvenile court assumed no responsibility for
the care of a child arrested until the case was presented to the “ con
sulting and court officer’ ’ with a view to filing a petition. At that
point the case might be adjusted informally or a petition might
be filed, at the discretion of the judge or chief probation officer.
Children arrested outside the district in which they; lived were
usually taken direct to the city jail, which was located in the court
house. If an arrest was made in the district where a child lived he
was taken to the district police station. The captain had no power
to release the child at this point but conferred with the officer making
the arrest and advised whether or not the child should be held in the
city jail. From the police station the child was brought in a patrol
wagon to the city jail. Here he was booked in a jailer’s book and
was then turned over to the police matron, who made every effort to
have him released as soon as possible.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
Prisoners could be held in the city jail 36 hours before a charge
was made and might be held another 36 hours pending investigation.
It was in the discretion of the arresting officer whether or not the
child should be held. Parents were immediately notified by tele
phone or through the precinct station and were told whether or not
they could come for the child. Pending the arrival of the parents
the children waited in the police matron’s quarters. It was against
the law to detain children under 14 years in police stations or in jail,
but occasionally it was deemed necessary to hold such children,
especially runaways or lost children. A considerable number of boys
14 years of age and over, and some girls, were held over night or
longer.13 The police matron kept a separate file of information, not
open to the public, concerning children detained and the dispositions
in such cases. After the police officer had taken the child to the
police matron he reported the case to the consulting and court officer
of the juvenile court. Neglected children were turned over im
mediately to the Children’s Protective Society for care. Children
in the county outside the city were occasionally detained in the
county jail,14 as were children awaiting transfer to county schools Or
other institutions after court hearing.
District o f Columbia.
In the District of Columbia the detention home was under the
management of the women’s bureau of the police department. The
juvenile court had no control over children arrested until after the
complaint had been made. An arrangement with the police had been
effected, however, by which arrests were always reported to the proba
tion office on the same day or the morning following, except in cases
where the children were held for investigation. In addition, each
day a list of the children in the house of detention was telephoned to
the probation office. The chief probation officer might request the
release of a child from the house of detention after complaint had
been made, and the officers making arrests advised the parents to
communicate with the juvenile court.
Children arrested were first taken to the precinct station, some
times on foot and sometimes in a patrol wagon. There they might
be reprimanded by the police captain and released, no record of the
case being made. If it was decided that further action was required,
children were released to their parents on deposit of collateral
(from $1 to $20) and complaint made to the juvenile court, or they
were taken to the house of detention for women and children in a
closed car furnished and operated by that institution. There they
might be held for investigation for a period and then released, no
further action being taken ^ or they might be released to their parents
and complaint made to the juvenile court; or they might be held in the
house of detention and complaint made, after which the chief proba
tion officer might request release; or if already on probation, they
might be held for the court, no complaint being made. Children
arrested were booked at both the precinct station and the house of
detention.
13 Sometimes the judge held special hearings for children who had to be detained and committed them
temporarily to the county school for boys or the county school for girls. The school for boys was 13 or
14 miles from Minneapolis, and the school for girls was in the outskirts of the city.
14 For number of children held in the city and county jails, see p. 64-65.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R E L IM
IN
A R Y
S T E P S
I N
C O U R T
P R O C E D U R E .
47
Los Angeles.
Children arrested in Los Angeles were taken either to a district
police station or to the central station, which served a large part
of the city. In the more serious cases outside the central district
and in all cases within that district the child was brought to the
central station. All arrests were booked at the police stations by the
desk sergeants. From the police station children might he released
to their parents, taken to the detention home, or detained in the
central police station, where there were separate cells for juveniles.
Occasionally children were detained in one of the district police
stations whiph had cells where juveniles might be held, and girls
were sometimes taken to a home maintained by a private agency.
Children under 16 years of age were not supposed to be detained in
the police station or in jail. Whatever disposition was made, the
case was reported to the juvenile bureau of the police department,
but the arresting officer had full discretion in the first instance in
matters of detention. Children were not taken to the place of deten
tion in patrol wagons, and girls arrested during the day were accom
panied by policewomen.15 Farents were notified of arrests through
the desk sergeant of the police station.
The juvenile bureau of the police department made more or less
thorough investigations in juvenile cases and adjusted many cases
without court action. The police had the right to detain children
in the house of detention for 72 hours without filing petitions, and
many children were released by the police without court action having
been taken.
Contrary to generally approved practice in juvenile-court work,
those cases in which the juvenile bureau deemed court action necessary
were reported by that bureau not to the juvenile court but to the
office o f the district attorney. A deputy district attorney was in
charge of juvenile, nonsupport, and contributing-to-delinquency
cases. Three investigators, one man and two women, made investi
gations in children’s cases. In boys’ cases petitions were usually filed
on the report of the police department, Imt sometimes conferences
with parents and children were held and boys were placed on informal
probation. In the majority of girls’ cases special investigations were
made, informal hearings were held, and often girls were placed on
informal probation. If court action was necessary, a petition was
filed in the juvenile court. A card record of each case reported to
the district attorney’s office was made out in triplicate, one copy
being sent to the probation office, where it was immediately cleared
with the index of juvenile cases. If the child had been before the
court previously the fact was reported to the district attorney’s
office, and a petition was filed at once.
After the petition, had been filed the juvenile court had complete
jurisdiction over the case. If detention was necessary a detaming
order signed by the judge was required, and release from detention
so ordered could be made only at the direction of the judge or the
-•referee.
18 W om en assigned to the juvenile bureau of the police department are now (1924) on duty at night,
and a woman always accompanies a girl under arrest at any hour.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Seattle.
In Seattle, as in Los Angeles, the police through the juvenile division
and the women’s protective bureau exercised considerable authority
over children arrested. They were taken either to the precinct station,
or direct to the juvenile division (for boys) or the women’s protective
bureau (for girls), these bureaus being located in the central station.
From the precinct station they were released to their parents or sent
to the juvenile division or women’s protective bureau; if the arrest
was between 4 a. m. and 8 a. m.— hours during which the juvenile
division and women’s protective bureau were not open— they might
be taken directly to the detention home of the juvenile court. Every
case in which the child was not brought to the appropriate police
division was reported to it and either investigated or referred at once
to the juvenile court. In serious cases involving boys the latter
procedure was usually followed. The police investigation included a
visit to the neighborhood and home and frequently a conference at
the office with parents, child, and complainant. Following this
investigation the case might be adjusted in any one of a number of
ways, including restitution or reparation and reference to social
agencies. If not thus settled, it was referred to the juvenile court.
Children were sometimes detained a few hours, pending investigation,
in a separate ward of the central police station. In all cases in which
the child was detained in the detention home at the request of the
police the superintendent of the detention home was consulted with
reference to release. The superintendent had the power of release
but always consulted the chief probation officer or notified him.
Denver.
Whenever possible the police in Denver avoided making arrests
in children’s cases; instead they took the name and address of a child
giving trouble and reported him to the special police officer 'assigned
to the juvenile court. That officer then secured information about
the case, consulted with the probation officer of the district in which
the child lived, perhaps interviewed the child and his parents, and
then, if the case warranted further action, referred it to the chief
probation officer.
Children arrested might be taken direct to the detention home
(which was under the management of the court), to the police matron’s
quarters in the city jail, or to the precinct station. 1 From the pre
cinct station the children might be released with reprimand by the
captain, no further action being taken, or they might be released
to the parents and reported to the juvenile court. Children were
never booked in the precinct station, but children taken to the police
matron’s quarters or the detention home were entered as delinquents
on the police blotter at the central station. A t the police matron’s
quarters children might be released with warning by the chief of
police; sent home and reported to the juvenile court; sent in a patrol
wagon to the detention home; or, if over 14 years of age, held m the
matron’s quarters. The superintendent of the detention home had
power to release children to their parents, but this was usually done
only after consultation with the captain of the precinct, the special
police officer assigned to the court, or some other officer of the court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R E L IM
IN
A R Y
S T E P S
I N
C O U R T
P R O C E D U R E .
49
San Francisco.
An arrangement between the probation office and the police
department in San Francisco, which had been in effect for several
years, made it possible for the court to adjust informally many cases
initiated by the police. Children arrested were taken to a sub
station, where the captain and arresting officer conferred. They
frequently sent the child home with a notice to his parents request
ing them to bring the child to the probation office at a certain hour
and day— usually three days later— and show cause why a petition
should not be filed. A written statement was then prepared, signed
by the captain and arresting officer, and forwarded to the central
police station and thence to the juvenile court. This statement
gave the facts of the offense and the date specified in the notice.
The case was then settled informally in the probation office or as
signed for investigation, which was followed by informal adjustment
or the filing of a petition. In cases not considered sufficiently serious
to require reference to the juvenile court, the child was released,
with reprimand, by the police captain. If more than notice to the
parents seemed to be required the child was taken to the juvenile
detention home in a patrol wagon; it was thought that this method
of transportation afforded the child greater protection than sending
him b y street car, accompanied by an officer. Children taken to
the detention home were booked by the police and also by the super
intendent of the home. Police reports m such cases were made out
in the same way as in cases in which the children were sent home
with notices to appear at the probation office.
As soon as a child was received in the detention home notice was
given to the proper department, and the investigation was begun
within 24 hours unless a holiday intervened. The chief probation
officer had authority to release children from the detention home and
had delegated this power to the department heads, so that in any
particular case the decision as to release or detention pending investi
gation rested with the department of the court which handled the
case.
St. Louis.
Children arrested were taken to the district police stations in St.
Louis, where they were held in the matron’s room or captain’s office
until the parents had been notified. They might be reprimanded
and released, “ pledged” to their parents for appearance in court,16
or taken by street car, automobile, or on foot to the juvenile deten
tion home. The child might be released from the detention home
by the superintendent, who usually consulted with the officer making
the investigation. One of the special investigators on the probation
staff also had the power of release.
Buffalo.
The Buffalo court encouraged the police, except in serious cases,
to take children violating laws or ordinances direct to their homes,
with instructions to appear in court when notified, and this practice
''was followed in a great many instances. Often, however, the child
was first taken to the precinct station and was then released to his
16 A pledge was a written promise guaranteeing that the parents would bring the child to court when
wanted,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K ,
parents, pending hearing, or was sent to the detention home. The
latter procedure was followed if the offense was serious or if the child
was a runaway or ungovernable, or if he was arrested at night, or if
his parents were not at home. In the majority of cases children
were not released from the detention home except on bail, though
occasionally, especially if they were young children, they were re
leased on the parents’ recognizance.
The police officer apprehending a child made a deposition at the
precinct station, giving the child’s name, age, address, date of arrest,
charge, and disposition pending hearing. These reports were all
sent to one precinct, designated for the purpose, at which a probation
officer called every morning. The reports made it unnecessary for
the police to appear in court as witnesses, except in unusual cases.
IN V E ST IG A T IO N P R IO R T O PILIN G OF P E T IT IO N O R C O M P L A IN T .
In the San Francisco court an investigation was made in all cases
prior to filing a petition, though in dependencv cases these investiga
tions were usually made b y private agencies. In the Los Angeles and
Denver courts investigations, including visits to homes, were made
in a considerable proportion of cases, and in St. Louis they were
made in all cases brought in by the police— except those involving
violations of city ordinances— and in neglect cases. Preliminary
investigations were made by the New Orleans court only if there
seemed to be some possibility of adjustment without court action.
Partial investigations were made in Boston in some cases in con
nection with the visits of the probation officers to the police stations
on receipt of reports concerning children arrested. In Minneapolis
and Seattle home visits were not made, but comprehensive inter
views with parents, children, and others involved were held in the
office. No preliminary investigations were made by the Buffalo or
the District o f Columbia court.;
LEGAL P R O C E SSE S P R IO R T O H EA RIN G .
In courts with chancery procedure the child was usually brought
formally to the attention o f the court through a petition that might
be filed by any person having knowledge of the circumstances.
Such a petition alleged that “ ----------, a child under—— years of age,
is a delinquent (or a dependent or a neglected) child, in that — -----[here follow the circumstances of the case].” The names and addresses
of the parents or guardian were then given. In California the peti
tioner represented that the child named is u a person under the age
of 21 years * * * and is a person defined in subdivision----- - of
Section I, within the meaning of the * * * juvenile court law.”
The circumstances which brought the child under the law were then
specified.
The procedure in the Seattle court was interesting in that no
printed form of petition was used. Each petition was dictated, a
typical petition reading in part as follows:
In re the welfare o f ---------- . Petition unto your honor th a t ---------- , who was
born on or a b o u t----------, is a dependent child in this that his parents,---------- ,
with whom he resides at--------- , Seattle, fail to provide him with adequate guardian
ship and social control, and he is in need of care and protection by the court.
Therefore your petitioner prays your honor to inquire into the conditions
<?f —'----- * and to enter such an order in the premises as shall be for his welfare.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
preliminary steps in court procedure.
51
It will be noted that the Seattle petition alleged dependency
although it was often used in delinquency cases. The line of demar
cation between dependency and delinquency proceedings was not
closely drawn in Seattle, and the court preferred to use the term
dependency whenever possible. This did not imply, however, that
distinction was not made between dependent and delinquent children
in the type of treatment given.
In Boston the legal process used to bring the child to the court’s
attention was termed a “ complaint,” and m New Orleans an “ affi
davit.” The process used in delinquency cases in Buffalo, in the
District of Columbia, and in St. Louis was an “ information.” In the
last two courts “ petitions” were used for neglected children, and in
the District of Columbia they were also used for incorrigible and
dependent children.
The laws usually provided that petitions might be filed by “ any
reputable person” and often contained specific authorization for
robation officers to file them. The policy in one or two courts,
owever, was not to have petitions filed by probation officers, as it
was believed that such action might be confused with prosecution
in criminal cases and might therefore hamper the work of the pro
bation officers. In Los Angeles, for instance, it was a general rule that
probation officers should not file petitions except for violation of
probation. In some of the courts, on the other hand, petitions were
usually filed by probation officers. Effort was made in San Fran
cisco to have the parents file the petition whenever possible.
All juvenile court laws provide tor some form of notice to the par
ents or other persons having custody of the child. It is frequently
required that this notice must be served a certain number of hours
(24 or 48) in advance of the hearing. When, however, parents and
child are in court and ready for the hearing before the time has
expired an earlier hearing may be desirable. Many courts, there
fore, permit parents who come to the court as a result of informal
notification by telephone or otherwise to sign a waiver of notice or,
as it is sometimes called, an acceptance of service.
E
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
PRIN CIPLE S G O V E R N IN G D E TE N TIO N IN C H ILD R E N ’ S CASES.1
The fundamental principles governing the type and use of deten
tion facilities for children are the same in all communities, though
many variations in policy occur, necessitated by differing conditions
and needs. These principles may be summarized as follows:
1. Children should not be detained in jails or police stations.
2. The primary purpose of detention is safe-keeping, pending dis
position of the case, and both for the child’s sake and for the sake of
the community which bears the expense of detention it should be
limited to those children for whom it is absolutely necessary. Such
children include: Runaways and homeless children; those whose
home conditions are so bad that immediate removal is necessary;
those beyond the control of their parents; those whose parents can
not be relied upon to produce them in court; those who have com
mitted offenses so serious that their release pending the disposition
of their cases would endanger public safety; those who must oe held
as witnesses.
Detention for the purpose of observation is thought by some to
be justified in cases in which detention for the purpose of safe-keeping
would not be warranted. Detention for observation can accomplish
no worth-while results, however, unless adequate clinical facilities
for physical and mental examination and opportunity for social
investigation are available, and unless the attendants are able to
make observations of value. Information based upon unskilled
observation of a child’s reactions to unfamiliar surroundings is not of
sufficient value to justify detention. Even when clinics for physical
and mental study of the children are maintained in connection with
a detention home, it has been found satisfactory to have children not
needing detention for the purpose of safe-keeping come from their
own homes by appointment. Some of the leading authorities in the
study of delinquent children believe that observation is not facili
tated but rather is handicapped by detention in a detention home.
3. In order to avoid unnecessary detention and to determine in
what cases detention is necessary, means must be provided for ascer
taining promptly the home conditions and the possibilities of care
by the parents. This does not imply that a complete investigation,
such as that required for disposition of the case, can be made when
the question of detention is being decided. But the person who is
given discretion in the matter of detention should be a person of
good judgment and should have sufficient time to give careful con
sideration to each case, including, if possible, a brief interview with
both the child and the parents.2
4. The length of stay in the place of detention should be as short
as possible. Frequent court hearings, prompt investigation of cases,
1 See Juvenile-Court Standards, p. 252.
* See preliminary steps in court procedure, p. 39, and particularly the procedure in Boston, p. 43.
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
m?
— p HjlVILWAY
m
i s
F ir s t- flo o r p la n , K i n g
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C o u n t y [S e a t t le ] ju v e n ile c o u r t a n d d e t e n t io n h o m e ,
53
54
J U
V
E N
I L E
COURTS AT WORK.
and care taken by those in charge of the detention facilities to reduce
the length of stay to a minimum lessen the duration of detention.
5. While in detention, the physical and moral welfare of the chil
dren must be safeguarded and their time occupied with constructive
interests.
6. Neglected and dependent children should be separated from
delinquent children.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MTEKÌIÒN.
55
METHODS OF DETENTION IN THE COURTS STUDIED..
The problem of detention of children is usually met in the larger
cities by the provision of a detention home under the management
of the juvenile court or closely connected with it. The plan of board
ing children in private families has been followed by many of the
smaller courts and has been worked out successfully in the central
district of Boston, but in most communities in which the volume of
court work with children is large enough to warrant it the establish
ment of a detention home is probably the most feasible arrangement.
In 6 of the 10 cities— Buffalo, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Seattle, and St. Louis— a special detention home for children was
maintained.4 The District of Columbia had no separate detention
home for children, but a house of detention for women and children
was under the management of the women’s bureau of the police
department. The New Orleans court utilized in boys’ cases a city
institution for delinquent boys which received children pending court
hearing and also for more prolonged care after court commitment.
The Minneapolis court was more handicapped in the matter of deten
tion than any of the other courts included in the study. Except for
a county institution for delinquent boys, at some distance from the
city and a similar institution for delinquent girls located in the out
skirts— institutions which it was seldom possible to use for detention
pending hearing— no detention facilities aside from the jail were
available.5
A private sectarian institution was utilized in New Orleans for
the care of delinquent girls, and orphanages were occasionally asked
to provide temporary care for young dependent children. In Boston
the shelter maintained by a protective agency was utilized for the
detention of neglected children and sometimes of girls held as wit
nesses. Family homes supervised by a private child-caring agency
rendered detention service to the court in cases of delinquent children.
In Los Angeles a small private institution was occasionally used by
the police for detention of girls pending investigation and the filing
of a petition.5® In Denver, St. Louis, and the District of Columbia
dependent children were sometimes cared for temporarily in board
ing homes— in the last two cities under the supervision of a public
child-caring agency, the Board of Children’s Guardians, and in
Denver under the child-welfare department of the community chest.
In San Francisco private institutions were used for children whom
it did not seem wise to continue in the detention home.
Detention of children in police stations or in jails was reported in
eight cities—-in some as a rare occurrence and in others as a com
paratively common practice. In two— Buffalo and the District of
Columbia— children were not detained in jail.6 However, in the
District of Columbia girls of juvenile-court age and women were
cared for in the same detention home and were not separated. In
Buffalo the age under which the court had jurisdiction was 16 and in
the District of Columbia, in delinquency cases, 17.
4 For a discussion of equipment and management, see p. 67.
6 See pp. 63-65.
.
6“ Th e use of this institution has since been abandoned except m certain emergencies, such as quarantine.
6 For a discussion of the extent of detention in police stations and jails, see p . 62.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
56
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
EXTENT TO WHICH DETENTION FACILITIES WERE USED.
In the cities studied which had special detention homes for children
these institutions varied from that in Buffalo, which was utilized
mainly for the detention of children held for the juvenile court on
delinquency charges, to that in Los Angeles, which was a complex
institution performing services of many kinds. In Denver, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis, homeless and lost children,
as well as delinquent and neglected children, were cared for in the
detention home. The school department in Denver had authority
to send troublesome children to the detention-home school as day
pupils, and probation officers might send their charges there for
short periods for discipline, without a special order from the court.
The school authorities in Los Angeles and Seattle had power to place
wayward or truant children in the detention home for short periods.
All six detention homes cared for children during continuance of
their cases, and the purpose of the continuance was in some instances
to provide a short period of discipline. In all the homes care had
to be provided for children committed to institutions who were
awaiting admission; in Los Angeles such care sometimes extended
over a period of many weeks. The Los Angeles and San Francisco
detention homes had special sections devoted to the care of venereally
diseased girls, who received medical treatment until they could
return safely to the community. In these cities, as is usually the
case, much less emphasis was given to the venereal-disease problem
among boys. In San Francisco boys were not isolated on admission,
nor were they examined for gonorrhea; if an infectious condition was
discovered through the general physical examination, they were
given treatment in the detention home. In Los Angeles boys as well
as girls were isolated on admission, but routine examinations of boys
for gonorrhea were not made; if the disease was suspected the boy
was sent to the county hospital for examination.7
The detention home for children and women in the District of
Columbia was caring for delinquent boys under 17; for delinquent
girls and women of any age; for homeless, lost, and runaway children;
for children and women held for investigation by the police; and
occasionally for delinquent and dependent wards of the District of
Columbia Board of Children’s Guardians.
The court or the officers of the detention home who were subject
to the authority of the court exercised control over children detained
(that is, had discretion with reference to release) in five of the cities
studied—Boston, Buffalo, Denver, New Orleans, and St. Louis. In
Boston this control was vested in the probation officers; in Buffalo
and Denver, in the superintendent of the detention home; in St. Louis,
in the superintendent of the detention home, the chief probation
officer, and the investigators; and in New Orleans, in the chief pro
bation officer and the clerks.
In Minneapolis and Los Angeles the court had no control over
detention until a petition was filed, the police officers having full
power of release or detention in cases originating with them. The
police in San Francisco and Seattle had the power of release prior to
the filing of a petition; but in San Francisco the department super7
See p . 95.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JU V E N IL E CO URT AND D ET EN T IO N HO M E, SEA TTLE, WASH.
C H IL D R E N ’S B U ILD IN G (JU V E N IL E CO URT AND D ET EN T IO N HO M E),
ST. LOUIS, MO.
56— 1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JU V E N IL E H A LL (D E T E N T IO N H O M E), LOS A N G ELES, CALIF.
.
JU V E N IL E CO URT AND D ET EN T IO N HO M E, SAN FRA N CISCO , C A LIF.
56—2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
57
visors of the probation office also had the power of release and were
notified as to all children received, and in Seattle the chief probation
officer and the superintendent of the detention home had this power.
One of the duties of the Seattle chief probation officer was to go
through the detention home each day to see that no children were
detained who could be provided for otherwise. The police in the
District of Columbia had the power of release prior to the filing of
the complaint and the chief probation officer after complaint had
been filed.
Experience shows that the larger the place of detention the harder
it is to limit its use to children for whom it is really needed. When
accommodations permit, it is a temptation to the police and to over
worked officers oi the court to order the children detained rather than
promptly to secure the information and make the adjustments re
quired for care of some other type. Thus one relatively large deten
tion home was constantly overcrowded to such an extent that there
was talk of building an addition. The frequency of hearings is also
a very important factor in the period of detention. In courts having
hearings only once or twice a week it is much more difficult to avoid
detaining children than in courts holding more frequent hearings.
For three of the courts studied— those of Boston, Buffalo, and
New Orleans—-data were secured showing what proportion of the
children coming before the court had been detained.
In New Orleans, of 1,205 delinquency cases before the juvenile
court in the year 1919, in which disposition pending hearing was
known,8 751 (62 per cent) were cases in which the child was cared
for in the city institution for delinquent boys, a private institution
for delinquent girls, or some other institution; and in 52 cases the
child was released on bond. Of the total number of cases before the
court (1,289, including cases of improper guardianship but excluding
cases heard and disposed of on the day the charge was made and
those in which no report as to disposition pending trial was ob
tained9) 811 (63 per cent) were cases in which the child was cared
for in an institution pending hearing. A higher percentage of
colored children than of white were detained— 65 as compared with 42.
The Boston juvenile court dealt with .952 cases of delinquency
during the year ended August 31, 1920. In 28 of these cases the
children were brought to court for immediate hearing, and no ques
tion of detention was involved. In 48 cases the method of care
pending hearing or continuance was not reported. Of the remaining
876 cases, 74 (8 per cent) were cared for m a children’s aid society
boarding home.10 The child was reported to have been held in a police
station in 37 cases (4 per cent),11 and in 9 cases (1 per cent) was
committed temporarily to the county, jail.12 In 8 cases the child
was committed temporarily to the Massachusetts Department of
8 In 132 cases the disposition of the child pending hearing was not reported, and 52 cases not included
in the above were heard and disposed of on the day the charge was made.
9 Seventy-seven cases were heard and disposed of the day the charge was made, and for 158 disposition
was not reported.
10 Including 2 cases in which the child was later committed temporarily to the department of public
welfare in default of bail.
11 Excluding 2 cases in which the child was later sent to jail.
12 Excluding 1 case in which the child was in jail two days and was later sent to a children’s aid society
home and 2 cases in which the child defaulted during probation and was committed temporarily to jail.
80306°— 25t------5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
58
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Public Welfare.13 Temporary care was given in 2 cases by a small
private institution for girls, and 2 girls were cared for, pending
nearing, by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Children. The child wa3 released in 63 cases to a probation officer
who was responsible for his appearance in court but who allowed
him to remain at home, and in 29 cases the child was released on
bail. In the remaining 652 cases it was reported that the child
either had never been arrested or committed for temporary
care or had been released promptly after arrest to his parents or
to some other individual.
The total number of delinquency cases in Boston in which deten
tion care was deemed necessary was 132 (15 per cent). Of the 85
girls whose care pending hearing was reported and whose cases were
not disposed of immediately, 30 girls (35 per cent) were detained
as compared with 102 (13 per cent) of the 791 boys. None of the
girls was reported to have been held in a police station or in jail. The
neglected children requiring detention care were provided for in the
shelter maintained by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children.
In Buffalo the only available figures were those in the published
report of the court, which showed the number of children detained
in the detention home during the year 1920 and the charges on
which they were detained. The Buffalo detention home cared for
so few children who were not brought before the court that a com
parison of the population with the total number of children’s cases
gives an approximately correct proportion of cases in which deten
tion was deemed to be necessary. There were 1,143 cases of delin
quency in 1920, and 417 delinquent children were held in the deten
tion home, indicating that the children were detained in about 36
per cent of the cases. About three-fourths of the girls, as com
pared with one-third of the boys, were held in the detention home.14
In the absence of information as to the other courts similar to
that obtained for the courts of Boston, Buffalo, and New Orleans,
it is of interest to compare (Table 7) the total number of children
before each court in a given period with the average daily popula
tion of the detention home, and the total number of cases of all types
cared for.15 In Minneapolis there was no detention home, and the
information given relates to the city and county j ails. The figures for
Boston relate to the boarding homes, police stations, and jail.
13 N ot including children committed to the department after adjudication or during continuance in default
of bail but including 3 cases in which the child was first released to the parents or the probation officer and
later committed temporarily to the department of public welfare.
14 N inth Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Buffalo, N . Y ., 1920, pp. 19,26. The number of cases of
delinquent boys was 1,041 and of delinquent girls, 102. Of the 461 children cared for in the detention home
417—340 boys and 77 girls— were held on delinquency charges. Since 1920 the detention home has been
moved into new quarters, and the policy has been adopted of detaining all children presenting special
problems for several days, in order that thorough study m ay be made.
16
The figures for cases cared for do not represent the number of children detained, since the same child
might have been received in the detention home several times during the year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
D E T E N T IO N .
T a b l e 7 .— N u m b e r o f children’s cases, average d a ily p o p u la tio n o f detention h om es,
and n u m b er o f detention cases d u rin g ye a r, a n d other pla ces o f d eten tio n u sed .
Num ber of
children’s cases
during year.1
Court and period.
B o sto n
ju v e n ile
court— year ended
Aug. 31, 1920.3
Detention
home.
Other place of detention.
N um
ber of
D e
Average chil
pend
daily
Delin
dren de
ency
popula
quency.
tained
and
tion.
during
neglect.
year.2
63
952
Children’s aid so
ciety boarding
homes.
Police stations___
(*)
County jail----------D e p a r t m e n t of
public welfare.
S. P . C . C.shelter.
Other_____________
B u ffa lo c h ild r e n ’ s
court— 1920.4
1,143
33
«5
3 461
None.
D e n v e r ju v e n ile
court— year ended
June 30,1920.®
2,057
301
1 10
i 700
M atron’s quarters,
city jail.
Boarding hom es...
District of Columbia
juvenile court— year
ended June 30,1920.®
1,641
359
Los Angeles juvenile
court— 1919.10
1,314
11473
Minneapolis juvenile
court— 1919.«
1,000
549
3 25
»1,800
12 129 12 2,179
(*)
12.
8 (delinquent children).
2
(neglected children).
2.
2
or 3 children a week.
Occasionally used for de
pendent children.
Private institution
Police station ; j ail.
Occasionally used for girls.
Older boys frequently de
tained in jail.
M atron’s quarters
city jail.
County j a i l . . . —
795 children.13
hom e
149 children 12 to 16 years
of age; m any of them did
not remain over night.13
Occasionally used for de
tention care.
C ity school for 655.
boys.
House of the Good 100.
Shepherd.
Other institutions. 35.
N ew Orleans juvenile
court— 1919.3
1,549
154
San Francisco juvenile
court— year ended
June 30, 1920.14
13 795
1,030
Seattle juvenile c o u r t1920.1«
986
445
17 27
1,708
356
13 61 10 2,386
S t. L o u i s juven ile
court— 1920.«
121, including children de
tained for short periods
while on probation.
39, including 2 also held in
county jail.
Board of Children’s Dependent and delinquent
children
occasionally
Guardians.
committed temporarily,
pending disposition of
their cases.
C o u n ty
schools.
(*)
46
Num ber of detention
cases during year.
Type.
1,942
Jail-------------------Children’s institu
tions.
1,482
Jail.
Older boys occasionally de
tained in jail.
Used when it doesnotseem
wise to continue children
in detention home.
Older boys occasionally de
tained in jail.
Board of Children’s Dependent children occa
sionally committed tem
Guardians.
porarily.20
Older boys occasionally
JaiL
detained in jail.
1 Including only cases dealt with formally through court hearing, except that in Denver and Seattle both
formal and informal cases are included.
.
,
,
,
2 One child m ay have been cared for several times during the year; hence the figures do not represent the
«um ber of different children detained.
3 D ata compiled from court records.
4N inth Annual Report, Children’s Court of Buffalo, N . Y ., 1920.
. . . . .
_ c„_
,,
3
Ibid., p. 26. Average based on total number of days children were detained— i. e., 2,537. Of tne 461
children detained, 417 were held on delinquency charges. In 1923, 601 children were detained, and the
average daily population was somewhat higher.
(Footnotes continued on p. 60.)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
60
J U
V
E N
I L E
COURTS AT
W
O R K .
The extent to which some of the detention homes cared for children
not coming to the attention of the court is indicated by the fact that
in three cities— Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis— the num
ber of detention cases was greater than the number of official chil
dren’s cases,16 and in a fourth, Seattle, the number detained was
nearly as great as the number of official children’s cases. In Minne
apolis the number of children held in the city jail was more than
half as large as the number of children’s cases in the juvenile court.
A considerable proportion of those held in Minneapolis, as in other
cities, were released by the police without being reported to the court,
and many of those held in the city jail were detained for a few hours
only. In New Orleans over half the delinquent children before
the court were detained.
In Buffalo, where the detention home was used almost exclusively
for court children, the ratio between children detained and court
cases of delinquency was about 2 to 5, and in Boston the ratio for
delinquent children was less than 1 to 5. All of the 184 children de
tained in Boston hail come to the attention of the court, but 47 of
them were cared for during continuances or while on probation.
That the proportion of children before the Boston juvenile court
who were detained is small is due partly to the plan of notifying a
probation officer whenever a child was arrested and inquiry by the
officer into the circumstances of the case.17 The natural tendency
of the boarding-home plan, moreover, is to keep detention at a mini
mum, and the frequency of hearings in Boston (six days a week)
led to a more prompt disposition of the case and hence reduced the
number of cases in which detention was required.
Because of the different purposes for which the detention homes
were used, they varied greatly with respect to the length of time the
children were detained. For four of the seven detention homes
included in the study information was obtained with reference to
the number of days each child cared for during a given period re
mained in the home, and for two others the average length of deten
tion was ascertained. The length of time the children were cared
for in boarding homes in Boston was also learned.
The average duration of detention care in each of six detention
homes and in the Boston boarding homes is shown in Table 8.
16See p. 59.
17See pp. 43-44.
(Continued from p. 59.)
6 D ata obtained from reports published or unpublished.
7 Approximate.
8 Approximate average for April, 1921.
8 Year ended June 30,1923. Frequently a child was entered more than once— for example, a child held
for court and returned to the detention home b y the court during continuance of his case was counted twice.
Hence the figure includes m any duplicates.
18 From annual report.
11 Dependency cases include 21 insane or feeble-minded children.
78 The Los Angeles detention home was used b y the police in a large number of cases which were not
brought to the attention of the court.
.........................
13 Figures furnished b y police matron and sheriff. A total of 172 children detained in the city jail (124
boys and 48 girls) were reported as prisoners charged with offenses See p . 64.
13 D ata derived from manuscript report or compiled from m onthly reports of detention home.
78 In addition to the 795 formal cases, 610 were adjusted informally, and in 7 of these cases the child w a§w
held temporarily in the detention home.
78 The Seattle Juvenile-Court Report for the Years 1920-1921.
77 Derived from m onthly reports; average for 11 months, 1920.
78 Derived from m onthly reports from September, 1919, to M a y , 1920, inclusive. Th e average daily
population is now higher.
79 Represents number of children received during the year.
29 In 1924 the Board of Children’s Guardians was providing temporary boarding care for dependent
children.
* N o detention home.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
6 1
T a b l e 8. — A v er a g e n u m b er o f d a ys o f detention in s ix detention h om es and in
B o s to n boarding h om es.
Total
number
of chil
dren de
tained.
Detention home and period.
Boston boarding homes— year ended Aug. 31,1920_____________
Buffalo— 1920 3_______________________
District of Columbia— September, 19203________________
Los Angeles— 1919______________________
San Francisco— year ended June 30, 1920 ........... ....................
Seattle— 19218____________ ______
St. Louis— October, 1919 2___................................
Average number of days of
detention.
Both
sexes.
Boys.
Girls.
22. 6
174
461
4 144
2,027
7 1,802
1,264
9 172
5
2.4
6
6.2
11.6
9 ^
« 16Ì29
«6.18
9 Q
94
« 16.15
«3o!
1 Num ber cared for during the year, excluding 47 cared for during short periods while on probation, whose
length of stay was not ascertainable. D ata compiled from records.
2 Data compiled from records.
3 Ninth Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Buffalo, N . Y ., 1920, p. 26.
4Number received during the month.
* Num ber released during the year. From manuscript report.
6 From manuscript report.
7 Number received during the year. From manuscript report.
8 The Seattle Juvenile-Court Report for the Years 1920-1921, p. 13. The Seattle figures for 1922 were as
follows: Total number of children cared for, 1,451; average period of detention, 6.1 days. For 1923: Total
number of children cared for 1,476; average period of detention, 5.5 days.
9 Num ber received during the month, excluding 14 for whom length of time in detention was not reported.
The high average for girls in Los Angeles and San Francisco is
due largely to the fact that the homes in these cities cared for girls
receiving treatment for venereal disease, whose protracted stay brought
up the average.
Table 9 shows for four detention homes and for the Boston board
ing homes the distribution of the children according to the number
of days they were detained.
T a b l e 9.— N u m b e r o f d a y s o f deten tion o f children i n f o u r detention hom es and in
B o s to n boarding h om es.
Children detained.
Num ber of days of
detention.
Boston board
ing homes,
year ended
■Aug. 31,1920.
N um
ber.7
District of
Columbia,
September,
1920.
Per
Per
cent
N um
cent
distri
ber.2 distri
bution.
bution.
San Fran
cisco, year
ended June
30, 1920.
Num
ber.3
Seattle,
Sept. 1-Oct.
15, 1920.
St. Louis,
October,
1919.
Per
Per
Per
cent
N um
cent
N um
cent
distri ber.4 distri
ber.2 distri
bution.
bution.
bution.
Total______________
74
100.0
144
100.0
1,796
100.0
158
100.0
172
100.0
Less than 1........ ..................
1__________
2-3____________________
4-5___________________
6-7.........................................
8 - 9 . . . ..........
10-13.......................
14-19. ..
20-29......................
30 and over_____ ________
1
35
23
8
3
2
1
1.4
47.3
31.1
10.8
4.1
2.7
1.4
33
41
37
16
12
2
1
2
22.9
28.5
25.7
11.1
8.3
1.4
.7
1.4
1.4
16.2
15.2
15.5
9.9
9.9
6.2
7.7
6. 7
6.4
6.3
22
37
26
18
17
4
6
g
g
12
13.9
23.4
16.4
11.4
10.8
2.5
3.8
5 1
5 1
7.6
24
30
17
11
14
19
11
g
1«
19
14.0
17.4
10.0
6.4
8.1
11.0
6.4
1
291
273
278
177
177
112
139
120
116
113
1L 0
1 Children cared for in children’s aid society homes during, the year, excluding those cared for while on
probation.
' " ’*3 D ata compiled from records.
3 The figures were derived from m onthly reports o f detention home and represent children released
during the year, excluding 3 for whom length of detention was not reported. Th e figures given in Table 8
were from the annual report and represent the number received during the year.
4 Children received in the detention home from Sept. 1 to Oct. 15, 1920, excluding 1 for whom length of
detention was not reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
In the District of Columbia 51.4 per cent of the children remained
in detention less than two days;18 in Boston the corresponding per
centage for the boarding homes was 48.7. In Seattle 37.3 per cent,
and in San Francisco and St. Louis, 31.4 per cent of the children
were detained less than two days. The percentages of children de
tained longer than seven days ranged from 3.5 in the District of
Columbia and 5.5 in Boston to 33.3 in San Francisco and 44.1 in St.
Louis, with a percentage for Seattle of 24.1. In Boston and San
Francisco the number detained for the longer periods was affected
by the fact that girls with venereal disease were detained while they
were receiving treatment.
D ETE N TIO N IN PO LICE ST A TIO N S AN D JAILS.
For the purpose of this discussion detention in police stations re
fers only to detention for as long a period as overnight. In several
of the cities children were held in police stations for periods varying
from a few minutes to several hours, while their parents were being
sent for or until decision was made with reference to the action that
should be taken. During these periods they were cared for in the
matron’s room, the guard room, or the signal room. Except for
these short periods, girls were said never to be held in police stations
or jails in eight of the courts studied.
The practice with reference to the detention of boys varied con
siderably. The age jurisdiction of the court and the detention
facilities available would be expected to influence jail detention to
some extent. In one of the two cities in which it was said that boys
were never detained in police stations or jails, the juvenile court had
jurisdiction only up to the age of 16 years and in the other, only up
to the age of 17. In one city where the court had jurisdiction up to
the age of 17 years jail detention was so rare as to be negligible;
occasionally, it was reported, a boy who could not be controlled in
the usual place of detention was sent to jail. Of the juvenile courts
in the seven cities in which boys were sometimes detained in jail or
police stations, one had jurisdiction in boys’ cases only up to the
age of 16 years; two, to 17 years; two more, to 18 years; and two
others, to 18 with concurrent jurisdiction to 21 years. The laws
under which three of these courts operated forbade the detention
of children under the age of 14 years in jails or police stations; and
such detention was forbidden in a fourth city, with a proviso which
permitted the detention of a boy 12 years of age or over under cer
tain circumstances. In three cities it was illegal to detain a child
under the age of 16 years in police stations or jails. The information
obtained indicated that these laws were observed in all but one city.
Cities in which children under 16 were detained in police station or ja il.
In six of the cities studied, so far as could be ascertained in the
course of the inquiry, children under the age of 16 years were not
detained in police stations or jails. The situation with reference to
jail detention in the remaining four cities was as follows:
is Change Of policy in the District of Columbia juvenile court since the time of the study has undoubtedly
resulted in an even larger proportion detained less than two days.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DETENTION.
63
St. Louis (juvenile-court jurisdiction to 17 years).— It was reported
that a few 16-year-old boys and some boys as young as 14 whose
presence in the detention home was a menace to the other children
were detained in the city jail.
Denver (juvenile-court jurisdiction to 16 years in boys’ cases18a and to
18 years in girls’ cases).— Because the detention home was oyercrowded it was sometimes necessary to detain children in the ma
tron’s quarters in the city jail. In these quarters separation of boys
from men, but not girls from older women, was provided for. There
was one room for boys and one for women and girls. Each room
had four beds and a toilet. One bathroom, opening out of the hall,
served all those detained. A dining room also opened out of the hall.
Boys under grand-jury indictment were detained in the county jail,
and boys also were remanded to j ail for a week or two weeks pending
continuance of their cases. They were usually employed as %trusties.”
Boston (juvenile-court jurisdiction to 17 years).— Boys over the age
of 14 years were sometimes detained in police stations overnight, and
occasionally boys were ordered detained in jail if the court deemed it
necessary to prevent their running away. Girls were said never to be
held in police stations or in jail. Children detained in police stations
were reported not to be held longer than 24 hours and were kept in the
signal room or guardroom. Those detained in jail were cared for in
a separate row of cells. In 39 out of a total of 851 cases of delinquent
boys before the juvenile court during the year ended August 31, 1920,
the records, as checked by a member of the probation staff, showed
that the child had been held in the police station overnight. One of
the 39 children had been held in the police station twice during the
year. Four of the children held in police station had been detained
for the municipal court and were afterwards transferred to the juvenile
court; 9 were arrested during a police strike when conditions were
abnormal, in some cases the probation officers not being notified of the
arrest; 15 were boys on parole from industrial schools; and 4 were run
aways. In 2 of the 39 cases the child was 12 years of age and in 3,
13 years; 12 children were 14 or 15 years old, and 22 had passed
their sixteenth birthday.
Two of the boys held in police stations and eight others were com
mitted to jail, pending the dispositions of their cases, and two boys
who had been on probation and failed to report in court on the day
specified were committed temporarily to j ail. Four of the boys held
in jail were 14 or 15 years o f age and 8 had reached the age of 16
years.
Minneapolis (juvenile-court jurisdiction to 18 years).— This court
depended chiefly upon the city and county jails— both located in the
courthouse— for detention service and, until petitions were filed,
exercised no control over children detained. Children whom the
police desired “ held,” lost children, and runaways were detained in
the matron’s quarters of the city jail. Boys were cared for in a row
of five cells within these quarters. These cells were dark and unpleas
ant and were no better than the usual cells for aduit prisoners; but
chey were entirely separate from the cells containing men prisoners,
and the boys were under the supervision of the police matron. When
is® N ow 18 years (by a 1923 law).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
64
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
more than five boys had to be provided for— as was often the case—
separate cells in the rear of the city jail proper were used. These
cells accommodated three or four boys.
The provision for girls was somewhat better than that for boys.
They were cared for in one room containing three single beds, a
toilet, and a shower bath. The juvenile ward was entirely separate
from the adult ward in which was a tier of cells where as many as 40
women could be detained. It was impossible to separate the younger
children from the older, or those diseased from those free from disease.
The matron had one assistant. These two did all the purchasing
for the city jail and prepared and served the meals for both the
juvenile and the women’s ward, and the matron received all chil
dren and women arrested and made arrangements for the release of
the former to their parents when possible.
The number of children under 18 years of age who were received
in the city jail in 1919 is shown in Table 10. A considerable propor
tion of these children were held for a shorter period than overnight.
Many of them never came to the attention of the juvenile court but
were released to their parents without further action.
T a b l e 10.— C h ild ren u n d er 1 8 ye a rs o f age held i n c ity j a i l i n on e c ity , b y rea son o f
_
d etention, 1 9 1 9 .1
Reason for detention.
Total.
«795
146
17
142
333
93
SO
7
7
Boys.
Girls.
601
194
93
13
130
300
13
47
5
53
4
12
33
80
3
2
7
1 This table shows conditions in a city (Minneapolis) in which no arrangements were made for short-time
detention, aside from the jail. The length of detention could not be secured, but it is probable that a con
siderable proportion of the children were held for periods shorter than overnight.
2 Of this number, 172 children (124 boys and 48 girls) were reported as prisoners charged with oflenses.
Children could not be detained in the county jail without an
order from the court or from the sheriff, and such orders were rarely
issued by the sheriff. Children awaiting admission to institutions
or placed on probation and later brought before the court for sub
sequent offenses were sometimes detained in the county jail. A
suite of rooms intended originally for the private use of the jailer
had been set aside for children. There were two rooms for girls,
one containing two beds and the other one bed; more beds could be
put into these rooms if needed. Two rooms were set aside for boys,
and these were reached by a hall separated from the main corridor
by a doorway over which was the sign “ Juvenile detention ward.”
Sometimes as many as 15 boys were detained in these two rooms.
When not needed for boys one of the rooms was sometimes used for
the detention of insane women. Each room had a toilet, and each
ward a bathroom. In addition to these wards there was a cell block
reserved for boys 15 to 20 years of age.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T I O N -.
65
It was impossible to secure figures as to the numbers of children
actually detained in the county jail, because the figures available
included those who came only to eat lunch. Boys committed to the
county school for delinquents often had to wait several hours before
they could be taken to the school, and there was no way of feeding
them except in the jail, where they ate in the kitchen. The jailer
stated that in 1919 approximately 98 children under 12 years of age
were detained, but most of them remained for a very short time.
These children were not “ booked.” In the same year 36 children
between 12 and 14 years of age and 113 children 14 to 16 years, in
clusive, were ‘ •booked” in the county jail. Although some of the
children were reported to have stayed, as long as three or four days
or even a week, it is probable that the number who remained even
overnight was small.19
Cities in which only children 16 and over were detained in police sta
tion or ja il.
In cities where the juvenile court has jurisdiction only up to the
age of 16 or 17 years all children over that age who are arrested and
held are usually detained in police stations or jails. In the three
cities included m the present study in which the juvenile court had
jurisdiction over children under the age of 18 or 21 years, children
under the age of 16 years were not, so far as could be ascertained, held
in jails or police stations.
Seattle (juvenile-court jurisdiction to 18 years).— Girls under the
age of 18 years were not detained in jail. Boys 16 years of age or
above who were arrested in the county but outside the city were
sometimes brought to the county j ail but were transferred within 24
hours to the detention home. It was stated that the police of the
city never took a boy under 18 to the county jail without first taking
him to the detention home or consulting the superintendent; if pos
sible, he was cared for in the detention home. Boys under 18 de
tained in jail were held in a separate ward. Detention in police sta
tions was limited to cases in which the children were held for a few
hours in a separate ward at the central station, pending investigation
by the juvenile division or the women’s protective bureau of the
police department.
San Francisco (juvenile-court jurisdiction exclusive to 18 years and
concurrent between the ages o f 18 and 21 years).— Girls under 18 were
never detained in jail, and girls between the ages of 18 and 21 years
who came to the attention of the juvenile court b y other means than
through the police department were not so detained. The court was
always notified by the police department of the jail detention of
girls under the age of 21 years. Boys between the ages of 16 and 18
years were very seldom detained m jail— only when they were a
menace to the other children in the detention home. Boys over 18
were usually detained in jail.
Los Angeles (juvenile-court jurisdiction exclusive to 18 years and
concurrent between the ages o f 18 and 21 years).—Pending the filing
of petitions boys 16 years of age and over were frequently detained
by the police in the central police station and sometimes in one of
the precinct stations which was equipped for detention purposes.
18 A study made by tbe National Probation Association showed that 300 children under 18 were held in
the county jail in 1923. Some were under 14. The majority were held only a few hours.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W O R K ,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N '.
67
In the central police station was a row of four cells reserved for ju
veniles. In the precinct station, also, boys detained were separated
from adults. Girls and women were detained in the matron’s quar
ters. Every morning one of the women probation officers of the court
visited the central police station to see if any children were detained
there. If girls under 18 were found special effort was made to get
them out immediately; boys under 18 were reported to the men pro
bation officers, who tried to secure their release or transfer to the
detention home.
Girls under the age of 18 years were never detained in the county
jail, but boys 16 years of age and over were frequently detained
there by order of the court, pending hearing or continuance and after
petition had been filed. Boys under 19 years of age held in the
county jail were confined in the juvenile ward, unless the ward was
too crowded. This ward was in a dark, poprly kept basement and
consisted of eight cells within a small inclosure. One toilet in the
inclosure served all the boys. No washing facilities were visible.
Often there were 15 or 16 boys from 16 to 18 years of age, inclusive,
within this small space— 2 boys to a cell. Some of these boys were
held for the juvenile court and some of the older ones for the crimi
nal courts. The boys had absolutely nothing to do, and the only
place for exercise was within the inclosure. When questioned, some
of the boys said they had been taken first to the detention home, but
as that was too crowded to receive them they had been brought to
the jail. Juvenile-court officials stated that the maximum length of
jail detention prior to hearing was six days, but cases were some
times continued and the children remanded to jail. This was very
likely to happen if the boy was a vagrant, and information concern
ing him was difficult to obtain. Boys held for the criminal court
sometimes remained several weeks. The juvenile ward was often so
overcrowded that some of the 18-year-old boys were put in the cell
blocks with older prisoners.19®
E Q U IPM E N T AN D M A N A G E M E N T OF D E TE N TIO N H O M E S .
Physical equipment.
If the number of children to be provided for is relatively small it
is often possible to purchase and remodel a private residence at less.
than the cost of a new building. Such a plan usually does not
permit the combination of court room, probation offices, and deten
tion home in the same building— an arrangement that has proved
desirable from many points of view. Moreover, it is likely to be
much more difficult in a remodeled building than in one specially
constructed, to make arrangements for segregation of various types
of children and to provide proper sanitation and facilities necessary
for convenient and efficient administration.
The physical essentials of an adequate detention home include:
1. Sufficient space to accommodate without crowding the number
of children likely to be detained at any one time.
2. Arrangement of rooms so as to permit segregation according to
sex, character, and physical condition. Neglected and dependent
190 It is planned during 1924-25 to erect a large dormitory for boys from 16 to 18 years of age of the type
now detained in jail.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
68
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
children, if cared for in a detention home, should be entirely separated
from delinquent children. For older children single rooms are
usually conceded to be better than dormitories, and less supervision
at night is necessary when single rooms are provided.
3. Separate bathing and toilet facilities for boys and girls, and for
children suffering from infectious diseases.
4. Proper lighting and ventilation.
5. Dining rooms, recreation rooms, and schoolrooms.
6. Security against escape—windows may be protected by iron
screening or may be constructed of iron frames with small panes of
glass.
7. Adequate protection against fire.
8. Outdoor play space.
In only one of the seven cities studied which had detention homes—
Denver—was the building a former private residence. Two other
cities, however—Buffalo and Washington—utilized old buildings for
detention homes.196 The detention homes of Los Angeles, San Fran
cisco, St. Louis, and Seattle had been built for the purpose, and in
the last three cities the buildings were comparatively new.
Some of the detention homes were seriously overcrowded. In one
home, for instance, most of the rooms were intended for single rooms,
but it was often necessary to put two children in a room. Relief
from this overcrowding was expected, to some extent at least, as soon
as two new buildings were completed.
Single rooms were used exclusively in but one of the homes— that
in San Francisco.20 In one of the others single rooms were used as
far as possible, but overcrowding often made it necessary to place
two children in a room. Dormitories were used exclusively in three
homes, and in the other two some of the children slept in dormitories
and some in single rooms.
The amount of space and the arrangement of the rooms in two of
the detention homes made it impossible to classify the children
except upon the basis of sex. In a third home classification was
very difficult, and in a fourth the space available for dining rooms
and recreation rooms made it impossible to segregate different groups
during the day, except that separation of boys and girls was main
tained. The arrangement of the detention homes of Los Angeles
and San Francisco, and to a lesser degree that of the District of
Columbia, permitted better classification than was possible in the
other homes.
Bathing and toilet facilities in one of the detention homes were
totally inadequate, even for the relatively small capacity of the
home, as one bath and one toilet served staff and children, boys and
girls.
In most of the homes the windows were guarded by iron screens,
and in one the windows were barred. Neither screens nor bars were
used in one of the homes, but all the windows except those at the
front of the building were divided into small panes separated by
heavy iron framework.
» » T h e Buffalo court now occupies a well-equipped building of brick and stone, attached b y »passage
w ay to a brick cottage in which the superintendent and some of the women attendants live. Th e buildings
were formerly hospital buildings.
jo Very young dependent children were cared for in dormitories.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
69
Dining rooms, recreation rooms, and schoolrooms were frequently
inadequate. For instance, in one detention home were three school
rooms, one for negro boys and girls of all ages, the second for white
girls and younger boys, and the third for older white boys. The
second served also as a dining and recreation room for all the girls,
both white and negro.
Out-of-door play space was at the time of the study practically
unavailable in tnree of the detention homes.21 In one home a cementfloored area divided into three sections separated by board fences
was used for play purposes, and in the rear of one of the other deten
tion homes were two yards, one for boys and one for girls, where
the children spent a considerable amount of time. More ample
out-of-door play space was provided by two detention homes, in
one of which considerable attention was paid to gardening and
poultry raising.
Descriptions of two of the newer detention homes, those of Seattle
and San Francisco, follow:
The Seattle juvenile-court building and detention home.— This was
completed in 1915. It occupied a tract of land 120 feet wide and
196 feet deep. An adjoining lot had been purchased just prior to
the time of the study, making the total depth 256 feet, and plans
for an addition to the home had been completed.22 A wall covered
with shrubbery surrounded the grounds on three sides. In the rear
of the home were two yards, one for boys and one for girls.
The Seattle building was of steel and brick construction. It
accommodated comfortably 17 boys and 17 girls, and 6 more boys
Could, if necessary, be cared for in the attic. Sometimes as many as
29 boys and 29 girls had to be accommodated. The proposed addi
tion would make it possible to care for the children much more
adequately.
The 1921 budget for the Seattle detention home was $16,974.80,
including salaries and all expenses; in 1920 the cost of maintenance
was $13,629.90. The increase was partly due to the provision of a
salary for a house physician. Each floor of the detention home was
divided into two sections— one for boys and one for girls. The
court room, judge’s chambers, and probation offices occupied the
front part of the first floor, which also included a small office for the
superintendent, in front of the girls’ section; a living room and a
dining room for girls; a living room and a dining room for boys; and
a kitchen in the rear, which served both sections. On the girls’
side of the second floor were five single rooms, two dormitories con
taining four beds each, an open-air room accommodating two girls
and used as an “ honor” room, an attendant’s room, a schoolroom, a
clinic room, a locker room, a linen closet, and a bathroom. The
arrangement on the boys’ side was similar, except that the superin
tendent’s room, connecting with both sides of the building took the
place of the clinic room, and one less single room was available on that
side because of the extra space added to the superintendent’s quarters.
The open-air room on the boys’ side was not used. In the attic
were six beds for use by boys when the second floor was overcrowded,
and a playroom for boys.
2* Since the study was made playgrounds have been developed in connection with two of these homes.
si See floor plans, pp. 53,540.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
70
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
With the proposed addition a total of 13 single rooms on each side
would be available. In the center was to be a nursery, opening onto
a porch. When not required for small children, the plan was to use
the nursery as a general-utility room. Each side was to have two
hospital rooms, with one bed in each, and the accommodations for
attendants were to be enlarged.
The San Francisco juvenile court and detention home.— This was
completed in October, 1916, at a total cost for land and building of
approximately $250,000. A nine-story building, it was planned
with a view to making possible the segregation of children according
to sex, age, and character, each floor being given over to a certain
type of child. Single rooms predominated except on the nursery
floor. The windows were protected by iron screens. At the rear
of the building was a playground.
The first floor of the building and part of the second floor were
given up to the court room and probation offices, and the office of
the detention-home superintendent. On the second floor were
the offices of the girls’ department and the living quarters of the
women officers on the detention-home staff The men officers did
not live in the detention home.
On the third floor was the room used by the referee hearing girls’
cases; this floor also contained two dormitories and individual
receiving rooms for dependent boys under the age of 8 or 9 years
and dependent girls under the age of 12. The fourth floor was
devoted to older boys; the fifth, to younger delinquent boys; the
sixth, to venereally diseased girls; the seventh, to “ well girls” ; and
the eighth, to receiving rooms for girls, an operating room, a clinic
room, a dental laboratory, an examining room, and two or three
small consulting rooms. On the fifth floor was a dining room used
by all the boys, which sometimes served also as a schoolroom.23 The
sixth and seventh floors each had a dining room used as a schoolroom,
and one or two small sewing rooms. On the top floor were a lunch
room for the probation staff, a dining room for the staff of the deten
tion home, a laundry, a general kitchen, a recreation room, and store
rooms. Each sleeping room contained a bed, a dresser, and a chair.
The dining rooms were furnished with tables, chaiis, and desks.
The classification o f the children.
One of the most important aspects of detention service is the extent
to which various classes of children are separated— boys and girls,
sick children and well children, delinquent children and dependent
children or children who have not been seriously delinquent. The
discussion of the physical equipment of the detention homes included
in the study has indicated some of the difficulties which were involved
in properly segregating the children.
In two homes practically no segregation except that by sex was
maintained, and even the separation of the sexes was not complete.23®
In a third home proper segregation was difficult because of overcrowd
ing. Boys were entirely separated from girls except while attend
ing school, and the older white boys had a schoolroom of their own.
23 A room in the basement also was available as a schoolroom for boys.
23a One of these homes now occupies a new building in which there is ample provision for segregation
and for isolation when necessary.
B 6
’
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
71
Some attempt was made to separate neglected children from delin
quent children, but such classification was not complete.
At the time of the study, in a fourth home there was practically
no classification except upon the basis of sex and color, but plans
were being developed for the segregation on one floor of children
with little or no delinquent experience— they were to sleep, eat, play,
and attend school on this floor. In another home the separation of
boys and girls was complete, and so far as possible dependent chil
dren and younger delinquent children were cared for in dormitories
and older delinquent children in single rooms. No attempt was
made to segregate the children during the day, except for the separa
tion of the sexes.
In the largest detention homes included in the study— those of
San Francisco and Los Angeles— provision for classifying the children
was more nearly complete. Single rooms were used for all delin
quent children in San Francisco. Dependent children were cared for
on a floor reserved for them. One floor was devoted to younger
delinquent boys, one to older delinquent boys, one to well girls, and
one to sick girls. Younger and older boys shared the same dining
room and the same schoolroom.
The Los Angeles detention home was divided into units (those for
boys being called “ companies” ), and each unit had its own sleeping
quarters, dining room, schoolroom, and recreation period. The
classification as given in the regulations of Juvenile Hall was as
follows:
:j
N u r s e r y . — So-called dependent young children (girls and boys up to the age
of 8); older- girls who are of the type which would be injured by contact with
girls of more experience; so-called older dependent girls.
N u r s e r y f o r y o u n g children (ju v e n ile hosp ita l n u r se r y ).— For those infected with
venereal disease in a contagious form; majority of noncontact origin.
H o s p ita l f o r older girls, venereal.— Those infected with venereal disease by
actual contact.
S e n io r girls’ departm ent.- —The older girls are known as the senior depart
ment .236
G irls’ d orm ito ry. — The younger girls are those in the girls’ junior dormitory
from the age of 11 to 14.23&
B o y s .— 'Those 14 and over are in Company A.
The smaller boys are detailed
to Company B, those 8 to 13 years of age.23c
The assignments to various groups were determined b y medical
examinations, reports of the probation officers, and observation by
the superintendent.
The only way to insure the detention-home population against the
spread of infectious disease is to isolate the children on reception
until a physical examination and laboratory tests are made and to
provide for the separation of those found to have infectious disease
from those found to be well. The problem is especially difficult
because of the short time the children stay in detention and the
loneliness of those who are isolated pending examination. In many
detention homes no attempt is made to segregate children pending
examination unless symptoms of disease are evident.
236 Girls who stay longer than a few days ’(for example, those detained as witnesses) are now (1924) housed
in a new two-story brick building with 24 single rooms for the girls and with adequate matron’s quarters.
23« A third company, “ C ,” has since been formed, housed in a separate dormitory w ith capacity for 15.
A matron has charge of this group, which consists of the younger boys. They eat at the “ B ” boys’ table,
have a playground to themselves and a special school-teacher, using the school rooms when the older boys
are at work,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
72
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
In the Los Angeles detention home children were kept in isolation
in their rooms for three days pending physical examination and
laboratory tests. In San Francisco girls were cared for in a special
receiving ward until physical examinations and laboratory analyses
had been made. Dependent children were isolated until they had
received physical examinations. In contrast to the situation in
these homes was that in one in which no provision was made for the
isolation of sick children or children pending examination, or for
physical examinations.
A physician called each morning at two of the detention homes
included in the study and examined the children; they were not
segregated pending examination. In two other detention homes in
which the children were not isolated upon reception, the plan was
to have each girl examined the day she entered the home, but this
was not always practicable.
The staff.
In considering the administration of detention homes the question
of personnel is all-important. A home with inadequate equipment
but under the management of a person of broad experience and under
standing is preferable to a better-equipped home under the manage
ment of those who do not understand the needs of children. The
number of employees must be adequate for the management of the
home and the supervision of the children, and salaries must be large
enough to secure the services of persons adapted to the work. Suffi
cient help should be employed to make it unnecessary for the children
to do work of the heaviest kind.
The functions which must be performed by the staff of a detention
home include:
1. The general management of the home, the reception of children,
and the keeping of records. These duties are usually performed by
the superintendent with or without the aid of an assistant superin
tendent or of clerical assistants.
2. The supervision of the details of household management, the
purchase of food and supplies, and the planning of meals (usually
done by an assistant superintendent or a matron or housekeeper, but
in a small home often included in the superintendent’s duties).
3. Day supervision of the children.
4. Night supervision of the children.
5. Preparation of the meals.
6. Care of the building and the heating plant.
The services numbered 3 and 4 are usually performed by attend
ants; but the housekeeper or matron often has charge of the super
vision of the girls, and m a small home the janitor may assist in the
supervision oi the boys. As a matter of course, all the employees
who will be required to perform any service in connection with the
supervision of children should be selected on a basis of their qualifi
cations for that work.
Teachers are often assigned from the school department for service
in the detention home, and supervisors of recreation are sometimes
secured from the same department for part-time assistance. Physi
cians and mental specialists are sometimes part of the detentionhome organization; but since their service should not be confined
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
o90£Ô $
T a b l e
i9 Z —
City.
Average
daily
popula
tion of
deten
tion
home.8
A v era g e d a ily p o p u la tio n and s t a f f 1 o f d eten tion h om es.
Staff of detention home.1
Attendants.
Women.
M en.
Superintendent
(woman).
10
Superintendent
(man); matron.
Teachers.
Nurses.
Executives.
7
05
1 1 .—
14
...............
Cook.......... ......................
f > ........................................
Cook;
jani tress;
2
drivers who take
children from court
and police stations.
2 clerks.
1 stenographer
and clerk.
Lieutenant in charge
of women’s bureau
of police depart
ment; 6 superintend/ ent .(woman); house
keeper.
129
Superintendent
(woman); office ma
tron .
4 ............................
12............................. 1 receiving; 3 hospital.
7 assigned b y board of
education (1 man, 6
women).
Cook----------------------------
S&u F i ciiicisco.. . . . . . .
46
Chief probation offi
cer; 8 superintendent
(m an); assistant su
perintendent (m an);
matron.
Janitor; n i g h t
su p erin ten d
ent.
4 attendants; 1
night matron.
1 assigned by board of
education (woman).
Cook__________________
Dvulliv ———————————————
27
Superintendent
(wom an).
1
1 full time;
part time.
1...................- ......... - .........
Kitchen attendant------
61
Superintendent
(woman); matron.
3
Cook; janitor--------------
i
Thp «staff in 1Q24 consists of a
2
2
1
.........
women
assigned
from school depart
ment and a recrea
tion supervisor, part
time (man).
a « d has . somewhat higher a / e f y
s u D e rin te n d e n t, a n a ssista n t s u p e rin t e n d e n t, t w o w o m e n a tte n d a n ts , t w o m e n a tte n d a n ts ,
a night w a t c h m a n , a cook,
M^ineer, two^firemen^buildingcustodian and ^ o m ^ k ^ p e r , S i attached to the Buffalo Bureau of Buildings, serve the detention home.
a n a a n ass*sl^
D E T E N T IO N
1 (m an).............................
6 25
District of Columbia.
Office help.
Cook; maids__________
1
1
Janitors, clerks, char
women, maids.
<*>
1'
A teacher is assigned b y the depart-
menit T h P ^ aS tn fS
^ e d ° S ' attendant for the bovs
6 Approximate number of children; women also were eared for.
Oenera7snne?vTs1on attendant
y
8 Since the time of the study a teacher has been assigned by the school department
As executive secretary of the probation committee the chief probation officer exercised general control over the detention home. The superintendent now (1924) is a woman,
and the attendants are as follows: Seven women, one night superintendent, two orderlies.
, .
» There are now (1924) in addition to the staff shown above, a third man attendant and a stenographer and clerk:.
6
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CO
74
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
to the detention-home population, it is more logical to consider them
as belonging to a separate branch of the court.
The personnel of the staff of each of the detention homes studied
is summarized in Table 11.
Supervision of the children.
In dealing with a group of children in a detention home supervision
is of very great importance, but it should not be conceived of as a
negative duty, undertaken merely for the purpose of preventing unde
sired happenings. Children in detention are especially in need of
sympathetic interest and intelligent understanding, for they are pass
ing through a period of humiliation and apprehension as to the future.
Supervision of the right sort, by the right persons, will prepare the
way for subsequent constructive work with the child.
In some of the detention homes included in the study the staff was
so small that adequate supervision was very difficult. For instance,
in one of the smaller homes the superintendent was aided by only one
woman assistant, the janitor (or custodian), the cook, and the maids.2Sd
The girls’ dormitory adjoined the superintendent’s sitting room, and
the janitor slept in a room adjoining the boys’ dormitory. In another
small home the superintendent and the matron, who were husband
and wife, had the assistance of only a man teacher, employed on
part time, and a cook. Practically no supervision was maintained at
night, though the dormitory system was used. Supervision in a
somewhat larger detention home was limited, although a matron,
two men attendants, and two women attendants were provided.
During the time between the close of school and dinner or supper the
children were locked into playrooms or, in the case of the older girls,
sat in their dormitories.
The plan of supervision in one detention home in which most of the
children slept in small dormitories provided for close supervision
during the day and for supervision of the boys at night by an attend
ant who was on night duty. Responsibility for the care of the girls
rested with the housekeeper, who had a woman assistant, a man
attendant and his assistant caring for the boys. In addition to the
attendant on night duty, two men slept on the boys’ floor. On the
girls’ floor no one was on night duty, but one attendant slept near
the dormitory for negro girls and another slept in the hall. Panels
had been removed from the doors of the rooms in order to make
supervision easier.
Supervision was less difficult when the children slept in single
rooms. In one large home in which all delinquent children were thus
provided for, a woman night attendant made the rounds of the girls’
floors each half hour during the night, and a man night superintendent
was responsible for the boys. In another large home the children
were under constant supervision during the day, but at night it was
difficult to give adequate supervision because the overcrowded con
dition of the home made it necessary to place more than one child in
some of the rooms intended for single rooms.23e
2M The staff has since been increased.
.
23« Tw o night matrons are now (1924) constantly on night duty, and the overcrowded condition has been
relieved b y the construction of new buildings.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E K T IO N .
75
Daily program.
Supervision alone, no matter how constant or hoW skillful, can not
prevent the development of undesirable mental states, nor even keep
the children from harmful intimacies. One of the fundamental
features of adequate detention service is the arrangement of the daily
Juvenile court and'detention home, city of San Francisco.
program so that the children’s time will be fully and wholesomely occu
pied. It is for this reason that the provision of school facilities in deten
tion homes is so important. Recreation both indoors and outdoors
and wholesome occupation for part of each day should also be provided.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
76
J U
V
E N
I L E
O O T T R T S
A T
W
O R K .
In two of the detention homes no schooling and no out-of-door
recreation were provided; but in both of these a teacher has since been
assigned b y the school department and in one a playground has been
established, while in the other there is ample space for outdoor recrea
tion. With no place for outdoor play and no school the activities
of the children in the first of these homes were limited to reading
(about 60 books each month were obtained from the public library),
playing the few indoor games that were available, and helping with
the housework, laundry work, and scrubbing.23^ In the second home
the time of the girls was more fully occupied. The girls’ recreation
room was attractively furnished and contained a piano; and here the
girls read, sewed, crocheted, and sang together. Plenty of material
for sewing and fancy work was furnished. The boys did not fare so
well. Their recreation room was scantily furnished; and as they were
not allowed to take books from the general recreation room on
another floor, they had very little to do during their free hours.
In three of the detention homes in which schooling was provided,
the children attended school half a day or less; in two they attended
during both morning and afternoon sessions. In three homes but one
teacher was employed; and as one of these homes was among the
largest included in the study, the teacher had to divide her time
among the different groups of children and to give some of the groups
only short periods of instruction. She taught the boys for three
hours in the morning, girls not suffering from venereal disease for
one and one-half hours in the afternoon, and other girls the same
amount of time, giving some of them and the girls in the receiving
ward individual instruction in their rooms. Children above school
age received no instruction.
Three teachers were assigned by the school department to one of
the two detention homes in which the children attended school both
morning and afternoon, and two principals and five teachers were
assigned to “ Juvenile H all” in Los Angeles, which had the status of a
parental school under the department of education. One of the
principals and four teachers served in the main school, and a principal
and her assistant taught the school attended by girls under treatment
in Juvenile Hall hospital. The principal of the main school had the
same rank as a principal of a 12 to 18 room school. Each child
attended school four hours a day. One of the teachers gave full time
to instructing the boys in shopwork, and one of the matrons taught
the girls sewing.23*7
The success of the Los Angeles detention home in securing the
assignment of so many teachers was due to the assurance given by
the superintendent to the board of education that the teachers would
be given an opportunity in the detention home to observe all the
problems with which special-school teachers come in contact, the
school thus serving as a laboratory and training school for teachers
of special classes. Usually each teacher stayed a year in the Juve
nile Hall School, and many of them had subsequently secured good
positions as special-school teachers. The detention-home staff tried
very definitely to give the teachers information that would assist23/ Each sex is now provided with a recreation room and a glassed-in veranda.
A piano is provided in
one of the recreation rooms, and the children are given the opportunity for daily singing.
23a Hospital girls are now (1924) given handcraft instruction every afternoon from 2 to 4 o’clock, in a
special workroom built for the purpose.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
77
them in understanding the problems met with. Each week a report
of the intelligence quotient of every child in the home was sent to
the principal. The principal of the main school gave group intelli
gence tests and graded the children accordingly.
In all of the detention homes the girls helped with the housework
and the boys with the scrubbing, and in the Los Angeles home some
of the children were assigned to garden work and some to the care of
poultry. One of the other homes had gardens in which the children
worked. Special emphasis was given by one superintendent to the
fact that sufficient help was employed so that the children did not
have to do the heaviest household work.
The lack of out-of-door recreation in three of the detention homes
has already been mentioned. In the other four the children were
usually out of doors each day for longer or shorter periods. Most of
the detention homes had victrolas, and some had pianos; and the
children were usually supplied with quiet, indoor games. In some
of the homes volunteers came on certain days to read to the children,
teach them to sew, take them to church, or give them religious
instruction. In one of the detention homes a recreation supervisor
came every evening to conduct a recreation period for the boys. A
recreation period every other evening was provided for the girls in
another detention home.
The Los Angeles detention home had the most comprehensive plans
for occupying the time of the children in various constructive ways,
but as children who were in detention less than three days were kept
in isolation they did not take part in these activities. The school
maintained in the home by the board of education has already been
described. Special emphasis was placed on recreation, including the
organization of special entertainments. The children also were
assigned tasks in the home or in the garden.
The daily program in the Los Angeles detention home for the chil
dren outside the hospital and hospital nursery, and not in segregation,
was as follows :
M o r n in g .
6.30 to
8.15— Dressing, breakfast, cleaning rooms, and similar activities; setting
up exercises for boys; tooth-brush drill in open air.
8.15 to 10.15— School for half the children and work for the other half. The
girls did housework and the boys worked in the yard and
garden.
10.15 to 10.45— Recess for all children attending school; supervised recreation
was given, and children whose physical condition needed
building up were given eggnog, milk, and crackers.
10.45 to noon— The groups that worked the first part of the morning attended
school and the others worked.
A fter n o o n .
The boys and girls who worked the last part of the morning attended school
during the first half of the afternoon, and vice versa, the shifts changing in
the middle of the afternoon. School was in session until 4.25. After that the
children did any cleaning about the rooms which was necessary.
A t 5 p. m. there was roll call, followed by setting-up exercises.
Supper was at 5.30. From 6 to 7.15 or 7.30 the children had recreation, then
tooth-brush drill in open air, after which they went to their rooms for the night.
Company A, composed of the older boys, had a lobby of its own,
where group meetings were held and matters of interest decided.
All the children came into the main lobby for entertainments and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
78
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
community singing, and special parties were given there. Company
A and Company B sometimes had ball games or played teams from
other special schools in the city. On Sundays the children received
visitors.
A “ boys’ court” was he^d weekly, a staff officer being present.
Two boys were chosen each time to act as judges. The staff officer
and the boys reported misdemeanors, and the judges decided what
penalties should be enforced.
A typical recreation program for a week was as follows, the daily
out-of-door recess not being included:
Monday, 6 p. m., Companies A and B, current events.
Tuesday, 7 p. m., girls, hospital and nursery, singing, and current events.
Wednesday, 6 to 6.45 p. m., boys; general assembly with outside speaker.
-------6.45 to 7 p. m., girls; same.
Thursday, open for entertainment.
Friday, boys’ court in Company A lobby; girls in sitting room; hospital
group in sewing room.
Saturday, ball game for boys, 2 to 4 p. m.
Sunday, services, general assembly.
------ 6.15, Company B, story hour.
TH E B O ST O N PLAN OF D E TE N TIO N .
The Boston plan of detention in private-family homes should be
of special interest to courts in small cities and rural communities,
where the volume of work is too small to warrant the establishment
of a house of detention. It is also worthy of consideration in larger
cities, at least as a possible means of supplementing the facilities of
a house of detention by providing more individual care in special
cases. Therefore a somewhat detailed description of the plan is here
presented.
History and extent o f the service.
Massachusetts was the first State to adopt as general policies care
of dependent children in family homes and probation as a method
of dealing with delinquents. High standards of child placing had
been developed, prior to the establishment of the juvenile court, and
the Boston Children’s Aid Society24 had for some time been furnish
ing probation service to the municipal court in children’s cases.
When the Boston juvenile court was organized in 1906, this agency
offered its assistance to the court ip the development of a detention
service through the use of family boarding homes. The plan has
been followed to the present day under the cooperative arrangement
then effected.
During the first five years a private institution was utilized for the
detention of boys, especially those over the age of 14 years, whose
detention in private families was considered unsafe. In his report
of the first five years of the juvenile court Judge Baker stated that
the use of this congregate institution for temporary detention was not
fair to the boys who were regular inmates and not wholly desirable
for the boys sent to be temporarily detained.25 At about that time
the Boston Children’s Aid Society enlarged its facilities for detent
tion care and adopted the plan of granting small monthly subsidies
24
N ow the Children’s A id Association.
25 Harvey Humphrey Baker— Upbuilder of tbe Juvenile Court, p. 63.
Boston, 1920.
. —
r
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Judge Baker Foundation,
p
D E T E N T IO N .
79
to the boarding homes; an experienced worker was placed in charge
of the service and devoted the major part of her time to it. The
use of the institution for detention purposes was discontinued, and
at the time of this study the society, in cooperation with the court,
had been for some years providing detention care for nearly all de
linquent boys and girls who could not remain at home pending the
hearing and disposition of their cases by the juvenile court.
The only other methods of detention available to the juvenile
court, aside from the jail and the police station,26 were the shelter
maintained by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children and the detention service offered by the division
of child guardianship of the Massachusetts Department of Public
Welfare. The shelter was used for neglected children and occasion
ally for the care of delinquent girls during the continuance of their
cases, when the complamts originated with the society. Delin
quent, wayward, and neglected children might be committed tem
porarily to the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare, and
the division of child guardianship of that department had a home
accommodating 21 boys between the ages of 12 and 21 years; but
the juvenile court rarely found it necessary to utilize this method of
detention except in cases in which the judge intended to make a
permanent commitment to the department.26®
The boarding-home service was utilized only by the Boston
juvenile court, which served about one-fifth of the population, of
Boston. The other Boston courts were dependent upon the Massa
chusetts Department of Public Welfare, police stations, and the
county jail for the detention of children who could not remain in
their own homes pending hearing.
The court children for whom the boarding-home service was util
ized included practically all delinquent boys under the age of 14
years who could not remain in their own homes, many delinquent
boys over that age, and practically all delinquent girls for whom
detention was required. The special boarding homes also gave
temporary care to certain of the wards of the Boston Children’s Aid
Society and to girls with venereal disease who were referred to the
juvenile court by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children. One or two of the homes were set aside for
the care of venereally diseased girls whenever provision of this kind
was required. The court had the first claim upon the homes, and
no other agencies could use them without permission of the super
visor of the detention service. It was believed that the use of the
homes for other agencies was a distinct advantage in that it permitted
the maintenance of a larger number of homes than would have been
needed for the court work alone and thus made possible greater vari
ation in the types of homes.
Number of homes and financial arrangements.
The plan for the central district of Boston contemplated 9 or 10
family homes— from 2 to 4 in the down-town district or easily ac
cessible thereto, which could be used in case of night arrest, and
about 5 in outlying districts, for children who would probably need
care for several days. A home in the country for older boys requir86 The extent to which the jail and the police station were used has been indicated on p. 63.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
80
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
ing detention for more than one or two days was regarded as desir
able. ^ At the time of the study (a period when the volume of work
was light) only 7 homes were in use. In May, 1922, 1 of these homes
had been, dropped and 2 new ones had been added.
}■
Essential features of the plan were that not more than one or two
children were cared for in the same home at the same time and that
the care of boys and the care of girls was entirely separate. Occa
sionally as many as three children were cared for in one home for a
night but never for a longer period.
In order to have the homes always available, the children’s aid
society paid each home a monthly subsidy of from $5 to $35. In two
homes in which $5 was the amount paid this sum covered only the
increased rent which was necessitated by the service rendered. The
highest amount ($35) was paid to the home which cared for diseased
girls. The boarding women were supposed to be at home practically
all the time, even when no children were present, in order that they
might answer the telephone and be on hand to receive children.
In addition to the subsidy, $2.50 a day was paid by the cou rt27
for each child cared for not more than three days, and a weekly rate
of $12 for each child cared for during a longer period. In the case
of diseased girls the daily rate of $2.50 was paid regardless of the
length of stay. If an unusual amount of work was required in caring
for a child an extra sum of $2 was paid. Sometimes additional pay
ments for telephone service were made by the court. The children’s
aid society supplied underclothing for the women, night clothes,
slippers, and cotton dresses for the girls, overalls for the boys, jump
ers, and whatever disinfectants and cleansing facilities were necessary.
The court paid for outfits of clothing which it was necessary to give
the children but not for clothing used during detention only. The
children’s aid society supervisor checked all bills with her records
monthly and sent the court the bills for such service as the court
paid for.
Number and types o f children cared for, and length o f stay.
The children’s aid society boarding homes cared for 121 children
referred to them by the juvenile court and for 63 other children
during the year ended August 31, 1920. Seventy-four of the court
children, as already noted, were cared for pending hearing or dis
position of their cases, and 47 while on probation. Of the total
number, of court children cared for, 75 were boys and 46 girls. The
number of boys and girls cared for by each home during the year
was as follows:
Home
Home
Home
Home
Home
Home
Home
Home
Home
Home
B oys.
Girls.
Total___ __________________________ _
75
46
A ________________________________________
B _____ ____________________________
C _________________________ I v _______ _____
D __ _______ ._______________ ______________
E ___!_____________________________________
F _ . ______________________________________
G ___________________
H ____________________
I ___________________________ l______________
J_______________________________ ____ s_____
58
__
__
27
13
27 U ntil June, 1920, the rate per day was $2, and in one home SV.50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6
2
3
1
1
3
1
4
i
1
D ET EN T IO N H O M E, DEN VER, COLO.
P R IV A T E H O M ES USED FOR D ET EN T IO N , BOSTON JU V E N IL E CO URT
80—1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H EA RIN G , JU V E N IL E CO URT OF DEN VER COUNTY, COLO.
HEA RIN G , JU V E N IL E CO URT OF K IN G COUNTY (SEA TTLE), WASH.
80—2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
D E T E N T IO N .
Information with reference to the ages of the children cared for
in the boarding homes was available only for the 74 court children
provided for pending the hearing or disposition of their cases by the
court. The ages of these children were as follows:
Boys.
Girls.
Total--------------------------------------------------------
51
23
Under 10 years__________________________________
10-13 years_________
14-15 years--------------------------------------------------16 years----------------------------------
2
15
19
12
15
n
The duration of the care given these 74 children in boarding homes
is shown below.
Boys.
Girls.
51
23
T otal-------------------------------------------------------Less than 1 day_____________________ _____ ______
1 d a y .._ l--------- -----------------------2 days____________
3 days___________________________________________
4 d a y s.--------------------------------------------------------------5 days--------- --------- *--------------------- --------------------6 days___________________________________________
1 week, less than 2 weeks________ ________________
3 weeks________ _____ ______________________ ____ Jr
1
31
10
3
3
1
__
2
__
“4
6
4
2
2
1
3
1
The 63 children not under the jurisdiction of the court who were
cared for in boarding homes during the year were received from the
following sources: Boston Children’s Aid Society, 52; Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 7; other private agencies, 3;
courts other than the juvenile court (central district), 1. '
Selection o f hom es.
The responsibility for the selection and supervision of the homes
rested entirely with the Boston Children’s Aid Society, which had
detailed a member of the staff to devote as much time to this work as
was needed.28 The selection of the homes proved to be a highly
specialized task, which required of the person undertaking it expe
rience, persistence, imagination, and wide acquaintance in the com
munity.
Visits to many homes were usually required before the right home
could be found. The most important consideration in the selection
of a home was the personality of its mistress. The composition of
the family, the living and sleeping arrangements that could be made
for the children, and the accessibility of the home to the court were
also taken into consideration. The possibility of specialization was
one of the greatest advantages of the plan. A woman admirably
fitted to deal with delinquent girls might not be so successful in the
care of boys; a family which had no male member was well adapted
to the care of girls but unsuited for the care of boys, since in the care
of difficult boys the aid of a man was sometimes required. It had
been found advantageous, however, to have some homes in which,
—at different times, either boys or girls might be cared for, as the
service could then be utilized fully in meeting varying needs. The
28 The resignation of the supervisor of juvenile-court detention work has since made it necessary to re
adjust the work, and the assistant secretary in charge of the department of placing out now supervises the
detention service, with the assistance of members of her staff.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
82
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
presence of young peo'ple in a family made impossible the use of
the home for certain types of cases but was found to be an asset in
dealing with other types—little boys, for instance, who might other
wise become lonely.
Supervision of homes.
Constant supervision by the Boston Children’s Aid Society was
necessary. In the first place, the supervisor had to control the
intake, to be kept constantly informed of the numbers and types
of children in each home, and to see that the requisite number
of homes were kept free for emergency service. Frequent confer
ences with the officials of the court were necessary.
The supervisor visited each boarding home every four to six
weeks and consulted with the boarding woman at that time about
the- work and any special problems that might have developed.
She was on call at any time. In an emergency she went to the
home and assisted the woman in the care of a difficult child or re
lieved her so that she might have rest. She had to be able and will
ing to render any service that might be required of a woman who
undertook to board children. The supervisor was responsible also
for making arrangements with hospitals and dispensaries for physical
examination and medical treatment.
In an article in the Survey for November 13, 1920, Miss Elizabeth
P. Durham, for many years the supervisor of the detention service,
describes the supervision required as follows:
The retaining of women of unusual ability and character for this special de
tention service * * * calls for careful oversight and direction. Too many
children of one type or children making unusual demands should not be sent in
rapid succession to the same court home. The types of children sent to these
homes must be varied, or else the service becomes too wearing, too monotonous,
and too destructive of the very qualities in the foster mothers which are essential
to the success of the plan.
Description o f homes in use.
At the time of the study seven homes were used for detention
service. Two of them cared for children arrested at night. The
first, within 5 minutes’ walk from the courthouse and police head
quarters, was used for boys; the second, in the South End, about
15 minutes by trolley from the courthouse, was used for girls— those
arrested at night and others as well. Girls with venereal disease
were sometimes cared for in this home when it was not otherwise
in use. From the first home boys were usually transferred the
morning after arrest to one of the homes farther from the down
town section.
Four homes were located in Roxbury, about 25 minutes by trolley
from the courthouse. Three of these were used for either boys or
girls, as occasion required, but never for both at the same time.29
The fourth, which was later discontinued as a boarding home, re
ceived boys only. A home-in Dorchester, about 20 minutes from the
courthouse by trolley, was devoted entirely to the care of girls, espe
cially girls with venereal disease, who often had to be provided for
during extended periods while they were taking treatment.
The home in which boys arrested at night were received was
especially adapted for this service but not for the care of children
» O n e w a s n o t b e in g u s e d fo r b o y s a t t h e t im e o f t h e s t u d y .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D E T E N T IO N .
83
during the day. As it was necessary to keep it free for night arrests,
the boys were transferred promptly to other homes. The home was
managed by a young man who had taken lodgers while he was
obtaining his professional training and who had had considerable
experience in boys’ work. His mother assisted him in the care of the
children. The home used for girls arrested at night was managed by
a thoroughly reliable and intelligent woman, who was _very much
interested in the girls and kept them with her always during the day.
One room was permanently reserved for court girls, and if more than
one girl had to be cared for a second room was assigned for detention
service.
Five of the families giving detention service lived in apartments,
usually of five or seven rooms, pleasant and comfortably furnished.
Three of the boarding women were widows with grown children.
The sons of two of these women were living either at home or in an
apartment in the same building', and their help was available for the
care of boys. The two sons of the third boarding woman had
recently left home, and for this reason boys were not being placed
there, as it was felt that the presence of a man was essential in deten
tion service for boys. A fourth family giving detention service con
sisted of a husband and wife, two grown daughters, and one grown
son. This home was used chiefly for young boys. Two elderly
maiden ladies were caring for girls, including those with venereal
disease.
Sleeping arrangements varied with the individual homes. In one
of the homes in which girls were cared for each of the two women in
charge had a cot in her room on which a girl might sleep. In this
way the girls were given constant oversight. In the home used for
night arrests of boys the man in charge had two cots in his own room
where the boys were under his constant supervision. In some of the
homes the children had separate rooms. The arrangements in most
of the homes permitted close supervision and made it unnecessary,
save in exceptional cases, to lock the children in their rooms. In the
home in which girls arrested at night were cared for the doors were
locked. Escapes were very rare; several of the women who had been
in the service a number of years stated that no child had ever escaped.
In each home the children were under the constant supervision of
the boarding woman throughout the day. They stayed with her in
the kitchen when she was at work there and helped her with the
housework; crocheted, knitted, read, or played games in the living
room; and ate at the family table. Books of interest to the children
and games were-supplied. There was, of course, no attempt at school
instruction. Occasionally the children were taken to a motionpicture theater by some member of the family or to church or enter
tainments. Parents were allowed to visit the children. Unless the
probation officer gave the children’s aid society definite instructions
to the contrary the children were never allowed out of doors unaccom
panied by the boarding woman or her representative.
Physical care o f the children.
As soon as the children were received they were bathed and given
clean clothes. Their own clothes, if they could be saved, were disin
fected and washed. The boys cared for in boarding homes were not
given physical examinations as a matter of routine, but it had been
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
84
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
agreed by the court and the supervisor of the detention service that
except in cases of night arrests all girls should be given physical
examination by the woman physician employed by the court for such
work before they were taken to the boarding homes. Girls arrested
at night were to be examined the following day. This plan had not
been fully carried out, as the doctor was not always available on a
moment’s notice, and it was difficult for the woman probation officer
to see that the procedure was followed in all cases. The supervisor
felt, however, that all children detained in boarding homes should be
given physical examinations.30 Diseased girls were examined at a
dispensary and were given treatments three times a week. Two of
the boarding homes were supplied with equipment for special baths
and certain treatments. One or two conferences had been held at
which the supervisor, the boarding women, and the staff physician of
the Boston Children’s Aid Society discussed the physical problems
met with.
Records.
Whenever a child was discharged from a home a notice was sent
by the boarding woman to the supervisor the following morning on
a post-card form supplied by the Boston Children’s Aid Society.
This form called for the name of the child, the date received, the
source from which received, the date removed, and the person to
whom released. A special blank had been prepared for the investi
gation of the homes and the records of the children cared for. Brief
descriptions of all homes visited in the search for boarding homes
and of the recommendations thereon had been kept by the society.
Expense of the plan.
The expense of this plan of detention includes the monthly bills
paid by the court, the subsidies paid by the society, cost of clothing
and extra telephone service, the taxicab service allowed the boardinghome women when taking to their homes girls arrested at night, the
salary of the supervisor, medical service, and a small amount for
stationery and printing. From September 1, 1919, to August 31,
1920, the total cost of board for 121 court children cared for was
$508.80, and the cost of extras was $32.35, making the total amount
paid b y the court $541.15.
The approximate cost of the service to the Boston Children’s Aid
Society for the same period, for court children, was $1,681, making
the total approximate cost of detention service $2,222. This means
an average cost per child of about $18.31 The cost includes a con
siderable item for medical service but does not include the cost of
physical examinations of girls by a physician paid directly by the
court.
The estimate for the cost of the service to the Boston Children’s
Aid Society is only approximate for the reason that 63 children were
received for care from sources other than the juvenile court, board
being paid usually by the agency referring the case. It was difficult
to apportion tjie overhead expense among court children and the
30 A s far as possible girls given detention care in 1923 were examined and treated b y the preventive clinic
operated b y the society in cooperation with another agency.
31 In June, 1920, the court increased the amount paid for board in five of the homes from $2 to $2.50 a day,
the weekly rate remaining the same as before; hence, figures for the following year would show a somewhat
higher per capita than those for the year ended Aug. 31,1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DETENTION-.
85
other children, but since the court children represented 65.8 per cent
of the total number of children cared for this percentage was applied
to the total cost incurred by the society 32 and the result added to
the $541.15 expended by the court.
It is probable that the estimate for the cost to the Boston Chil
dren’s Aid Society for the care of court children is unduly high, for
the reason that other children usually remained in the homes longer
than court children and the number of days of care for these other
children was not given.33
The expenses incurred by the Boston Children’s Aid Society for
the 184 children cared for (including court children and others) were
as follows:
Subsidies to homes. _ ____________________
Clothing______________
Medicine and sundries. _ +_____________________________
$969. 08
86. 80
13. 97
Medical service and supplies (approximate)___________
400. 00
Stationery __________ :________ __ _ i _____________________
Telephone_______________ ______________________________
Stenographic service_______________
Salary of supervisor (part time)_______________________
10.
119.
5.
950.
00
89
00
00
Total—_____________ _________________________ 2, 554. 74
The per capita cost of approximately $18 for children cared for
in the Boston boarding homes compares favorably with such figures
as are available for well-equipped detention homes, while the total
cost of detention for a year (approximately $2,200) was very much
less than would have been required if a detention home of the usual
type had been maintained. The boarding-home plan involves no
initial investment in land or buildings— a considerable item in the
cost of institutional detention service. For instance, the San Fran
cisco detention home cost approximately $168,000 and $17,000 for
furnishings, a total of $185,000, exclusive of the cost of the land.
At 6 per cent the interest on this investment would be $11,100 a
year, or $5.70 for each child cared for during the year ended June
30, 1920. The original cost of the St. Louis building was $180,000,
an investment which would yield interest to the amount of $10,800
annually, or $4.50 per capita in the year 1920. In San Francisco for
the year ended June 30, 1921, the amount appropriated for the main
tenance of the detention home was $13,000 and that for salaries of the
staff, $14,220.33° Including the estimated interest on the invest
ment in the building but excluding the investment in the land, the
total cost in that year was $38,320. The per capita cost, based on
the number of children cared for during the previous year, would be
$19.70, as compared with the Boston figure of $18.
Information as to the investment in Buildings and furnishings and
the cost of maintenance was not secured for the Los Angeles deten
tion home, but the approximate amount expended for salaries of the
staff (including the part time of a psychologist and two physicians)
32 Exclusive of board.
33 The 1921 annual report of the Boston Children’s A id Society gives the following figures for detention
service: Num ber of homes in use, 8; number of court children, 118; number of Boston Children’s A id So
ciety children, 83; number of children from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, 3; number of other children, 12; customary period of detention for court children, 1 day to 10
days; customary period of detention for S. P. C . C . children, 2 days to 1 month; customary period of deten
tion for Boston Children’s Aid Society Children, 1 day to 3 months.
33a Tor the year ending June 30,1925, $30,220 has been appropriated for the detention home— $17,220 for
salaries and $13,000 for maintenance.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
86
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
was $33,780 for the year ended June 30, 1921, or a per capita amount,
based on the children cared for in 1919, of $15.50 for salaries alone.
In Seattle the budget for the detention home for 1921 was $16,975
(including an item for physicians’ services), which would make the
per capita expenditure, exclusive of the investment in building and
land, $13.50.
Advantages and disadvantages of the plan.
In his report of the first five years of the Boston juvenile court
(1906-1911), Judge Baker stated that the use of private-family
homes for the detention of girls was entirely satisfactory and that the
system gave a better opportunity for observation than a detention
home because the girls followed a normal mode of living and the
woman with whom they were boarded gained information which the
busy matron of a detention home would not have time to acquire.
He further stated that the use of private-family homes for the deten
tion of boys for brief periods had been satisfactory and that the pos
sibility of developing the plan should be thoroughly tried o u t tf before
any money is locked up in costly buildings and an expensive staff of
officials is installed.” 34 Since Judge Baker made his report theservice
for boys has been improved by increasing the amount of supervision.
The present judge of the juvenile court has stated that he favors the
plan. Dr. William Healy, director of the Judge Baker Foundation, at
a joint session held under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau of the
United States Department of Labor and the National Probation
Association, on June 21, 1922, said in the course of a discussion of
detention:
We have come to be unequivocally against detention homes in all but very
exceptional cases. Is the juvenile court established for the good of the children
or for the convenience of police officers? As was pointed out years ago by an
English penologist, when we place children in institutions they learn worse things
than they ever knew before and cultivate habits worse than they ever had before,
and that is certainly not going to reform them. It is perfectly true that the
detention home, unless you exercise the utmost care, is bound to have this re
sult * * *. We know of many habits formed for life which have been first
acquired through acquaintances in the detention home * * *. Without a
detention home we are making very much better studies of the children than we
ever did before, because the spirit of the community developed in another direc
tion. I grant, of course, that there are young hold-up men put in an institution
who ought to be jailed, but I am talking now for the majority of cases that we
have become familiar with, not by theory but by actual observation and by
statistical information.
On the other hand, some of those familiar with the Boston situation
believe that the court needs a small detention home under its direct
control.
The arguments for and against this method of detention have
been summed up by the supervisor as follow s:35
A r g u m e n ts f o r the p la n o f in d ivid u a l care.
The rare opportunities it affords for understanding children, because the re
ports from the court foster homes after having days of observation of the child
are unusually good.
The ability to isolate special problem cases so that the girls or boys presenting
sex complexes are not mixed with each other.
84 Harvey Humphrey Baker— Upbuilder of the Juvenile Court, p. 52 if. Judge Baker Foundation,
Boston, 1920.
86 Durham, Elizabeth P .: “ Boston’s child-court system .” The Survey, N ov. 13,1920, p. 250.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
frETENTIOlSf.
87
Economy in the expenditure of funds and the attainment of increasingly better
social work for the children involved.
The limited detention facilities provided under this family plan tend to make
each party interested exert the utmost care to keep a child in his own home,
unless his home is wholly unfit.
Where a large house of detention with ample bed facilities is available, there
is a very great temptation to admit the child before it is ascertained whether he
really should be admitted.
The introduction of the child to a group of other children presenting serious
conduct problems, no matter how carefully supervised, results in the inter
changing and exchanging of experiences, with very grave effects upon many of
the children [as in the usual type of detention home].
A r g u m e n ts against the "plan.
Not all children can be provided for in family detention homes.
There will be many runaways.
It will be hard to get enough families that will care to receive children coming
in neglected condition.
The strain to the probation officers.
In most cities having conditions very different from those that hold in Boston,
there is such concentration of work in the juvenile court as to make individual
care on the Boston plan quite impossible.
Under the Boston plan a certain number of Boston juvenile-court children
receive detention care in the city jail.
With reference to the argument that all children can not be pro
vided for in family detention homes, the supervisor stated that there
had never been a time when the service could not meet the demands
made upon it by the court. No serious difficulty had been experi
enced in finding families of the right type to care for the children,
though.as already indicated it was necessary to devote a considerable
amount of time to investigating prospective homes. No more
escapes occurred and perhaps fewer than are likely to take place at
detention homes of the ordinary type. The plan should be further
developed to eliminate holding the children in police stations even for
very short periods save in exceptional cases. This would involve a
change in the procedure of the police department and the designation
of one or more boarding homes to which children could be brought by
the police immediately upon arrest and at which decision could be
made as to release or detention.
Concerning the statement that the plan would not be applicable
to cities having conditions very different from those found in Boston,
it is undoubtedly true that the application of the plan under present
circumstances is limited. Only persons with long experience in
the difficult problems of placing out could develop and supervise the
service. Moreover, because of the long experience of Massachusetts
with the boarding-home system and the extensive work that has been
done in finding and developing suitable homes, a type of boarding
woman is available which it might be difficult to find elsewhere. The
boarding women all had a professional attitude toward the work and
subordinated their other interests and activities to it. Nevertheless,
the fact that the experiment has worked successfully in Boston is
significant of possibilities which may be developed in other places.36
86 The city 0f Wilkes-Barre, Pa., has recently substituted the “ Boston plan” for its detention home.
“ Under this plan the children will be boarded in carefully selected and supervised private homes. This
progressive step was made possible through the cooperation of the United Charities of Wilkes-Barre, who
have added an extra visitor to the staff of their child-welfare department to have charge of this new work. ”
New s Letter, Pennsylvania Department of Welfare, Bureau of Children, June, 1923.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
STU D Y OF TH E CASE.
IM P O R T A N C E O F ADEQ UATE ST U D Y .
The purpose of the juvenile court is not to inflict a penalty on a
child but to save him from further delinquency and from neglect.
Its success, therfore, depends upon a comprehensive understanding of
all the significant aspects of each case.
In few courts has provision been made for such thorough study of
children’s cases. Social investigations are generally recognized as an
essential part of the procedure, but they are by no means uniformly
complete. Practically all the juvenile courts in large cities have
facilities of some kind for physical examinations, and many of them
make provision for mental examinations, which are, however, fre
quently confined to intelligence tests. But many courts make these
examinations only in cases where some defect or disability is obvious
or suspected.
Only one of the courts studied had provision at the time of the
inquiry for well-rounded study of all important cases, including the
social, physical, and mental factors. As a rule, the facilities for
social investigation, that is, the study of the child’s surroundings,
were more complete than were those for the study of the child himself.
Social investigations were usually made by probation officers who
were also engaged in supervising children and families, but in four
of the courts— those in Los Angeles, Seattle, St. Louis, and the
District of Columbia—special investigators devoted full time to
this work.
SOCIAL IN V E ST IG A TIO N .
Types o f cases investigated.
In seven of the courts studied it was the general rule that all
cases formally handled should be investigated prior to hearing, but
certain exceptions were made—in one court, of traffic cases ; in
another, of cases involving violations of city ordinances; and in
several courts, of children’s cases referred by other agencies which
had already made social investigations.37 In the District of Col
umbia investigations were never made prior to the first hearing, but
the majority of cases, including all those of serious nature, were
continued for investigation and disposition. In Boston, hearings
frequently were held on the day the complaint was made, thus
making impossible a thorough investigation prior to the hearing.
Many minor cases were formally handled, since comparatively
few cases were dealt with unofficially. The Boston court continued
for investigation all serious cases in which complete information was
not available at the time of the hearing. In the New Orleans court
87 T h e report of the committee on juvenile-court standards emphasized the importance of prompt hear
ings and also of social investigation set in motion at the moment of the court’s earliest knowledge of the case
(pp. 253-254). T o apply the former principle, it would often be necessary for the court to hold a pre
liminary hearing, as in Boston and the District of Columbia, and then continue the case for investigation
and disposition.
•
S3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H
E
C A S E .
89
investigations were made only when there appeared to be a possi
bility of informal adjustment or when disputed facts or indications
of special needs became evident during the hearing.
Scope o f investigation in delinquency cases.
Essentials o f investigation and sources o f information.—Juvenilecourt investigations call for the exercise of special care in eliminating
untrustworthy evidence regarding both the child himself and his
home conditions. The investigations in some of the courts studied
conformed in general to the standards developed by family-relief and
child-caring agencies. In other courts they were not carefully
planned or supervised, and the information was obtained in a more
or less haphazard fashion.
The essential points to be covered by the social investigation in a
delinquency case include at least the following:
1. The cause of the complaint.
2. The child’s developmental history, habits, and conduct, includ
ing previous delinquencies.
3. Home conditions:
(a) Composition of the family; occupations, earnings, and
characteristics of its members; and assistance from social
agencies.
(b) Type of dwelling, and living and sleeping arrangements.
(c) Conditions in the home which may have a special relation
to the child’s conduct.
(d) Constructive possibilities in the home.
4. The child and his school:
(a) Present standing with reference to academic progress
and conduct.
(b) School history.
5. The child’s working history (if he has been employed).
6. The child’s recreational activities and connection with churches,
clubs, and other organizations.
The sources of information with reference to these points may
include:
1. An interview with the child.
2. A visit to the home and an interview with one or both parents
(preferably both).
3. Interviews with relatives, neighbors, and companions.
4. Interviews with principals, teachers, and officials of the schoolattendance department; school records.
5. Interviews with employers, past and present.
6. Inquiry of social-service exchange and social agencies that have
known the child or family.
Information obtained from the child.— In delinquency cases it was
the almost invariable practice in eight of the courts to include an
interview with the child as part of the investigation; in two courts
the child was not always interviewed. In most instances the child
was questioned about the circumstances of the offense, though in
one court emphasis was placed on the point that the child was not
to be cross-questioned;, but a child unwilling to admit that he was
involved in the delinquency complained of was admonished to tell
80306°— 25----- 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
90
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
the truth in court. Considerable importance was attached in some
courts to the child’s interpretation of the reasons for his coming to
the attention of the court. In Los Angeles, for instance, the first
step in the investigation when the child was detained was an inter
view with him at the place of detention. He was questioned par
ticularly with reference to the cause of the complaint, and his state
ment of the reasons for his apprehension was taken down verbatim.
Information concerning the child’s history and the motive for the
offense was secured at this interview and was later checked with
information obtained from other sources. In San Francisco, too,
all children detained were interviewed at the detention home as the
first step in the investigation. Information was secured concerning
the circumstances connected with the offense for which he was
brought to court, the child’s school and work record, and his special
interests. Children detained in Seattle were interviewed at the
beginning of the investigation and a second time after the investiga
tion was completed. In the District of Columbia investigations were
subsequent to the initial hearing; the children were always interviewed
privately, either at home or at the probation office.
Information obtained from ike parents and from home visits.— A
visit to the home and an interview with one or both parents were
almost always considered essential parts of the investigation. Some
times office interviews with the parents took the place of home
visits. In two or three courts special efforts were made to interview
both the mother and the father, and private interviews with the
father at the probation office were sometimes arranged. In four
courts information obtained from the parents was frequently sup
plemented by visits to other relatives, friends, or neighbors, and m
two other courts they were consulted when it was necessary to check
conflicting statements or supply missing data. Investigators often
stated that they were very careful about making inquiries which
might be prejudicial to the child or his family.
Through interviews with child and parents, supplemented by data
obtained from neighbors, relatives, and other sources, more or less
complete information was secured with reference to the child’s per
sonal history, school and work records, habits, and associates. In
the District of Columbia at the time of the study the social investiga
tion, which had been under the direction of the head of the juvenilecourt clinic, included a considerable amount of information concern
ing the child’s developmental history; in two other courts the parents
were questioned with reference to the child’s physical and mental
condition, and the form used for recording the investigations had
space for the information obtained as a result of this questioning and
the investigator’s observation of the child. One court included a
specific question with reference to the child’s vocational preference.
The probation officers of the Boston court obtained general informa
tion with regard to the child’s history, and much more intensive
information was secured by the Judge Baker Foundation in cases
studied by that agency. In all the courts new cases were cleared
with court records to determine whether the children had been in
court previously. In addition, in Boston all cases were registered
with the State probation commission, which kept an index of all the
cases known to the Boston courts or to the -courts in a number of
adjoining oities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
C A S E .
91
All the courts except one attempted to secure information regard
ing family circumstances and home conditions, the investigation
forms usually specifying such items as the composition of the family,
the ages of the members, their occupations and earnings, their reli
gious affiliations, their habits, and their police records. With refer
ence to the type of dwelling, the following items were often included:
Type of dwelling; floor; owned; rent; number of rooms; number
o f persons in household; number of boarders and roomers. The
form used by only one court included a question on sleeping accom
modations, and one other included an inquiry with reference to the
persons occupying the child’s sleeping room. The importance of
these facts does not seem to have been generally recognized. In some
of the courts specific information was obtained with reference to the
sanitary conditions in the home, its upkeep, and the moral conditions
of the home and neighborhood. In one court two visits were made
to the home, if possible, to determine its physical condition and the
standards maintained.
Some of the investigation blanks called for information with
reference to the “ atmosphere in the home,” the “ parents’ attitude
toward the child,” or the “ parents’ suggestions” with reference to
the child.
The District of Columbia juvenile court has recently prepared a
very complete outline for summarizing investigations of cases of
delinquency. The investigation form in use calls for the usual
“ face-card” information regarding the child and the home, and the
third and fourth pages of the form are left blank for a summary to
be prepared under the following headings: Charge; family history;
health; education; church; character; emplovment and family in
come; budget; child’s story; sources of information. The family
budget in each case is to be considered in relation to the standards of
living maintained by the family and in relation to the child’s em
ployment.
The preceding discussion has been based mainly on the standards
for investigation found in the different courts and the information
called for on the investigation forms. Reading of records disclosed
the frequent failure on the part of the investigator to obtain all, or
even the major part, of the information called for on the investigation
forms. Overburdened officers often found it impossible to secure,
or at least to record, all the facts which the investigation was supposed
to cover, and in most of the courts there was no systematic review of
investigations by the chief probation officer or the department
supervisor to determine the adequacy of the information obtained.
In most of the courts studied the records of investigation showed
a lack of appreciation of the importance of such factors as the attitude
of the child and the parents and other members of the household
toward each other, the causes of irritation or unhappiness that might
exist in the family circle, the extent to which the parents attempted
to hold the interest of the child in his home, and the cooperation or
lack of cooperation between the parents and the school. Such an
^analysis of home conditions, if made at all, usually came after the
child had been placed on probation, the officials of the court failing
to realize its significance in connection with the disposition of the case.
School history.— The schools are an important source of information
in all cases involving school children, but in only six of the courts was
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
92
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
that source utilized in practically all cases. In two other courts
such inquiry was frequently made. In one court information was
never obtained from the schools, and. in another it was not secured
as a rule. Objection to consulting the teachers was sometimes made
on the ground that they might discriminate against children known
to have been before the juvenile court, or that the other children
might, become aware of the situation. To avoid this possible dif
ficulty an interesting method of cooperation had been worked out
in Los Angeles between the court and the school department. The
court made application for school records direct to the school-attend
ance department instead of to individual schools. This department
was in the habit of asking for special reports from teachers m a large
number of cases in which it alone was concerned; requests for data
on court cases were made in the same manner, and the school-teachers
and principals were not aware that the requests were made for the
court.38 A number of judges and probation officers, however, felt
that cooperation with teachers was very important and that their
discretion could be relied upon.
Working history.— Information from the employers of working chil
dren was rarely secured as part of the investigation, unless the em
ployer was especially involved in the case. In one court, however, it
was stated that both former and present employers were often con
sulted; and in another, that employers were usually consulted. Past
employers were seen in one court when it seemed desirable, though the
policy was not to interview present employers. Some of the in
vestigating officers brought out the point that although it was, as a
rule, undesirable to see the employers, for fear they would be pre
judiced against the children, welfare workers in large industrial
establishments were an important source of information and could
usually be trusted with the facts.
.
#
Information from the social-service exchange and social agencies.—
The existence of a social-service exchange in each of the cities studied
made it possible for the courts to secure information in all cases as to
whether or not the families had been known to other agencies. One
court, however, never utilized this source, and in only three courts
were all cases cleared through the exchange. Some of the judges
questioned whether the court ought to clear delinquency cases through
the exchange; in one court this agency was not utilized at all in the
investigations, but inquiry was made after children had been placed
on probation or under supervision. In another court inquiry was
not made in cases of delinquent children but was made in adult cases,
and in still another court the exchange was consulted more
often in dependency and neglect cases than in delinquency
cases. Most of the courts reported that information was secured
from social agencies if it was known that they had dealt with
the child or his family. When requested, information was given to
social agencies that had a legitimate interest in a case.
For 524 of the 869 children dealt with by the Boston juvenile court
during the period September 1, 1919, to August 31, 1920, representa
tives of the Children’s Bureau secured from the records of the proba^
38 A nlan has been worked out in the District of Columbia since the time of the study, whereby requests
for information concerning the attendance and conduct of children coming before the court are sent to the
supervising principal of the division in which the school is located, and the individual teachers are not
consulted b y the court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
C A S E .
93
tion office information reported by the Boston Confidential Exchange.
In 286 cases, or 55 per cent, the family had been known to some agency;
many families had been known to a number of different agencies.
The total number of children whose families had been known to
family-care agencies, public and private, was 157; to child-caring
agencies, public and private, 93; to child-protective agencies, 65; and
to correctional institutions, 17. Other agencies included health
agencies, day nurseries, school visitors, and agencies engaged in voca
tional or in recreational work.
Investigations in cases o f neglect and dependency.
In several of the courts the investigations in neglect and depend
ency cases were left to private or public agencies which initiated
court action.39 In others the court itself made these investigations,
which often did not differ materially from investigations in delin
quency cases so far as the facts regarding the family and the home and
the information gained from social agencies were concerned.
In the “ county-aid” cases in the San Francisco court and in the
mothers’ allowance and mothers’ pension cases in Minneapolis and
Seattle detailed information was obtained with reference to family
income and expenditures and the estimated family need, as -well as
facts which were essential in establishing the right to aid, such as
length of residence, date of marriage, date of death and cause of
death of the father, and amount of property and insurance. In
Denver such information was obtained by another public agency
which cooperated with the court in the administration of the mothers’
pension law.
Investigations in adoption cases.
The principal reason for placing adoptions under the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court is that a thorough investigation may then be
made of the circumstances surrounding the adoption and the pros
pective foster home. Yet in the two courts which had jurisdiction
over adoption cases investigations were not invariably made. In
one of these courts it was stated that adoption cases usually came
through a State or a private institution which had already made in
vestigations. This court always required three letters of recom
mendation regarding the future home and frequently made inquiry
in regard to conditions. In the other court it was the practice to
appoint the investigator guardian ad litem in each adoption case.
She investigated the situation if it seemed necessary, in some cases
making extensive inquiries and in others relying mainly upon letters
from persons given as references. No record was kept in this court
of the investigations in adoption cases.
Investigations in adult cases.
A situation similar to that respecting adoption cases was found
with reference to investigations o f adult cases, including nonsupport
and contributing to delinquency or dependency. The object of
lacing these cases in the juvenile court is to secure socialized treat
ment, and this is not possible without adequate investigation. Seven
of the courts exercised some type of adult jurisdiction. In only two
of them was regular provision made for investigation of such cases.
® Seepp. 31,33.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
94
JUVENILE COUftTS AT W OEK.
STUDY OF THE CHILD.
Need o f scientific study.
When all the facts that a social investigator can gain about the
child, his family, his home, his school, his recreation, and his com
panionships have been ascertained, the court is still far from know
ing the kind of child with which it has to deal and often has little
knowledge of the causes of the delinquency. If treatment is to be
directed to causes and adapted to the needs of the individual, the
child himself must be studied— his physical condition, his mental
capacities, his personality, and the driving forces of his conduct.
Such study involves, first, a thorough physical examination by a
competent physician; second, the measurement of the intelligence
of the child through mental tests; and third, skillful and sympathetic
study by a person trained in the analysis of mental life and the moti
vation of behavior. Such study should link together, check up, and
evaluate the results of the social investigation, physical examination,
and psychological and psychiatric study. In large cities the facili
ties for study of the child may be provided by the court itself , or may
be secured through cooperation with other agencies or institutions.
In small communities a county-wide service or a traveling clinic
working out from some center in the State may afford the means
for such study.
Not only is scientific study indispensable to adequate understand
ing of individual children who come before the court, but unless the
court knows the material with which it deals and. the results of the
treatment prescribed it can not measure its successes or its failures.
Physical examinations.
In three cities no provision was made for paid service in giving
physical examinations to children before the court. In one of them
the city physician or one of his assistants examined children referred
by the court; some children were examined by private physicians
who volunteered their services. Only those children were examined
whom the judge or the superintendent of the institution which gave
detention service deemed to be obviously in need of attention. In the
second city having no paid service of this kind physical examinations
were sometimes made prior to the hearing by volunteer physicians,
of whom two men and two women were on call. Perhaps as many
as four or five boys were given examinations each month. The
third court, the juvenile court of the District of Columbia, had had
for 14 months prior to the time of the study the services of a
clinic maintained by the United States Public Health Service; a
man physician and psychiatrist had been employed on full time,
and a woman physician on part time.40
Provision for physical examination was frequently made m con
nection with the detention home, for the purpose both of protecting
the detention-home population from the spread of communicable
disease and of studying the child as a preliminary to deciding upon
treatment. It is unfortunate when the services of the examining
physician are confined mainly to the detention-home population,
as was the case in several of the courts studied. In Buffalo and St.
40 This service has since been discontinued, and the court now depends upon a hospital social-service
department, a hospital out-patient department, and other volunteer service.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H
E
C A S E .
95
Louis 41 a physician from the school department came to the deten
tion home every morning and examined children detained. Chil
dren not detained were not examined unless their appearance
or conduct indicated special need. In neither city was a woman
physician available for examining girls, but in St. Louis the super
intendent of the detention home (a woman) was always present when
gins were examined, and in Buffalo the superintendent (a woman) or
other female attendant, was always present during such examinations.
In Seattle each boy brought before the court formally or informally
was weighed and measured and given a brief examination by the
chief probation officer and diagnostician, ” who was a physician of
long experience. It was planned to have a woman physician, em
ployed on a part-time basis, make examinations in certain'girls’ cases.
The University of California maintained a clinic for the San
Francisco juvenile court. The head of the clinic was in charge of
both the medical and the psychological work. A woman physician
was assigned to the detention home and gave the major part of her
time to physical examinations and medical care of the children
detained. A man physician came to the detention home three times
a week and examined all the boys. A nurse, paid by the court, gave
4Urf time to the clinic and the care of the children in the home'.
One entire floor of the San Francisco detention home was devoted
to the clinic and the receiving ward for girls. All children in the
detention home were examined, except those who remained a very
short time, and children not detained were often brought to the
C j 1C’
.room was equipped with the necessary apparatus for
a dental clinic. Formerly a dentist examined the children’s teeth
but he had not had time to do any corrective work; at the time of
the study the physician giving the genera! examination reported on
the condition of the teeth, and arrangements for corrective work
were made with outside dentists. The detention home had an
operating room where tonsillectomy and other minor operations
were performed.
The Los Angeles court employed a man physician on part time
to examine the older boys. A woman physician employed on a
part-time basis spent every day except Tuesday and Sunday at the
detention home and examined the girls and younger boys. A
nurse was employed on a full-time basis. All children detained in
Juvenile Hall or in the county jail who were not released prior to
their hearings were given physical examinations, and other children
were examined at the request of the judge or the probation officers.
Examination was made as a matter of routine, and few parents
objected. The nurse weighed and measured the children ana made
preliminary physical examinations. Throat cultures were made in
all cases within three days after admission to Juvenile Hall, and
laboratory tests were made in girls’ cases. Boys suspected of having
venereal disease were sent to the county hospital for examination.
The Minneapolis court placed more emphasis than did many of
the courts studied on physical examinations and corrective work.
'The staff of the court clinic was composed of a man physician in
charge, a woman physician, and a dentist, all employed on a part^ince k®6?
in St. Louis, which is making physical examinations as well as
and psychiatric studies for the juvenile court. See The Psychiatric Clinic in the Treatment
oiConduct Disorders of Children and the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, b y V . V . Anderson M D
(The National Committee for M ental Hygiene, N ew York, 1923)
“
'
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
96
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
time basis; an oculist, who volunteered his services; and a full
time nurse, appointed as a probation officer. The nurse made ar
rangements for examinations, visited the homes of the children, as
sisted in operations, and did follow-up work. The plan was to
have the nurse make a home visit prior to the examination, but lack
of time prevented this in the majority of cases. Children were
examinea before adjudication of their cases only at the request of
the judge, after the first hearing. The aim of the court was to have
all children on probation and all those at the county schools (in
stitutions for delinquent children) given physical examination.
Children not committed to institutions were not examined without
the consent of their parents, written or oral. Dependent and neg
lected children were examined at the request of the judge or the
agency initiating the case.
Girls were examined in Minneapolis by the woman physician,
either at her office or at the county school for girls. Many girls
were sent to the school before examinations had been made. The
court was hoping to be able to install more complete equipment
in the nurse’s office, so that specimens could be taken for the health
department and a diagnosis made within 24 hours. This would
avoid the necessity of sending girls to an institution before the exami
nation had been completed.
In Boston a woman physician on the staff of the Massachusetts
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was employed
by the juvenile court to make physical examinations in girls’ cases;
she received a certain amount for each examination. The out
patient departments of several hospitals and dispensaries were used
by the court, and laboratory tests were made at those hospitals.
The Judge Baker Foundation made physical examinations of all
children’s cases referred to it for study. In girls’^cases, when it was
felt necessary to have a local examination, as in the cases of all
sex offenders, it was made by the woman physician employed by
the court. The Boston court frequently secured information from
the school department with reference to the physical condition of
children. Every school child was supposed to have a physical
examination in school. Most of the schools had school nurses, and
the probation officers frequently consulted with them. The dis
pensaries were in touch with a great many children who were on
probation.
In the District of Columbia while the court clinic was in operation,
the children were given physical examinations in practically all
cases in which social investigations were made— a majority of the
formal cases. Boys were examined by the man physician in charge
of the clinic, and girls by a woman physician. Every child was
given a Wassermann test, and every girl was examined for gonorrhea.
This was the only court studied in which such tests were made in
so large a proportion of cases.42
Information as to the number of children given physical examina
tions was available for only five courts. In the District of Columbia
during the period between February 9, 1920, and March 31, 1921'
when the United States Public Health Service clinic was in operation,
1,050 children were given physical examinations.43 The total num-
42T h e s e te sts are n o lo n g e r g iv e n as a m a t t e r o f r o u tin e .
,
_
42 Hearings before the Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Sixty-Seventh
Congress, First Session, H . R . 4118, June 9, 1921, p. 23.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
C A S E .
97
ber of delinquent children formally before the District of Columbia
court in the year 1919-20 was 1,125. In Boston 869 delinquent
children were dealt with by the juvenile court in the year ended
August 31, 1920, and 364 (12 of them after the close of the year)
were referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.44 These 364 children
and some others were given physical examinations.
During 1919, 469 children were examined by the Minneapolis
court, o f whom only 10 were found to have no defects. The total
number of delinquent children before the Minneapolis court in the
same period was 1,000 and the total number of dependent and
neglected children was 549.45 In St. Louis the number of complete
physical examinations made in 1920 was 965, and the number of
cases of children entering the detention home in the same year was
2,386; a child was given a complete physical examination only on his
first entrance into the detention home.46 The total number of delin
quent children dealt with by the St. Louis court in 1920 was 1,708,
and the total number of neglected children was 356. In Buffalo 232
children were given physical examinations in 1920; the number of
children detained was 461; and the number of children before the
court was 1,003.47
Study of the child’s mental capacities and mental life.
Facilities provided and basis o f selecting cases.— The courts in Boston,
Buffalo, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and San Francisco were making
some |provision for the employment of expert service in mental
examinations, though in some of these cities the study of the child’s
mental condition, was made only in a small proportion of cases and was
limited to the giving of routine intelligence tests. In five of the
courts at the time of this inquiry there was no provision for paid
service for the study of the child’s mental condition.47“ The Seattle
and District of Columbia courts, however, had recently had fairly
complete f acilities for such study, which will be described. The courts
of St. Louis and New Orleans were dependent on volunteer assistance.
Since the time of the study a psychiatric clinic has been established in
St. Louis, at first by the Commonwealth Fund of New York, through
the division on prevention of delinquency of the National Committee
for Mental Hygiene, and now as a municipal undertaking. This clinic
has placed its facilities at the disposal of the juvenile court.48 Similar
clinics have been established in Minneapolis (the clinic will also serve
St. Paul) and Los Angeles.
Provision for psychological study in the Minneapolis court was
limited. A school psychologist who gave half a day each week to
court work was employed by the court during the months when
school was in session. Only about two children could be examined
each week. Selection of children for psychological study was made
by the judge, the probation officers, the physician, and the superin44 Data compiled from court records and records of the Judge Baker Foundation.
45 The Juvenile Court of Hennepin County, M inn., 1918-19, pp. 13,15,24,48.
46 Report, of the Juvenile Court and Probation Office for the Years 1916 to 1920, inclusive, St. Louis M o
p. 18.
’
’
'r4'7 N inth Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Buffalo, N . Y ., 1920, pp. 17,26,29. In 1923 the number
examined was 249 (Twelfth Annual Report, p. 31).
4,slJ he school department of Denver, since the time of the study, has arranged to make mental examina
tions for the juvenile court.
H See p. 95, footnote 41.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
98
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
tendents of the county schools for boys and girls, and was based
mainly on the presence of characteristics indicating possible mental
defect. In Buffalo, as in Minneapolis, a member of the staff of the
school department called a “ psychophysiological examiner” gave
part time to court work, but m Buffalo he came to the detention
home every morning. All children detained were examined and
others, in the discretion of the judge.
The clinic maintained in the San Francisco court by the University
of California furnished psychological as well as medical service, and
the head of the clinic, who was also a medical and mental examiner
for the health department, was both a physician and a psychologist.
Her assistant, a graduate nurse, was paid a salary by the health
department, and five graduate students, two of whom were working
for doctors’ degrees in psychology, volunteered ^their services. At
times as many as 15 graduate students were doing this work. The
routine testing was done by the students, but the head of the clinic
wrote all reports except those prepared by the most advanced
students, reviewed all reports that she had not written, and examined
difficult cases. Each student was assigned some special problem; for
instance, the follow-up of individual feeble-minded girls. All children
in the detention home a sufficient length of time and others who ap
peared to be in need of study were given psychological examinations.
It was the general rule that no recommendation for commitment
should be made until the child had undergone both a medical and a
psychological examination. Children of border-line mentality were
reexamined at least once a year during the time they were under the
control of the court. Many mothers and fathers involved in neglect
cases were examined.
A psychologist was employed by the Los Angeles court on a parttime basis and spent four days a week in the detention home.
Practically every child detained in Juvenile Hall until the time of
hearing was examined, as were children recommended for examina
tion by the judge or the probation officer. One day a week was
devoted to examinations in cases referred by outside agencies.
Difficult psychopathic cases were referred to the psychopathic depart
ment of the county hospital. It is of interest to note that both the
judge and the referee had had psychological training. The judge
presided over the psychopathic department of the superior court,
as well as over the juvenile department, and in juvenile hearings
laid considerable stress on the psychological aspects of the cases.49
In Seattle the chief probation officer, a physician, who was also
diagnostician, studied more or less intensively each boy . who came
before the court.50 A considerable amount of time was spent_ in
separate interviews with the child and his parents and in interpreting
the child to his parents and enlisting their cooperation in dealing
with the maladjustments which were revealed. Routine tests were
not given as a rule. In addition, the court utilized for psychological
study of the children the Gatzert Foundation, connected with the
University of Washington, and the child-study department of the
Seattle public schools. A member of the staff of the mothers*
49 This judge is no longer assigned to juvenile-court work.
60 A t the time of the study the ‘ ‘chief probation officer and diagnostician ’ ’ had just resigned and the court
had to depend primarily upon outside agencies for psychological study of the children. This officer
later returned to the court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
C A S E .
99
pension department of the court who had had psychological training
gave mental tests in certain cases—but not more than three a week.
The chief probation officer selected the cases in which examinations
were to be made. All girls committed to the county parental school
were thus tested. No final diagnoses were made by this investigator,
but cases in which abnormality was suspected were referred for
further study to the department above mentioned.
During the time when the United States Public Health Service
clinic was in operation in the juvenile court of the District of Columbia
mental I examinations were given in practically all cases in which
social investigations were made. All mental examinations were
made by the director of the clinic— a physician who was equipped
for psychological and psychiatric study. From one and one-half to
two nours was spent With each child. The basis of the mental study
was the Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scale, but the director
also tried to obtain some information concerning the child’s mental
reactions and mental life. Occasionally children were referred for
further study to private clinics or to hospitals.
The Judge Baker Foundation studied all children referred to it
by the Boston juvenile court, the judge selecting the cases for
examination. All cases presenting serious problems and practically
all in which commitment to an institution or agency was contemplated
were given intensive study by the foundation. The staff comprised,
at the time of this inquiry, two directors, of whom one was a
psychiatrist and the other a psychologist; one paid social worker
and one full-time volunteer social worker; three volunteer assistant
psychologists giving part time; the holder of a scholarship in applied
psychology; and two stenographers, one of whom gave part time to
social investigation.
The offices of the foundation were in a down-town office building.
When a child was to be examined, an appointment was made by the
court, and one of the parents was required to go with the child.
If this was not possible, the child went by himself, or if he had been
detained in a boarding home he was taken by a probation officer.
One of the two directors dealt personally with each difficult case.
Mental tests and analyses of the mental life and attitudes and
reactions to experiences were made by the directors or by assistant
psychologists on the staff. Several hours were spent in each examina
tion, and sometimes several visits to the foundation were required.
Each case was discussed at a staff meeting led by the directors, and
recommendations for treatment were made as a result of these con
ferences. The directors passed on each case studied. All cases
were followed up by a system later described.51
Number o f children studied.
For only five courts could figures be secured showing number
of children given mental examinations. In Boston the children
referred to the Judge Baker Foundation (364 of the 869 delinquent
and wayward children before the court in the year ended August 31,
1920) were referred primarily for study of their mentality and
personality. In the District of Columbia during the period from
February 9, 1920, to March 31, 1921, when the clinic conducted by
41 See p. 102.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
100
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
the United States Public Health Service was in operation, a total
of 1,061 children were given mental examinations.62 This con
stituted a large majority of the delinquent children dealt with
formally by the juvenile court during the same period. (The number
of delinquent children dealt with in the year ended June 30, 1920,
was 1,125.)
.
.
The number of delinquent children dealt with by the Buffalo
children’s court in 1920 was 979, and 209 children were given mental
examinations.53 In Minneapolis in 1919 mental examinations
were given 117 children, and the total number of delinquent children
before the court was 1,000.54 Statistics were available in San Francisco
only for the girls’ department, which dealt with 225 girls in the year
ended June 30.1920; 151 girls were given psychological examinations.55
CORRELATION OF PHYSICAL MENTAL, AND SOCIAL FINDINGS.
Study of the child which will contribute to the understanding of his
delinquency and furnish a basis for treatment necessarily involves the
correlation of physical, mental, and social findings. Yet in one court
no attempt was made to furnish the person who made the physical
and mental examinations with information gained from the social
investigation, and records of physical and mental examinations were
filed in a different place from that where social records were kept.
The social-investigation blank did, however, call for the physical and
mental findings. In another court the psychologist had, in most
cases, no physical or social findings to aid in interpreting the results
of the mental examination.
The psychologist in a third court had the medical report and
such history as had been obtained from the child on his admission
to the detention home. In special cases a report of the social investi
gation was obtained from the probation officer, but as a rule the social
findings were not available to the psychologist, and the physical and
mental findings were usually not available to the person making the
investigation until after the hearing. The summary made by the
superintendent of the detention home for every child detained and
presented to the judge or referee at the time of the hearing included
information in regard to the results of medical and mental examina
tions, record during detention, and school record.
In five courts the social, physical, and mental findings were con
sidered together. Although the psychological service in the Minne
apolis court was very inadequate, in those cases which were studied
full information concerning physical condition and social history was
furnished, the psychologist. Before & mental examination was made
the nurse filled out a physical record containing facts with reference
t o : The family history and the child’s developmental history during
infancy and childhood, anatomical measurements, defects, mental
balance, reflexes, heredity, treatment furnished by the physical depart
ment, and results. A sociological history was also prepared, con
taining information about the parents, the use of spare tune, friends,
recreation, home conditions, and school history. A home visit
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
C A S E .
101
always preceded psychological study. Separate reports of the
physical and mental examinations and the social investigation were
filed. The social information gained by the probation officers was
not used in connection with the psychological study, all social infor
mation for that purpose being obtained by the nurse. The fact that
a physical or mental examination had been given was entered on the
probation officer’s history sheet.
In San Francisco the results of the physical examination and the
social history obtained by the probation officer were reviewed in
connection with the mental examination. In special cases one of the
assistants in the clinic visited the home to secure supplemental
information. Separate reports of the social investigation and the
physical and mental study were made, but before the hearing a
summary of the important facts revealed in any of the fields was made
by the probation officer making the social investigation.
The diagnostician in Seattle made brief physical examinations
and studied the children from both the social and the psychological
approach. In the District of Columbia court the director of the
clinic had made both the physical and the mental examinations in
boys’ cases. Data concerning the family history, the child’s de
velopmental and social history, and his physical condition were con
sidered important factors in diagnosis. The results of the physical
and mental examinations were included in the report of the social
investigation and were also filed separately.
The physical examination and social history were considered by
the Judge Baker Foundation of Boston as indispensable to interpreta
tion of the mental examination and any decision as to the causes of
delinquent conduct; therefore the findings in all three fields were
closely correlated. Social history was secured from probation
officers’ reports, reports of social agencies, interviews with parents
at the office, and if these sources were insufficient, home visits. One
of the parents was always required to come to the office to give the
facts of the child’s biological, educational, and environmental back
ground. The summary prepared for presentation to the case con
ference included, in addition to the physical and mental findings,
items concerning the family, home conditions, developmental history,
habits, school, work, interests, and companions and the special facts
which might be regarded as probable causative factors of the delin
quency.
R E C O M M E N D A T IO N S AS T O T R E A T M E N T AN D FO L L O W -U P W O R K .
In most of the courts studied a recommendation for disposition was
made either by the person making the social investigation, the chief
probation officer, or the person making the mental examination. In
Buffalo and Denver the person making the social investigation usually
recommended the treatment that should be given, and in the former
city the investigation and the recommendation were reviewed by the
chief probation officer prior to hearing. The probation officers in
''Minneapolis, or the agents of societies bringing cases to court, some
times included in their reports recommendations as to disposition; at
the weekly or semiweekly case conferences of the probation staff,
interesting cases were discussed. In the District of Columbia court
recommendations were made by the director of the clinic.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
102
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
In the San Francisco court the main facts were summarized, and
recommendation was made by the probation officer responsible for the
social investigation. All recommendations for probation or commit
ment were subject to the approval of the chief probation officer. For i
first hearings reports without recommendations were submitted, but
in continued cases recommendations were always made. Case con
ferences for each department were held weekly, and in the girls’
department and the-family-relations department all cases were dis
cussed at these conferences prior to hearing. Representatives of
children’s agencies joined in the conferences of the family-relations
department, which dealt mainly with county-aid cases, and recom
mendations for disposition were made.
The superintendent of the Los Angeles detention home summarized
cases in which the child was detained, but did not include in the
s u m m a r y the report of the probation officer.
The probation officer’s
report included a recommendation for disposition, and in the girls’
department these recommendations were reviewed by the head of the
department. In the boys’ department recommendations were not
usually reviewed.
The investigator of the Seattle court prepared in each case as brief
a report as possible and did not include any recommendations. The
diagnostician reviewed all investigations prior to hearing but made
no written recommendations, though he frequently made oral recom
mendations at the time of the hearing.
In Boston the probation officers’ reports of investigations did not
include recommendations, but in all cases studied by the Judge Baker
Foundation a summary of the study and a prognosis, including recom
mendations, were made by that agency. The recommendations were
the result of the case conferences held by the staff of the foundation.
The judge conferred with a director of the foundation almost every
day regarding court cases and frequently conferred also with mem
bers of the staff.
Except for remedial physical work that was carried on by some of
the other courts—notably the Minneapolis court— the Boston court was
the only one of the 10 that had the advantage of follow-up work by
the persons making the study of the child. All cases studied b y the
Judge Baker Foundation were followed up as a routine procedure
within six months, if possible, and in many special cases at mucn more
frequent intervals. The probation officers and the social agencies
having charge of the children were expected to report progress, and
the social investigators on the foundation staff made visits in cases
not under the care of the court or of social agencies. Case, confer
ences were held with representatives of the agencies from time to
time, each conference being concerned with the cases under the care
of a single agency. A follow-up card system was maintained, pro
viding for each new adjustment. Different colors were used for
different types of cases. The recommendations were entered on the
top of the card and the adjustments below.56 Restudies of special
cases were also made.
66 See form, p. 288.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
103
C A S E .
CH ILD RE N STU D IED BY TH E JU DG E BAKER FO U N D A T IO N O F
B O ST O N .
The Judge Baker Foundation was established in 1917 and is
e9lulPPe<i to study about 600 new cases each year. At first the work
°u ^ t? found^ io n .was concerned almost entirely with children before
the Boston juvenile court, but cases have been referred from other
agencies in increasing numbers. Of the first 600 children studied
538 were referred by the court; of the second 600, 441; of the third
999’
1920 the foundation studied children referred by 39
different agencies.
During the year ended August 31, 1920, 352 children were referred
by the Boston juvenile court to the Judge Baker Foundation. This
n™ * )er constituted 40.5 per cent of the total number of delinquent
children57 dealt with by the court. A larger proportion of girls than
of boys were referred— 69.5 per cent as compared with 38.4 per cent.
Information concerning the children was secured from records of
the Judge Baker Foundation.
Table 12 shows that more than half of the children charged with
theft and allied offenses were referred to the clinic. The foundation
Was asked to study over three-fourths of the stubborn or wayward
children or sex offenders dealt With by the court during the year.
Only a small percentage of violators of ordinances and license regu
lations were referred.
*
■
.
®
T
1 2 .— N u m b e r and percen tage o f children referred f o r s tu d y to the J u d q e B a k er
t o u n d a t i o n , b y o ffen se a n d s e x ; delin q u en t children dealt w ith b y the B o s to n
ju v e n ile court i n the y e a r en ded A u g u s t S I , 1 9 2 0 .
a b l e
Delinquent children dealt with b y the Boston juvenile
court.
Both sexes.
First offense committed during the year.
Referred to
Judge Baker
Foundation.
Total.
Total.
IIIIIIII"
IIIIIIII!
x c i cci
11u ui, a u u w u
w n e re Dase is less t n a n
Girls.
Referred to
Judge Baker
Foundation.
Referred to
Judge Bakef
Foundation.
Total.
N um Per
ber. cent.1
Stubbornness, waywardness, and immorality
Runaway_____________ ______________________
Violation of city ordinances or license regula
tions________________________________________
Theft and allied offenses4______________
Assault and battery________________
Miscellaneous statutory misdemeanors
Boys.
Total.
N um Per
ber. cent.1
869
2 352
4;0.5
774
286
62
42
48
28
77.4
34
20
27
15
145
419
21
180
13
226
4
33
9.0
53.9
145
375
21
179
2 13
« 194
4
2 33
18.3
37. 0
N um Per
ber. cent.1
95
66
28
22
21
13
9 .0
51.7
44
32
18.4
«1
69.5
5U.
children not referred to the Judge Baker Foundation in connection with the offense shown
w e r e s u b s e q u e S tly r e ^
an earlier date‘ Twelve ^ e r s not included
! Three others were subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.
4 Including breaking and entering.
4 Five others were subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.
“ Subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation,
57 Including wayward children.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
104
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
The percentages of children of various age groups referred for
study increased with the age of the child. (Table 13.) Only 28.1
per cent of those under 10 years were sent to the foundation, as
compared with 48.4 per cent of those 16 years of age.
T a b l e 13.— N u m b e r and 'percentage o f children referred f o r s tu d y to the J u d g e B a k er
F o u n d a tio n , b y age and s e x ; delin q u en t children dealt w ith b y the B o s to n ju v e n ile
court i n the ye a r en ded A u g u s t S I , 1 9 2 0 .
Delinquent children dealt with b y the Boston juvenile
court.
Both sexes.
Age of child.
Referred to
Judge Baker
Foundation.
57
114
188
301
- 182
27
Referred to
Judge Baker
Foundation.
Referred to
Judge Baker
Foundation.
Total.
2 352
16
40
70
137
88
1
40.5
28.1
35.1
37.2
45. 5
48.4
N u m Per
ber. cent.1
N um Per
ber. cent.1
N um Per
ber. cent.1
869
Girls.
Total.
Total.
Total____________ _________ - ...........................
Boys.
774
55
107
182
257
148
25
286
3 15
4 36
4 66
4 106
62
1
37.0
27.3
33.6
36.3
41.2
41.9
95
66
2
7
6
44
34
2
1
4
4
3 31
26
69.5
1 Per cent not shown where base is less than 50.
2 Twelve others were subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.
3 Tw o others were subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.
4 Three others were subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.
6 One other was subsequently referred to the Judge Baker Foundation.
In addition to the 352 referred to the foundation at the time they
were before the court on the first offense charged during; the year, or
previously referred, 12 children were referred for study on account
of a subsequent offense. The mental condition of the 364 children
examined by the foundation at any time is shown in Table 14. Twothirds of the children (67.9 per cent) were mentally normal or super
normal; 28.3 per cent were defective, and 2.7 per cent were psy
chopathic or psychotic or feeble-minded. The percentage of super
normal mentality was higher among girls than among boys— 14.9
as compared with 7.1 per cent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S T U D Y
O F
T H E
105
C A S E .
T a b l e 14.— M e n ta l con d itio n o f d elin qu en t b o y s and girls dealt w ith b y the B o s to n
ju v e n ile court i n the ye a r en ded A u g u s t S I , 1 9 2 0 , a n d referred f o r s tu d y to the
J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n .
Children dealt with b y Boston juvenile court and referred
to Judge Baker Foundation.
M ental condition.
Both sexes.
Number.
T otal_________________________________
Supernormal........................ ..................................
Norm al............................................ ....................
Defective_________________ ______ ____ ______ N ot reported___________ _______ ________ ____
»364
31
216
«103
10
4
Boys.
Per cent
Number.
distri
bution.
100.0
8.5
59.3
28.3
2.7
1.1
297
221
8176
87
«10
*3
Girls.
Per cent
distri
Number.
bution.
100.0
7.1
59.3
29.3
3.4
1.0
67
10
440
16
«Ï
Per cent
distri
bution.
100.0
14.9
59.7
23.9
1.5
1 Including 12 not referred to the Judge Baker Foundation when first before the court during the year
but referred subsequently.
2 Including 1 unstable and immature.
8 Including 1 case in which the diagnosis was tentative; the child m ay be subnormal.
4 Including 1 with psychoneurosis, irresponsible; 1 tentatively classed as normal.
8 Including 80 definitely feeble-minded.
6 Including 4 cases in which the diagnosis was tentative.
i 1ncluding 2 cases in which the diagnosis was uncertain and 1 in which the tentative classification was
not reported.
8 Diagnosis uncertain.
The recommendations made by the Judge Baker Foundation
pertained to physical conditions, home conditions, school or vocational
training, work, recreation, companions, the development of better
interests, and other items. In a number of cases care for a time
outside the child’s own home was recommended— placing on a farm
or with relatives, for instance. Recommendations with reference to
commitment to institutions were also made. It was very difficult
to classify the recommendations, since a number of suggestions were
often recorded in a single case. In Table 15, however, an attempt has
been made to show the recommendations for children of different ages,
selecting in each case the one thought to be most fundamental or to
involve the most radical change m the child’s manner of living.
Table 16 gives the same information according to the child’s mental
condition.
8 0 3 06 °— 2 5 t-------8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
106
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
T a b l e 15.— R ec o m m en d a tio n s m ade b y the J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n , b y age o f
ch ild ; delin q u en t children dealt w ith b y the B o s to n ju v e n ile court i n the yea r
en ded A u g u s t 8 1 , 1 9 2 0 , a n d referred f o r s tu d y to the J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n .
Children dealt with b y Boston juvenile court and referred
to Judge Baker Foundation.
Recommendation as to disposition.1
Total.
Total__________ ________________
364
Commitment to institution for the feeblem inded............. ......... ...........................
Commitment to correctional institution.
Probation____________________
Advice given on specified subject_____
Care in private institution________
Care in foster hom es2_____________
H om e____________________
School or vocational training______
W ork __________
Interests, companions, recreation.
Other............................................
Specific advice not recorded.................
N o recommendation and pending...........
16
32
301
249
6
93
16
27
26
54
27
52
15
Under 10
years.
18
10-13
years.
14-15
years.
116
1
8
4
102
87
1
33
7
8
4
28
3
1
15
2
1
16
13
10
1
1
6
16 years.
141
88
7
119
100
3
31
20
63
48
2
18
14
4
17
8
19
10
15
2
N ot
reported.
1
1
1
1
1 The recommendations in a single case often covered four or five subjects; for the purpose of this table
only one is counted in each case, preference being given in the order presented in this table. Under thé
heading Other are included recommendations as to health in 23 cases, marriage in 1 case, and advice
to join the N avy in 3 cases.
2 In a number of cases, in the country or with relatives.
T a b l e 16.— R ec o m m en d a tio n s m ade b y the J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n , b y m ental
con d itio n o f c h ild ; delin q u en t children dealt w ith b y the B o s to n ju v e n ile court in
the y e a r en ded A u g u s t 8 1 , 1 9 2 0 , a n d referred f o r s tu d y to the J u d g e B a k er
F o u n d a tio n .
Children dealt with by Boston juvenile court and referred
to Judge Baker Foundation.
Recommendation as to disposition.1
Total.
T otal..................................... ..
Commitment to institution for the feeblem in d e d ..____________________
Commitment to correctional institu tion...
Probation_______________
Advice given on specified subject
Care in private institution______
Care in foster home_________
H om e____________
School or vocational training______
W ork ____________
Interests, companions, recreation.
Other______________
Specific advice not recorded...............
N o recommendation and pending................
Super
normal.
Psycho
N ot
Normal. Defective. pathic or
psychotic. reported.
364
31
216
16
32
301
249
6
93
16
27
26
54
27
52
15
27
25
1
12
1
4
1
4
2
2
4
20
191
155
5
56
12
17
14
38
13
36
5
2 103
10
4
15
9
73
62
2
7
4
3
25
3
6
8
9
U
11
6
3
3
1 See Table 15, footnote 1.
2 Including 80 definitely feeble-minded.
As is shown in Tables 15 and 16, recommendations with reference to
home care, informal supervision, school work, and other phases of the
child’s life, or with reference to placing in family homes or care in
institutions, were made for 349 of the 364 children studied. In the
remaining 15 cases no recommendation was made or the study had not
been completed.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
STUDY OP THE CASE.
107
Commitment to an institution for the feeble-minded was recom
mended for 16 children, or 5 per cent of those in whose behalf sugges
tions were made, and commitment to a correctional institution for 32
children, or 9.2 per cent; probation was recommended for 301 chil
dren, or 86 per cent. For 249 children, specific suggestions with
reference to various ways in which the child might be helped to make
better adjustments and form better interests and associations were
made. Placing for a time in the country, with relatives, or in some
home other than the child’s own, was recommended for 93 children,
or 27 per cent.
The number of children in whose behalf each suggestion was made
is shown in Table 17. It is interesting to note that the physical
condition of 179 children (51.3 per cent of the 349 for whose treatment
suggestions were made) was found to require attention and that for
128 children (36.7 per cent) specific advice was given with reference
to companions, recreation, or the development of better interests.
1 7 . — Total n u m b er o f children i n w hose behalf sp ecified su ggestio n s a s to
treatm ent w ere m ad e b y the J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n ; d elin qu en t child ren dealt
w ith b y the B o s to n ju v e n ile cou rt i n the ye a r ended A u g u s t 3 1 ? 1 9 2 0 , and referred
f o r s tu d y to the J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n .
T a b l e
Children dealt with by Boston juvenile court and
studied by Judge Baker Foundation.
Recommendation made by
Judge Baker Foundation.
Suggestions as to treatment.2
Total.
Children referred for study... ...............................
Physical condition............... ........... .......... ........
Home.............................
School____________________
Work_______
Interests, companions, or recreation............. .........
Care in private institutions..____________________
Care in foster homes....................... . ..............
Other_____ ______________
1364
179
16
49
42
128
6
94
5
No reeommendation
and
pending.
15
Proba
tion.
301
2163
16
44
42
128
6
94
4
Institu
Correc tion for
tional in the fee
stitution. ble-mind
ed.
32
12
16
4
5
i
1For some children more than one suggestion was made as to treatment.
2Including 4, physical and mental; 1, return to home recommended.
It was impossible in the time allowed for the study to secure in
formation concerning the extent to which the recommendations of
the Judge Baker Foundation were carried out. Table 18 compares,
however, the dispositions made by the court with the recommenda
tions of the foundation in the 278 cases in which the study made by
the foundation was in connection with the first offense committed
during the year to which the data refer.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
108
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK,
T a b l e 18.— C ou rt d is p o sitio n o f ca ses o f delinquent child ren dealt w ith b y the
B o s to n ju v e n ile cou rt i n the y e a r en ded A u g u s t 3 1 , 1 9 2 0 , and referred f o r stu d y to
the J u d g e B a k er F o u n d a tio n , b y n a tu re o f reco m m en d a tio n .x
Children dealt with by Boston juvenile court
and studied by Judge Baker Foundation.
Recommendation made by
Judge Baker Foundation.
Disposition of cases.
Total.
No
recom
menda
tion and
pending.
Proba
tion.
Correc
tional
insti
tution.
Insti
tution
for the
feeble
minded.2
Total__________________ ____ ____ ________
278
13
226
26
Filed or dismissed______________ ______________
Costs, restitution, reparation, atonement, or forfei
ture..-:........ ...... ............................... .........
Committed to correctional institution______ _____
Committed to Massachusetts Department of Public
Welfare_____ ___________ ______ ____________
Probation__________ *.............................. .........
Suspended sentence_____________ _______________
Agency supervision.............. .................... ..........
Appealed............................... ..... .................. .
Returned to his home............... ......... .............
Not reported_________________ _______________
30
1
23
1
6
24
6
0
14
1
2
207
2
179
2
1
9
1
7
3
1
1
1
3
12
1
3
13
1
1Including only cases referred in connection with the first offense charged during the year of the study.
2The juvenile court did not have the power to commit to an institution for the feeble-minded.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES ADJUSTED W IT H O U T FO R M AL COURT AC TIO N .
POLICY OF INFORMAL TREATMENT OF DELINQUENCY PROBLEMS.
Juvenile counts receive many complaints which are regarded by
some judges as not requiring formal judicial treatment or official
determination of the status of the child. For instance, complaints of
trivial offenses can often be settled with a warning to the child, and
it would involve needless expense for the court and trouble for all
concerned to insist on service of notice and formal hearing. As the
juvenile court becomes well established in the community parents
and others bring to the attention of its officers problems of conduct
or of environment which call merely for advice or for direction to the
social agency best equipped to handle the difficulty. In addition to
giving advice which does not involve assuming responsibility for
the child many courts make a practice of supervising children whose
parents desire them to have the benefit of such oversight and guidance
without the formality of hearing and of determination of delin
quency.1
In this study the term “ informal adjustment of cases” includes all
cases adjusted by the judge or by a probation officer without the
filing of a petition or complaint. The word “ adjusted” is, however,
greatly in need of a definition that will be commonly accepted and
will make comparative statistics possible. When is a complaint
“ adjusted” and when is it merely “ refused” or “ dropped,” no
action being taken? Wide difference in usage exists. Some courts
consider all cases not made official as “ cases handled informally” ;
others include in this group all cases in which the attempt has been
made to handle the matter informally, whether or not the cases have
later been made official. Some courts divide the nonofficial cases
into those dealt with unofficially and those in which no action is
taken. In this report the usage of each court was accepted, so that
the statistics given are only roughly comparable.
METHODS OF INFORMAL ADJUSTMENT IN THE COURTS STUDIED.
In six of the courts studied a considerable proportion of cases were
adjusted without the filing of a petition or complaint. These were
the courts of Denver, the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis. Some cases were adjusted in
formally in the courts of Boston, Minneapolis, and New Orleans, but
records were not kept in these cases and their number could not be
determined.2 Great variation from court to court was found in the
types of cases handled informally and the methods used.
1For a discussion of the development and extent of informal work and a statement of its advantages and
disadvantages, see “ The unofficial treatment of children quasi-delinquent—report 9 f the committee on
juvenile courts,” by Thomas D. Eliot, in The Social Service of the Courts, Proceedings of the Sixteenth
Annual Conference of the National Probation Association, held in Providence, R. I., June 20-26, 1922, p.
68. This same material is given by M r. Eliot in “ The back-to-the-school movement—the unofficial treat
ment of pre-delinquent children,” published in The Journal of Delinquency, Whittier, Calif., for Novem
ber, 1922.
2Since the time of the study informal adjustment of cases has been greatly extended in the Minneapolis
court. However, in these informal cases petitions are filed, but the hearing is conducted informally by
the chief probation officer. Thorough investigations are made. A total of 302 minor delinquency cases
were handled in this way in 1923; 271were adjusted without court appearance, and 34 children were placed
on “ informal probation.”
109
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
110
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
Denver.— In Denver one of the main purposes of the investigation
of a delinquency complaint was to determine whether or not a peti
tion should be filed. The police could not insist upon the filing of a
petition, though a private individual had the right to do so. Investi
gations, more or less complete, were made in practically all cases
except those in which petitions were filed by agencies. If the investi
gation showed that more than a warning or an immediate adjust
ment of the difficulty by the probation officer was needed but that, ac
cording to the practice of the court, formal action was not required, the
child, the parents, and the complainant were asked to come to the
court, and either the judge or the chief probation officer held an in
formal hearing. If damages were involved they were often paid volun
tarily. Frequently children agreed to come under probationary super
vision and were then subject to the same rules and regulations as
children officially placed on probation. Children over juvenile-court
age were often dealt with informally and with their own consent placed
on probation, and adult as well as children’s cases were adjusted
without formal action. Many girls came to the court on their own
initiative for advice and help, and others were brought by girl com
panions who had been assisted by the court.
Since the informal work of the Denver juvenile court differs in
method and extent from that carried on by most juvenile courts a
statement by Judge Lindsey concerning it is given in full:
It has been more than 20 years since we started what is known as the informalconference method of hearing cases. By this method we do not betray the con
fidence of any boy or girl who has confided to us any facts; that is to say, I take
a child alone in chambers and agree that anything he tells me shall not be told
to any one without his consent and I take my chances on getting his consent
as I increase the confidential relationships between us. I had a case yesterday
illustrating this point. A boy 17 years of age belongs to a club which is evidently
indulging in automobile joy rides, booze parties, and so forth. I enlisted the
confidence of that boy in my purpose “ to help everybody and hurt nobody.”
The unwritten law among boys against “ snitching,” for example, is a very wise
and proper law. It promotes loyalty, but it is based on the theory that by “ tell
in g ” the boy is hurt or ostracized or the girl in some degree loses her self-respect.
In a measure we reverse the purpose of such laws by falling in line absolutely with
them; i. e., we too “ help everybody and hurt nobody.” I refused to let this boy
tell me the name of a single boy or girl involved, but I got his confidence to the
point of telling me how many girls and how many boys were “ in it,” how many
automobiles had been stolen, how many illicit joy rides had been taken, and so
forth. I then explained to the boy the dangers involved for both boys and girls
and sent him as a sort of confidant back to his club or gang with my views about
this matter; in other words I appeal to the interest of this group. The result is
that before I get through with that case by this confidential method, I will have
not 1 boy caught by the police after a long chase but perhaps 20 boys and girls
who have come to me for help. This has happened time and again.
I am frank to say that we have not reached, in this city, anything like the
point of perfection that we are striving for, but this sort of thing in Denver has
gotten us nearer the truth about conditions as they are than could be accom
plished by any other method. This is not due to the officers, but to the methods
and what I call the psychology— and indirectly the biology— involved. It is
from this standpoint of psychology and biology that most of our work has to be
done if we are going to get anywhere except to move around in a circle, alleviating,
it is true, the distress in individual cases here and there, but doing very little in
the end to point out, much less to stamp out, the causes of what are called sin
and crime. I might say, in conclusion, that because of this “ confidentialconference m ethod” the ethical relations of the court to many of the children
who come here voluntarily, as most of them do in such cases, is such that no
formal petitions could or should be filed against them. Neither are they necessary
except for chronic repeaters, as to whom a reservation in such confidence is
always made with the consent of the “ confessee.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES ADJUSTED WITHOUT FORMAL COURT ACTION.
HI
Seattle.— The juvenile court law of the State of Washington pro
vided that in counties having paid probation officers such officers
should as far as possible determine before a petition was filed whether
■' such petition was reasonably justified.3 The chief probation officer
who had directed the work of the probation staff for a number of
vears but who resigned just prior to the time this study was made,4
had placed special emphasis on the informal adjustment of cases,
and in this chapter the procedure described is that which was carried
COMPARISON
or
FORMAL A M ) INFORMAL C A S E S O F DELINQUENCY
I K FOUR C O U R T S .
1920.
B O Y S * C A SE S ONLY INCLUDED.
7656
Seattle
F
o
rm
a
l
m
In
fo
rm
a
l
out under his direction. Whether or not a case became official
depended largely upon the attitude of the child at the first inter
view. The chief probation officer interviewed all the boys, and the
superintendent o f the detention home interviewed the girls and
usually consulted the chief probation officer with regard to them.
Jfew girls’ cases were adjusted informally, partly because a large
amount of unofficial work was done by the woman’s protective
division of the police department without reference to the court.
8Washington, Remington’s Comp. Stat., 1922, sec. 1987-6.
4This officer resumed work for the court early in 1923.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
112
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
Every child was first interviewed alone; later the parents were
called in. Sometimes, in an effort to ascertain all the factors in the
case, four or five interviews were held with one child, and consider
able time was spent with the parents in trying to develop a right
attitude on their part. Confidential information revealed by the
child was not given to the parents except with the child’s consent.
Usually information with regard to school progress and home con
ditions was obtained from the school by telephone, but further
social investigation was rarely made in informal cases. When all
the desired information had been secured a conference was called
by the chief probation officer, at which the parents, the child, and
the police or the complainant were present. Whenever a satisfactory
adjustment could be made the case was not filed. Cases were often
carried for several weeks, the children being asked to come in to see
the chief probation officer frequently, but he believed that authority
should accompany supervision and did not place on probation
children who had not been formally before the court. When the
chief probation officer was too busy to undertake the work described
in informal cases he allowed petitions to be filed after brief inter
views with the children and their parents.
San Francisco.— Informal adjustment of cases in San Francisco
was confined chiefly to boys’ cases originating with the police.
Whenever in a police case the boy was not arrested and brought to
the detention home the parties were notified to be present at the
probation office on a given day and hour, and a written report was
forwarded to the court. At the time specified the head of the boys’
department held an informal hearing at .which were present the
child, his parents, and frequently the complainant. Controversial
questions were settled, if possible, and payment of money damages
was arranged for. Sometimes the boy was sent to the detention
home for a few days as a means of discipline, and occasionally a
boy was placed on informal probation ancf required to report regu
larly to the probation office. If need for further study was indicated
the cases were continued for investigation or for physical or mental
examination. Very few cases in the girls’ department were handled
informally.
District o f Columbia.— The juvenile court of the District of Colum
bia was a court of criminal and not of chancery jurisdiction, and
informal adjustment of cases of certain types had for some years
been utilized as a method of avoiding the entry of a criminal record
against the child. In July, 1919, the judge ordered that in prelimi
nary informal hearings in cases of “ children of tender years” who
were alleged to have_ committed trivial offenses, only the parents
or guardian or custodian of the child involved, and the complaining
witnesses, should be present. If satisfactory adjustment was not
made, the matter might be continued for the purpose of bringing in
the child himself for further hearing or for court trial. Under this
order, the report of the court for 1919-20 stated that parents had
appeared instead of young children in 131 cases.
In December, 1919, it was ordered that the following complaints"
be heard unofficially by the chief probation officer:
1.
A11 first complaints, not involving sex offenses, against children
under 12 years of age.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES ADJUSTED WITHOUT FORMAL COURT ACTION.
113
2. All first complaints, not involving sex offenses, against children
under 17 years of age, which in his opinion are not serious enough to
be brought into court.
3. All complaints involving trivial violations of police regulations.
The 1920 report of the court stated that since 1914, when unofficial
hearings were begun, the cases of 6,663 children had been heard
unofficially. The number of cases so dealt with in 1919-20 was
1,243.5
At informal hearings the child, parents, and witnesses were present
and. were questioned by the chief probation officer.5“ No investi
gation was made prior to the hearing, but if the child had been in
court before the information obtained at that time was in the hands
of the chief probation officer. If during the hearing some problem
requiring attention was found to exist, the case was referred to some
private organization cooperating with the court. If damages were in
question and the parents were willing to make restitution or repara
tion they; were advised to do so, but care was taken not to exercise
pressure in this matter. The dispositions that might be made in in
formal cases included dismissal with warning, reference to other
agencies, and continuance for formal action. Unofficial probation
was not among the methods used in this court.
Los Angeles.— In Los Angeles two special investigators, a man
and a woman, were employed primarily to determine in what cases
formal court action was necessary, and to adjust cases informally.
A complete inquiry into the social conditions surrounding the child
was not made prior to the filing of a petition; but interviews were
held, usually in the child’s home, with the child and the parents, and
the complainant was also interviewed. Informal hearings were not
held, but the children were sometimes with their own consent placed
under supervision. The term “ probation” was not used in these
cases, as the court believed that it would weaken the effect of official
probation to have the children placed on probation under an informal
arrangement. Complaints of damage to property were frequently
adjusted by the investigators. Cases were referred to other agencies
when such reference seemed advisable. In the girls’ department the
Parent-Teacher Association, churches, and other social agencies
were used for follow-up of informal cases. Part of the work of the
special investigators was concerned with requests for information
made by out-of-town correspondents.
St. Louis.— The probation office in St. Louis frequently called in
parents and children for consultation and warning. Neighborhood
disputes, complaints of coal stealing and jumping on street cars, and
complaints of petty theft (involving not more than $5 or $10) were
among the cases settled by the investigating officer or as a result of
an informal hearing by the chief probation officer. Children arrested
for violations of city ordinances were never dealt with informally.
As in Los Angeles, a man and a woman investigator were employed
to make investigations prior to the filing of complaints. The inquiry
into the home conditions and the circumstances of the offense was
J Recently cases dealt with informally by the District of Columbia juvenile court have been divided
for statistical purposes into the following groups: Unofficial cases (arrests); adjusted cases (complaint );
cases in which no action is aken (arrests and complaints).
50Informal hearings in boys’ cases are now (1924) held by the clerk of the court and in girls’ cases by
the chief probation officer (a woman),
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
114
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
fairly complete. In cases in which the complainant did not wish to
file he was asked to write a letter to the court stating that fact, and
the matter was submitted informally to the judge for decision as to
whether or not the case should be made official. If the investigators
were uncertain as to whether court action should be taken the same
procedure was followed. Cases dealt with informally were some
times referred to a private agency for follow-up, and occasionally
the child was placed under the informal supervision of the probation
office.56
Sum m ary .— To summarize the methods used in the six courts,
more or less complete investigations in cases dealt with informally
were made in Denver, Los Angeles, and St. Louis, and in Seattle the
office interviews with the children’s parents and complainants
amounted to investigations. Informal hearings were held by the
judge or the chief probation officer in Denver and by the chiei pro
bation officer in the District of Columbia, San Francisco, and St.
Louis, while the conferences with the chief probation officer in Seattle
were practically hearings of this kind. Informal probation was
used frequently in Denver and occasionally in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and St. Louis, though in Los Angeles it was termed
“ supervision” and not “ probation.”
EXTENT TO WHICH CASES WERE ADJUSTED W ITHOUT FORMAL
COURT ACTION.
The proportion of delinquency cases adjusted without formal court
action varied from 43 per cent to 86 per cent in the four courts which
utilized this method to any considerable extent and for which statis
tics were available. Differences in jurisdiction, in policy, and in
statistical method make it difficult to compare the statistics of one
court with those of another, but the data nevertheless indicate
general tendencies. Table 19 shows that in Denver 86 per cent of
the delinquency cases were adjusted informally; in Seattle, 68.9
per cent; in the District of Columbia, 43.1 per cent; and in San
Francisco, 43.3 per cent.
In St. Louis during 1920 a total of 1,708 delinquent children were
dealt with formally, and the number of cases settled out of court was
reported as 351.6 It is not known whether or not this number includes
cases in which no action was taken as well as cases in which some
adjustment was made.6® The total number of new cases of delin
quency filed in the Los Angeles juvenile court in 1919 was 1,314,
and the number of cases adjudicated without filing was 1,192. It
was reported that 75 children were on voluntary probation during
the year.7
66In 1924-two men officers and one woman were employed in this work. Informal hearings were held
by the investigators each morning. In a majority of the informal cases visits were made in the home or
neighborhood. Only occasionally were difficult cases referred to the chief probation officer.
6Report of the Juvenile Court and Probation Office for the Years 19J6 to 1920, inclusive, St. Louis, Mo.,
pp. 38, 44.
60 In February, 1924, the two men investigators dealt with 257 children arrested by the police; 90 were
brought before the court on petition; the other cases were settled out of court. In 1923,1,215 cases were
adjusted, as compared with 2,332 delinquent and neglected children brought before the court.
7Annual Report, Los Angeles County Probation Department, for the Year Ending December 31,1919,pp. 9, 14. In 1922 the total number of new cases of delinquency filed was 1,461, and the number of cases
adjudicated without filing was 477; 120 children were on voluntary probation during the year. (Annual
Report, Los Angeles County Probation Department, for the Year Ending December 31, 1922; in manu
script.)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES ADJUSTED WITHOUT FORMAL COURT ACTION.
T
a ble
ÜÔ
19.— C a ses i n w hich p e titio n s or co m p la in ts w ere filed a n d ca ses a d ju sted
i n fo r m a lly ; d elin q u en c y cases co m in g to the attention o f f o u r cou rts.
Delinquency cases coming to the courts’
attention.
Court and period.
Total.
Denver juvenile court—year ended June 30,19201.
District of Columbia juvenile court—year ended June 30, 19201
San Francisco juvenile court—year ended June 30, 1920»
Seattle juvenile court—19206.
2,057
2,884
1,402
986
Cases adjusted in Cases in
formally.
which a
petition
or com
Number. Per cent. plaint
was filed.
1,770
81,243
4607
679
2
86.0
43.1
43.3
68.9
287
81,641
8795
307
1Data obtained from report of the court.
* Including 1,658 “ settled out of court” and 112 “ dropped.” These included some children who were
not delinquent but who came to the court for advice or for help in securing work.
3■
*'n
eyded June 30,1924, the District of Columbia juvenile court dealt with 1,904 delinquency
cases officially .handled in unofficial hearings 541 delinquency eases referred by the police, adjusted 210
complaints, and in 65 cases referred, took no action. Excluding these 65 cases, 28.3 per cent of the delin
quency cases were dealt with informally.
4Cases handled in boys’ department only, excluding3 cases in which the basis of complaint was “ im
proper home. No report was made of informal cases in the girls’ department, but it was known that
few cases were so dealt with.
6
Cases handled in the boys’ department and the girls’ department, excluding 50 cases in the former
department in which the basis of the complaint was “ no proper guardian77or “ improper home77and 36
girls cases in which the basis was “ need of protection.77
6Data obtained from monthly reports of the court.
COMPARISON OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL CASES.
In two of the three courts in which both boys’ and girls’ cases were
handled informally and for which information as to sex was available,
the percentage o f boys’ cases so adjusted was higher than the per
centage of girls’ cases. In the District of Columbia the percentage
of girls’ cases adjusted informally was slightly higher than the per
centage of boys’ cases. The greatest difference was found in Seattle,
where 75.9 per cent of the boys’ cases as compared with only 27.7 per
cent of the girls’ cases were adjusted without formal court action.
(Table 20.) In some of the courts several factors tended to make
the proportion of informal cases smaller among girls than among boys.
These included greater attention to preventive work among girls by
police departments and adjustment of girls’ cases by the judge or
probation officers without making any records other than confidential
records in personal notebooks.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
116
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
T a b l e 20.— B o y s ’ a n d girls’ cases i n w hich 'petitions or c o m p la in ts w ere filed and
cases adjusted i n fo r m a lly ; d elin q u en cy cases co m in g to the a ttention o f f o u r c ou rts.1
Delinquency cases coming to the courts’ attention.
Boys.
Girls.
Cases adjusted
informally.
Court and period.
Total.
Num
ber.
Denver, juvenile court—year
ended June 30,1920__________
District of Columbia juvenile
court—year ended June' 30,1920.
San Francisco juvenile court—
year ended June 30,1920______
Seattle juvenile court—1920____
Per
cent.
Cases
in
which
a peti
tion or Total.
com
plaint
was
filed.
Cases adjusted
informally.
Num
ber.
Per
cent.
Cases
in
which
a peti
tion or
com
plaint
was
filed.
1,609
1,403
87.1
206
448
367
81.9
81
2,449
1,050
42.9
1,399
435
193
44.4
242
1,213
842
607
639
50.0
75.9
606
203
189
144
40
27.7
189
104
1For sources of information and inclusions, see Table 19, footnotes.
In all four courts in which it was possible to secure information
concerning the ages of the boys whose cases were handled formally
and of those whose cases were adjusted without court action, the
largest percentages of cases in which no formal court action was
taken were among boys under 14 years of age. In three of the
courts the smallest percentages of informal cases were found in the
14 and 15 year age group; the larger percentages in the group 16 years
of age and over were probably due to the fact that some cases in
which the boy was somewhat over the age limit of the court’s jurisdic
tion were dealt with informally. In the San Francisco court, which
had jurisdiction up to the age of 21 years, the lowest percentage of
informal cases was in the highest age group. (Table 21.)
In the District of Columbia juvenile court all the cases of girls
under 10 years of age were adjusted informally, 61.7 per cent of
these between the ages of 10 and 14 years, 40 per cent of those 14
and 15 years of age, and 36.8 per cent of those 16 years of age and
over.8 In the other three courts, because of the small number of
cases or the absence of age data, no comparison was possible of the
percentages of girls ’ cases in the various age groups in which adjust
ment was made without formal court action.
Statistics based on number of children, counting each child only once during the year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES ADJUSTED W ITH O U T FORMAL COURT ACTION.
T able
117
21 .-— P ercen tag e
o f cases a dju sted in fo r m a lly , b y age o f ch ild ; b o y s ’ d elin
q u en c y cases co m in g to the attention o f f o u r courts.
Boys’ delinquency cases, formal and informal, coming to the courts’
attention.
Denver, 1919.1
Age of child.
Total.
10-13........................................................
14-15______________ ____________ _
District of Co
lumbia, 1919-20.2
San Francisco,
1919-20.3
Per cent
Per cent
adjusted
adjusted
Total.
Total.
infor
infor
mally.
mally.
670
71.6
1,938
63
.301
249
53
4
85. 7
73.7
64.3
81.1
174
733
652
379
51.6
75.9
|
56.7
42.9
45.4
1,266
Seattle, 1920.4
Per cent
adjusted
Total.
infor
mally.
48.2
453
66.6
348
465
51.4
27.7
/
\
Per cent
adjusted
infor
mally.
842
75.9
46
266
265
264
1
78.3
76.3
74.7
76.1
1 D ata compiled from court records.
2 D ata obtained from report of the court. Figures represent children and not cases; that is, each child
was counted only once, no matter how m any times he had been before the court during the year.
3 D ata obtained from the annual report of the court. Total includes 53 cases of “ no proper home” or
“ improper guardian ” which it was impossible to eliminate because age distribution was not given.
4 D ata obtained from m onthly reports of the court.
Comparing the percentages of b oys’ cases adjusted informally
on the basis of the offense which brought the boy to the attention of
the court, Table 22 shows for all four courts for which information
was available high percentages of cases so adjusted in that group
which included cases of malicious mischief, disorderly conduct,
gambling, and violations of city ordinances, and relatively low per
centages in the group of theft cases. In three courts the percentages
in the group which included cases of incorrigibility, waywardness,
and truancy were lower than the average. More than 90 per cent of
the cases involving vagrancy and running away were adjusted in
formally in the courts of San Francisco and Seattle. Informal
action in cases of theft was taken in 65.1 per cent of the Denver
cases and in 74.6 per cent of the Seattle cases, as compared with
percentages of 14.3 for the District of Columbia and 38.2 for San
Francisco.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
118
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
T a b l e 22. — P ercen tag e o f cases a dju sted in fo r m a lly , b y o ffen se; b o y s ’ d elin q u en cy
cases co m in g to the attention o f f o u r cou rts.
B o y s ’ delinquency cases, formal and informal, coming to the courts’
attention.
Denver, 1919.1
Offense.
T o t a l ................... - ...................
Incorrigibility, immorality, waywardness, truancy______________
Vagrancy, running a w ay................
Malicious mischief, disorderly
conduct, gambling, violation of
city ordinances.--______________
Theft and attempted th eft4 _____
District of
Columbia,
1919-20.3
San Francisco,
1919-20.3
Seattle, 1920.3
Total.
Per
cent ad
justed
infor
mally.
Total.
Per
cent ad
justed
infor
mally.
Total.
Per
cent adjusted
infor
m ally.
Total.
Per
cent ad
justed
infor
mally.
670
71.6
2,449
42.9
1,213
50.0
842
75.9
109
85
69.7
72.9
315
2
57.1
296
81
29.7
96.3
160
136
46.9
91.9
140
301
«35
90.0
65.1
57.1
1,041
711
380
63.8
14.3
27.4
321
479
36
78.2
38.2
19.4
203
342
«1
90.6
74.6
1 D ata compiled from court records.
3 D ata obtained from report of the court.
3 D ata obtained from m onthly reports of the court.
4 Including such offenses as theft, breaking and entering, breaking and entering and taking things,
forgery, stolen property in possession.
* Including 4 cases in which the offense was not reported.
6 Offense not reported.
D IS P O S IT IO N S IN CASES AD JU STED IN FO R M A LLY .
Differences in terminology and methods of tabulation make it
difficult to compare dispositions made in informal cases. In all the
courts for which information was secured the great majority of cases
adjusted informally were reported as “ dismissed,” “ warned,”
“ parents or children advised,” or “ settled out of court.” The per
centages thus disposed of ranged from 57.6 in Denver to 90.4 in
Seattle. In three courts payment of damages was arranged for in
2.5 to 7.6 per cent of the cases. Only the Denver court used “ volun
tary probation” to any extent; in 35 per cent of the informal cases
this method of treatment was employed.9 In San Francisco 11.8
per cent and in Seattle 8.9 per cent of the informal cases were adjusted
by returning the children to their homes or by sending them to other
jurisdictions. (Table 23.)
9
Complete figures Were not secured for Los Angeles, but the annual report of that court for 1919 showed
that voluntary probation was used in 6 per cent of the cases adjusted without filing a petition. In 1922
the percentage was much higher; i. e., 25 per cent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cases adjusted w ithout formal, court action .
119
T a b l e 23. — D is p o s itio n s in d elin q u en cy cases a djusted in fo r m a lly i n f o u r cou rts.
Delinquency cases adjusted informally.
Denver, 1919.1
Disposition of case.
District of
Columbia,
1919-20.2
San Francisco,
1919-20.2
Seattle, 1920.3
N u m Per cent N u m Per cent N u m Per cent N u m Per cent
distri
distri
distri
distri
ber.
ber.
ber.
ber.
bution.
bution.
bution.
bution.
T otal_____ ______________________
Dismissed............ ..............................
Warned or advised, or otherwise ad
justed................................................
Payment of damages arranged for.........
Voluntary probation________
Referred or returned to agencies or in
stitutions______ _______
Returned home or sent to other juris
d ic tio n s...........................
Continued for formal hearing » ..
O th er........................
N ot reported...................
488
100.0
1,243
100.0
4 610
100.0
«724
14
2.7
8 97
7.8
403
66.1
1
0.1
268
12
8 171
54.9
2.5
35.0
908
95
73.0
7.6
7 68
27
11
11.1
4 .4
1.8
654
90.3
2
0.3
8
1.6
14
1.1
12
2.0
5
1
5
4
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.8
11.8
0.3
2.5
8 .9
10.1
0.2
72
2
15
64
126
3
3
0 .4
100.0
1 D ata compiled from court records.
2 D ata obtained from report of the court.
8 D ata obtained from the m onthly reports of the court.
4 Boys only; including 3 cases of “ no proper home.”
8 Including 45 cases of neglect; separate data regarding dispositions of delinquency and neglect cases could
not be secured.
6 Including 20 “ not guilty,” 5 “ no action,” 72 “ not found,” “ failed to appear,” “ complainant not found,”
or complainant refused to prosecute.”
7 Including 61 “ returned to school” and 7 “ held temporarily” ; these dispositions are probably similar to
those included in other courts in the group “ warned, advised, or otherwise adjusted,” and hence have been
included here in that group.
8 Including 3 cases in which payment of damages was also arranged for.
» These cases were brought before the court formally after they had been handled informally. The large
figure for the District of Columbia court as compared with other courts is partly accounted for b y different
methods of statistical treatment. Doubtless in some of the courts m any cases handled at first informally
and later formally were counted only in the formal eases.
SUCCESS OF IN F O R M A L A D JU STM E N T AS A M E T H O D OF T R E A T M E N T .
The success of informal adjustment as a method of treatment in
delinquency cases could be measured only if it were possible to follow
up the subsequent history of each child. However, the percentage
of cases in which the child did not again come to the attention of the
court indicates to some extent the value of this method. Informa
tion was obtained in 1920 with reference to cases adjusted informally
in the San Francisco and Seattle courts in 1917 and in the Denver
court in 1917-18. The data secured show the number of times
the children had come to the attention of the court previous to and
subsequent to the appearance in 1917 or 1917-18.
In Denver 78.8 per cent of the boys’ cases in 1917-18 were adjusted
informally and in Seattle in 1917, 61.2 per cent.10 In San Francisco
only 51.4 per cent of the cases were so adjusted in 1917.11 In Denver
there was no subsequent appearance in 81.1 per cent of the informal
cases; in Seattle in 71.2 per cent; and in San Francisco in 68.5 per
cent. (Table 24.) The tact that the delinquency jurisdiction of the
Denver court at the time of the study extended in boys’ cases only
“until the age of 16 years, while in Seattle jurisdiction extended until
18 and in San Francisco until 21 (concurrent jurisdiction from 18
10 D ata obtained from court records.
11 Derived from 1917 annual report of the court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
120
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
to 21) undoubtedly accounts in part for the smaller proportion of
reappearances in the Denver juvenile court. However, boys above
16 years of age were dealt with b y the Denver court informally and
on criminal charges. The six-month difference in time period would
also tend to make the Denver percentage of reappearances somewhat
smaller than the percentages for the other cities.
The proportion of informal cases in which the boy subsequently
came to the attention of the court more than once was in Denver 5.8
per cent, in Seattle 10 per cent, and in San Francisco 11.8 per cent.
T a b l e 24. — P r ev io u s and su bsequ en t a p p ea ra n ces i n fo r m a l a n d in fo rm a l c a se s;
delinquent b o ys w h ose cases w ere a dju sted in fo r m a lly i n the cou rts o f D e n v e r, S a n
F ra n cisco, an d S eattle .x
Delinquent boys whose cases were adjusted informally.
San Francisco.4
Denver.3
Seattle.4
Previous and subsequent appearances in formal
and informal cases.3
Num
ber.
Per
cent
distri
bution.
Num
ber.
Per
cent
distri
bution.
Num
ber.
Per
cent
distri
bution.
T otal___________ _______ ______ _________
1,202
100.0
629
100.0
292
100.0
N o subsequent appearance_____________ _________
One subsequent appearance____________ _______
More than one subsequent appearance............... ..
975
157
70
81.1
13.1
5.8
431
124
74
68.5
19. 7
11.8
208
55
29
71.2
18.8
10.0
N o previous appearance..................................
1,015
100.0
523
100.0
239
100.0
N o subsequent appearance_____________ ________ _
One or more subsequent appearances-------------------
844
171
83.2
16.8
383
140
73.2
26.8
1.81
58
75.7
24.3
...........
187
100.0
106
100.0
53
100.0
N o subsequent appearance____________ __________
One or more subsequent appearances............. ........
131
56
70.1
29.9
. 48
58
45.3
54. 7
27
26
50.9
49.1
One or more previous appearances
1 D ata compiled from court records.
3 In Denver, prior to September, 1920; in San Francisco, prior to October, 1920; in Seattle, prior to Decem
ber, 1920.
3 Year ended June 30,1918.
4 Calendar year 1917.
The percentage of boys involved in informal cases in Denver who
had not previously been known to the court either formally or in
formally was 84.4; in Seattle the percentage was 81.8 and in San
Francisco 83.1. Table 24 shows that among the boys who had not
been previously before the court the percentages that appeared subse
quently were much smaller than among boys who had previously
been known to the court.
For Denver and Seattle it was possible to compare the percentages
of reappearances in boys’ cases adjusted informally with those in
cases formally dealt with. In Denver the percentage among the
latter was slightly smaller than among the former— 16.1 as compared
with 18.9. For Seattle the percentage of reappearances among formal
cases was slightly larger than among informal— 31.4 as compared
with 28.8.
Table 25 shows the total number of appearances in new cases,
formal or informal, of boys whose cases were adjusted informally in
1917 in the three courts for which information was available. The
figures include appearances prior to, including, and subsequent to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CASES ADJUSTED W IT H O U T FOBMAL CÖÜBT ACTION.
121
1917. The fact that the percentage of cases in which the boy had
come to the attention of the court only once was higher in Denver
than in San Francisco or Seattle may be partly due to the lower age
limit in the Denver court.
25 .— N u m b e r o f a p p ea ra n ces, fo r m a l and in fo r m a l; delinquent b o y s w hose
cases w ere a dju sted in fo r m a lly i n the cou rts o f D en ver, S a n F ra n cisco, a n d S ea ttle.1
T able
Delinquent'boys whose cases were adjusted informally.
Num ber oi appearances in formal and informal
cases.2
Denver.8
Number.
Total........................................................
O n e ....................
T w o _____________
Three___
Four..........................
F ive____________
Six or more..............
San Francisco.4
Seattle.4
Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
distri Number. distri Number. distri
bution.
bution.
bution.
1,202
100.0
629
100.0
292
100.0
844
204
88
35
17
«14
70.2
17.0
7.3
2.9
1.4
1.2
383
131
56
32
13
6 14
60.9
20.8
8.9
5.1
2.1
2.2
181
57
23
15
6
7 10
62.0
19.5
7.9
5.1
2.1
3.4
1 D ata compiled from court records.
2 In Denver, prior to September, 1920; in San Francisco, prior to October, 1920; in Seattle, prior to D e
cember, 1920.
8 Year ended June 30,1918.
4 Calendar year 1917.
8 Including 8, six times before the court; 3, seven times; 2, eight times; 1, ten times.
8 Including 6, six times before the court; 5, seven times; 2, eight times; 1, eleven times.
7 Including 6, six times before the court; 3, seven times; 1, nine times.
For the San Francisco court the total number of times boys dealt
with informally in 1917 had come to the attention of the court in
informal cases before or after 1917 was ascertained. In 491 cases, or
78 per cent of the total number, the boy was dealt with informally
only once; in 108 cases, or 17 per cent, twice; and in 30 cases, or 5
per cent, more than twice. Nine boys appeared four different times
in informal cases; 3 boys, five times; and 1 boy, six times.
The annual report of the juvenile court of the District of Columbia
for 1919—20 showed the total number of unofficial hearings in each
year since 1914 (when unofficial hearings were inaugurated) and the
number of reappearances in each year of children previously heard
unofficially. Prior to 1919—20 a total of 5,481 cases had been heard
unofficially. Of these, only 265, or 4.8 per cent, were officially before
the court in the year 1919—20. How many of the total number had
been officially before the court in previous years, and how many were
still of juvenile-court age in 1919-20 are not known.
Concerning the extent to which the juvenile court should undertake
to give advice and assistance in cases not made official, there is differ
ence of opinion and of practice. Some authorities believe that diffi
culties should be adjusted without formal action whenever possible,
and in some courts more than half the cases are dealt with in this
way. Others experienced in juvenile-court work or interested in the
problems involved believe that the court should not undertake to
adjust cases without official action. They hold that such work will
interfere with the other activities of the court or weaken its authority
in formal cases, or that it will be done in a haphazard and unscientific
80306°— 25t----- 9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
122
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
fashion and so fail to reach underlying problems that may be serious,
or that it will discourage the development of resources for prevention
of delinquency by schools and private agencies.
Properly to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of informal
treatment of juvenile delinquents oy juvenile-court officers would
require much more study ana research than was possible in the course
of this inquiry. Moreover, in many courts such treatment is in an
experimental stage, and in all courts it is affected and modified by
local conditions and community resources. 'Much of the work being
done in informal cases by juvenile courts is made necessary because
the schools are not meeting their obligations to children presenting
conduct problems. Undoubtedly the next few years will witness
marked progress in the introduction of social work into the schools,
and this should result in a better understanding of pupils by their
teachers, a more perfect adjustment of the school program to indi
vidual needs, closer cooperation between schools and parents, and a
reduction in the number of school children referred to the courts.12
Whether the future will witness a greater development of informal
work by the courts themselves or an assumption of responsibility
for the less serious delinquency problems by schools or private
agencies, the juvenile court, so long as this judicial agency exists,
will have to exercise the following functions in addition to its official
work: (1) Elimination of cases not requiring official consideration or
prolonged court treatment; (2) reference to the proper agency of
problems demanding attention but not considered to De within the
scope of the court. Work of this kind will continue to be necessary
because the court will never be able completely to limit complaints
and applications for advice to cases in which formal action is really
required. If the court is to make a wise selection of cases for formal
action and to refer cases intelligently to other agencies, it ought to
be sure of the facts upon which decision as to reference is based.
The juvenile court rests upon the principle that treatment is to be
determined by the child’s needs and not b y the nature of the offense.
A trivial offense may bring to the court a child seriously in need of
help. Whether the needed advice or extralegal supervision in
informal cases is a function of the court itself or of other agencies,
it must be based upon knowledge of the child’s needs and must be
given b y persons skilled in social service.
13
For a discussion of the relation between the school and the court, see p. 226.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H E A R IN G S.
SO CIALIZATIO N OF PR O C E D U R E .
Prior to the formal hearing the contact of the judge with individual
cases has been, in most courts, only through the medium of the staff.
At the hearing it is the function of the judge to weigh the results of
the social investigation and the study of the child, to afford each of
those concerned Full opportunity to state the facts in his own way,
to determine whether the conditions alleged in the petition exist,
and to endeavor to enlist the cooperation of the parents in whatever
treatment he may determine to be necessary in view of the needs
discovered. The extent to which court procedure in children’s cases
can be socialized and legal formalities eliminated without impairing
individual rights has been discussed b y Judge Edward F. Waite,13
formerly of the juvenile court of Hennepin County, Minn, (the
Minneapolis court), in a paper presented before a conference on
juvenile-court standards. His general conclusions are as follows:
1. In criminal proceedings 14 the child has before conviction all the legal rights
of the adult. Here the field of socialization is practically limited to treatment
of the child after conviction.
2. In noncriminal proceedings there may be either with or without express legis
lative authorization, according to the nature of the court, the broad latitude
customarily exercised by courts of chancery jurisdiction, this being appropriate
and necessary to the full use of parental functions. Here no constitutional
provisions relating to criminal prosecutions apply, and socialization of procedure
may have wide scope. There are limits, however, of which the judge should
never be unmindful.
3. In adopting this broader practice courts should have regard to the popular.
sense of justice, even when it is not supported by established principles of con
stitutional law.
At the same conference Dr. Miriam Van Waters,15 referee of the
Los Angeles juvenile court, summed up a discussion of the socializa
tion of court procedure in the following words:
Socializaton of the juvenile-court procedure depends on the clear, firm grasp
of the principles of equity. The court is one of guardianship, not a penal court.
Nothing that the child says can incriminate him in this court, because the object
of the court is his welfare. Socialization involves getting at the whole truth;
nothing that is true and relevant should be excluded. Socialization involves
cooperation, constructive discipline, and the dynamic concept as expressed in the
principle that an order in this court may be modified as life conditions are modi
fied.
FREQUENCY OF HEARINGS.
The more frequent the hearings, the shorter the detention periods
required. The number of regular hearings of delinquency cases
varied in the courts studied from one to five a week. In two of the
13 Proceedings of the Conference on Juvenile-Court Standards, pp. 55-64. U . S. Children’s Bureau
Publication N o . 97.
14 Such as aro authorized b y some juvenile court laws; for instance, the law in the District of Columbia.
15 Proceedings of the Conference on Juvenile-Court Standards, p. 69.
123
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
124
courts having full-time judges— those of Boston and Denver— delin
quency cases might be heard, as a matter of fact, at any time.16 In
some of the other courts, also, special hearings were held on other than
the regular days. The situation in the courts having only one hearing
for delinquency cases a week was unfortunate, since if a petition was
filed too close to a regular hearing for an investigation to be made, it
went over until the following week, and the child might be detained
as long as 9 or 10 days before the first hearing. Four courts had
special days for hearing delinquency cases and cases of neglect and
dependency; in six courts all children’s cases were heard as they
happened to come up, without separation according to type. In
the courts making special arrangements for dependency and neglect
cases such hearings were usually held once a week. It seemed to be
the prevailing opinion that it was not necessary to arrange special
times for cases of neglect and dependency if only those involved in a
case were present at the hearing and if proper provision were made
for those awaiting hearing. It was not, however, considered desirable
to hear adult cases and mothers’ pension cases at the same time as
children’s cases.
The plans for hearings in three of the courts studied are given
below:
A.—
Monday— Cases of dependency and neglect, and sometimes special
delinquency cases.
Friday— Delinquency cases.
Saturday— Mothers’ pension cases.
C ourt B.—
First hearings in new cases held every day in the week, with no division
as to type. Cases set for hearing or continued were set for the ap
propriate day.
Monday— New delinquency cases in the morning; girls’ cases in the
afternoon.
Tuesday— Delinquent boys’ cases from one section of city.
C ourt
Wednesday— Delinquent boys’ cases from a second section.
Thursday— Delinquent boys’ cases from a third section.
Friday— Neglect cases.
Saturday— Continued cases involving schoolboys, and special reports.
C ourt C.—
Monday— Adult cases.
Tuesday— Delinquency cases.
Wednesday— ‘ 'Destitute” cases.
Thursday— Adult cases; in the evening, special hearings, children or
adults.
Friday— Delinquency cases.
Saturday— Sometimes special hearings.
PRIV ACY OF H E A R IN G S.
The exclusion of the public from hearings of children’s cases is
generally recognized as a fundamental feature of juvenile-court pro
cedure. It is not sufficient, however, that the general public be ex
cluded; the best practice admits only those concerned in each case as
it is reached. Questions often arise in regard to admission of repre
sentatives of social agencies not concerned in the case, students, and
others having a general interest in the problems of the court. It is to
the advantage o f the court to permit acquaintance with its work that
w The District of CoJjimbia juvenile court in 1922 adopted the plan of preliminary hearings five mornings
a week for children who had been brought to the detention home on the previous day.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
HEARINGS.
125
will win the understanding and cooperation of the community. On
the other hand, the interests of the children and their parents m u s t,
be safeguarded. As one judge stated in discussing this question,
“ The smaller the court room, the simpler the problem.”
The practice in the courts varied from strictly private hearings in
the judge’s chambers, much of the time with not even the officers of
the court present, to the situation in two courts where the room was
crowded at each hearing with children and their parents, witnesses,
and others. In these two courts the hearings were in effect public,
except that merely curious onlookers usually were not present. In
one of these courts, however, the judge’s bench was at some distance
from the audience, and the hearing was conducted in such low tones
that the proceedings could not be overheard, except in the front of
the room.17
In some of the courts which endeavored to observe the plan of hav
ing only those in the room who were concerned in each case, the desire
on the part of those responsible for calling cases to expedite proceed
ings often resulted in persons concerned in a case being brought in
before the completion of the preceding case. Moreover, children
were often allowed to remain in the room during the cases following
their own, until it was convenient for one of the officers of the court
or of the detention home to come for them. In some courts the prac
tice was followed of having all the boys from the detention home re
main in the court room throughout the entire session.
In a few of the courts, including even some in which all the hearings
were practically limited to those directly concerned in each case, the
judge sometimes conducted certain types of hearings in his office, with
the idea that even greater privacy could thus be secured. In one of
these courts all cases involving children born out of wedlock who were
brought in as dependents and most of the cases involving sex offenses
were neard in this way. In contrast to the practice in this court was
the method in one court which held public hearings in all cases of des
titute children.17® In the two courts in which girls’ cases were heard
by women referees such hearings were much more private than were
the boys’ hearings.
PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AWAITING HEARING.
Except in the courts in which the children were in the court room
while awaiting their turns, the general plan was to have the children,
their parents, and witnesses in a general waiting room until their cases
were called. When the court and the detention home were in the
same building exceptions were sometimes made in the cases of children
who had been in detention; it was then possible to have such children
W^it in the detention home, and this plan was followed in several
courts. For the referee’s hearings in Los Angeles one room of the
detention home was used as a waiting room for boys, another as a
waiting room for girls, and children who had not been detained
awaited hearing in the lobby with their parents and the witnesses.
The District of Columbia court was the only one which had attempted
to provide means for occupying the children’s time while they were
P,riyate hearings in the ju d g j’s chambers have since been adopted in one o£.these cou-ts.
a Such hearings are now held (1924) in the judge’s chambers, and the children are present only for a
moment.
.
J
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
126
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
awaiting hearing. A room in the basement of the court building was
provided with tables, books, and quiet games, and here the boys from
the detention home remained under the supervision of an officer until
their cases were heard.
DELINQUENCY HEARINGS.
Juvenile-court laws have been generally upheld by the courts
against objections that they deprive children of due process of law;
they are not unconstitutional because of the informality of the pro
cedure followed under them.18 Juvenile-court procedure can not,
however, entirely eliminate the necessity for determining what the
child has done, for except in cases involving a charge that the child
is “ ungovernable’’ or “ Deyond the control of his parents,’’ petitions
in delinquency allege as evidence that the child comes within the defi
nition of the juvenile court law, specific acts which are in violation
of State laws or city ordinances. The court must satisfy itself that
the allegations in the petition are true. The proof under chancery
jurisdiction need not be proof beyond reasonable doubt, as criminal
procedure requires, but may be preponderance of evidence. Never
theless, juvenile-court judges are usually very careful in children’s
cases to have the facts well substantiated.19 If the child is found not
to have committed the act alleged in the petition the petition must be
dismissed, even though the investigation shows the child s habitual
conduct to be such that the court’s protection is required. A new
petition can, of course, be brought in such a case, stating the grounds
upon which the child may be considered to come within the provision
o f the juvenile-court laws.
The determination of the facts of the offense constitutes in most
cases the least difficult part of the hearing. In a number of the courts
studied it was said that at least nine-tenths of the children readily
admitted having committed the offense. The more important func
tion of the judge is to determine whether the child is in need of pro
tection or care and to decide what treatment is best adapted to his
needs. It is therefore apparent that strict adherence to legal forms
and technicalities of procedure has no place in juvenile-court hear
ings. Great diversity in methods of conducting hearings was en
countered in the courts studied. Although it is desirable that ex
change of experience should affect practice in the interest of better
adaptation of procedure to the end sought, it would be extremely det
rimental if an attempt were made to impose an inflexible plan upon all
courts. In the juvenile court there should always be room, for experi
mentation and variation of procedure.
Instead of summaries of the practice of the courts studied with ref
erence to specific points of procedure, descriptions of delinquency
hearings in several of the courts representing various types of pro
cedure are here presented.
Chancery procedure.
In the Denver court formal hearings in delinquency cases werg
held in the judge’s chambers. The judge and the clerk (a woman)
sal at a small table, and across the table, facing the judge, the child
is The Legal Aspect of the Juvenile C$urt, p. 9. TJ. S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 99.
i9 ]ror discussion of the weight of evidence required, see Proceedings of the Conference on Juvenile-Court
Standards, p. 59.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H
E A R IN
G
S .
127
was seated. . All witnesses in the case were usually present through
out the hearing. As a rule the probation officer who made the inves
tigation attended the hearing and often was called upon to state the
facts of the case. In cases brought by the police the officer assigned
by the police department to the juvenile court testified, and usually
the officer who had made the arrest was not present. A court reporter
was present only in serious cases that were likely to be contested.
No charge was read to the child, and no plea of guilty or not guilty
was received. Witnesses were not sworn except in serious, contested
cases. If the child was inclined to deny having committed the
offense, the judge spent a great deal of time trying to free him from
fear and win his confidence. The outstanding feature of this court
was the work of the judge with the child at the time of the hearing.
Occasionally-in cases of serious delinquency in which lawyers were
employed, witnesses were sworn and a stenographic record was made;
the judge in such a case dictated his decision, explaining at length
ms reasons for it. In girls’ cases only the judge, the woman proba
tion officer, the parents, and the girl were present.19“
The Denver hearing just described represents procedure under
chancery jurisdiction, when the court need not be hampered by
technicalities. Considerable variation was found, however, even
among courts operating under chancery practice. In the Minne
apolis court the hearing was conducted with greater formality than in
Denver; in San Francisco the court had less privacy. In some courts
•
— those in San Francisco and St. Louis, for instance— the children
and their parents were not seated during the hearing.
In the judge’s hearings (in cases of older boys) in Los Angeles all
concerned m thpcase were seated around a table. Besides the judge
and the parties interested, the clerk, the bailiff, the court reporter,
and the chief probation officer were present. In Seattle the judge
was seated in front of a flat-topped desk, and the child was seated
facing him at his left. The clerk of the court (a woman) and the
chief probation officer and other members of the probation staff were
present, and usually also representatives of the school-attendance
department. Parents and witnesses were seated a little distance
and facing the judge. The principal emphasis in
* if- ? earmg was placed on the social investigation, a summary of
which was read aloud by the judge. In girls’ cases, except for the
judge and the parties concerned, only women were present'—i. e., the
woman clerk and the superintendent of the detention home.
Quasi-criminal procedure.
In Buffalo, Boston, and the District of Columbia the procedure
was quasi criminal. Nevertheless, delinquency cases were heard
privately and in two of the three courts, very informally. In the
Buffalo hearings, which were held in the dining room of the detention
home, the judge was seated at a table with the stenographer at his left
j tlie ?hlef Probation officer near by. As the case was called the
child and parents were summoned from the adjoining room by the
"-court attendant. The child stood at the judge’s right hand and the
parents and witnesses were seated in front of the judge. The judge
i
n
c
u m e to tu n e .
^
e o u r ,( s t a t e s t h a t t h e g r e a t m a jo r it y o f g ir ls ’ c a s e s a n d o f s e r io u s c a s e s in v o lv -
<2 ? ? a a e n c 6
W lt b l i 1® 1u d £ e a lo n e , t h e o f fic e r s b e in g c a lle d i n f o r c o n s u lt a t io n fr o m
A l l c o n fid e n c e s a r e s a c r e d ly o b s e r v e d .
I c o n s id e r t h is t h e m o s t e f f e c t iv e w o r t w e d o ,”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
128
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
had before him the report of the investigation but did not refer to
it until after he had questioned the child and was satisfied as
to whether or not the child had committed the offense. He first
asked the child his name, age, the school attended, grade, and teacher.
Part of this questioning was for the purpose of bringing out essential
facts, but the main object was to establish a friendly relation with
the child. The child was then asked, in an informal way, whether or
not he had committed the offense. After he had given his story the
parents were questioned about conditions in the home and their
ability to control the child. If several children were involved they
were sometimes heard in a group, but usually the group hearing
followed individual hearings. In each case the judge tried to impress
upon the child and the parents what was expected of them.
Delinquency cases in Boston were heard in the judge’s office. The
judge was seated at a desk. The probation officer was the only
officer of the court who was present, and often he did not remain in
the room during the entire hearing. If the child had been arrested,
the police officer was present. The child stood at the judge’s right,
and the judge questioned him with reference to his age, grade in
school, and so forth. He then asked the child to tell him what hap
pened— why he was brought to court. The child usually told part
or all of the story, and-the judge questioned him closely, often taking
notes on what was said. The judge then asked the parents questions
and gave them an opportunity to make any statement they might
desire. The police officer was given a chance to relate the circum
stances, and if there were any other witnesses they were called in
from the waiting room and questioned. The child and parents
were then given an opportunity to question the police officer or other
witnesses. Under the Massachusetts law the child and the parents
had separate rights of appeal in delinquency cases, and it was neces
sary to inform them of this right at the time of adjudication.20
The judge, in making a finding of delinquency, used approximately
the following language:
I am going to find that what you did was wrong and was against the law and
that you are a delinquent child. You have a right to go to another court and
have another judge decide whether what I have found is right and what ought to
be done with you, or you may leave it to me to decide.
The child after some hesitation usually decided to leave the matter
in the hands of the judge, who thereupon informed the parents of
their right of appeal. If appeal was not taken the judge asked the
probation officer what he had learned about the child, and if the
information was incomplete— cases were often heard on the same
day the complaint was made— the case was continued for investiga
tion and often for study by the Judge Baker Foundation. If the
judge was fairly certain that he would place the child on probation
he often made this order at once, specifying a short probation
period during which the study of the case could be made. This
procedure made it unnecessary for the parents to be present at a
subsequent hearing, while a simple continuance necessitated their
coming a second time. The majority of cases, however, were con--tinued pending investigation.
so See p. 134-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H E A RIN G , JU V E N IL E COURT, ST. LOUIS, MO.
H EA RIN G , JU V E N IL E CO URT OF T H E D IS T R IC T OF CO LU M BIA
128—1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H E A R IN G , C H IL D R E N ’S CO U RT OF BUFFALO, N. Y
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H
E A R IN
G
S .
129
Delinquency hearings in the District of Columbia were held in the
judge’s chambers. The judge was seated at a desk, with either the
clerk of the court or the chief probation officer at her left. The
child was seated opposite the judge, and the parents and witnesses
were seated behind the child. The hearings were conducted more
formally than in any of the other courts studied. Children were
sworn and were required to answer “ guilty” or “ not guilty” to the
complaint. In cases of very young children a simple yes or no
answer to the question of whether the child committed the offense
was accepted.
HEARINGS IN GIRLS’ CASES.
In only three of the courts were girls’ cases heard by women, the
District of Columbia court having a woman judge and the Los
Angeles and San Francisco courts having women referees. Some of
the other courts had made special arrangements for hearing girls’
cases. In Buffalo the woman superintendent of the detention home,
and in Minneapolis one of the woman probation officers, was called
upon by the judge for assistance when it was necessary to secure
from the girls details which they would be reluctant to state to a
man. 20a Hearings in girls’ cases in the Seattle court were usually set
for a time when other cases had been disposed of, and only women
officers were present; the woman superintendent of the detention
home acted as special adviser to the judge in girls’ cases. In hearings
of girls’ cases in the District of Columbia all the court officers present
were women, and the police department was usually represented by
officers of the women’s bureau of that department.
The referee of the Los Angeles court heard all girls’ cases and cases
of boys under 13 years of age. The chairman of the probation com
mittee of the San Francisco court served as referee in all girls’ cases.
The judge was never present at girls’ hearings in Los Angeles but
passed upon all decisions. In San Francisco the judge sometimes
sat with the referee in difficult cases.
The referee’s hearings in Los Angeles were held in a small room in
the detention home. The referee was seated at a table, with the
supervisor of the girls’ department of the probation staff at her
right and the probation officer concerned in the case at her left.
A woman court reporter was always present, seated at one end of
the table; frequently a representative of the compulsory-education
and child-welfare department of the public schools attended the
hearing. The woman superintendent of the detention home acted
as bailiff and called the cases. Often the girl was brought in first,
and the referee talked with her before the parents and witnesses
came into the room. Parents and witnesses were sworn, but the
hearing was conducted very informally. The referee went into each
case very thoroughly, sometimes spending as much as two hours on
a single case.
The referee’s hearings in the San Francisco court were conducted in
a small room of the detention home. The referee and the probation
officer in charge of the girls’ department were the only officers of the
court present. The girl was first called in. After the referee had
20a In 1924 the Buffalo court was using in the disposition of girls’ cases a committee of five mature women,
composed of professional and lay social workers. The committee inquired into the facts of the case, inter
viewed the girl, and made recommendations to the judge.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
130
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
talked with her the parents were called in, and often the girl was
sent out of the room so that the referee might talk with the parents
alone. The girl and others interested were seated at the table
during the hearing.
DEPENDENCY HEARINGS.
In Denver, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Seattle hearings in
dependency cases (including cases of destitute and neglected children)
did not differ materially from delinquency hearings. The children
involved were present at the hearing but were sent from the room
if the nature of the evidence made their presence undesirable.
During neglect proceedings in St. Louis the children were always in
the building, but often they were not required to be in the court
room. At hearings of cases of adoption and change of custody the
St. Louis court did not always require the presence of the children.
In Boston and Minneapolis a private agency, and in the District
of Columbia a public child-caring agency, made the investigations in
neglect cases and presented the cases to the court. The Massachu
setts law requirea that the State department of public welfare be
notified in such cases, and a representative of that department was
present at the hearings. In the Boston court a representative of a
Catholic agency which cared for a large number of neglected children
was also present. An agent of the Massachusetts Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children presented the cases. The children
were not present except for a few moments at the time of arraign
ment, unless their physical condition was to be introduced as evidence.
Witnesses were sworn and were examined by the judge; they were
often cross-examined by the representative of the department of
public welfare. Many cases of neglect were continued for several
months or for a year, the children being placed in the custody of
a private agency and the child-protective agency being required to
report on the date to which the case haa been continued. The
parents were not required to be present at the hearings of continued
cases when no change of custody was to be made.
Neglect hearings in the Minneapolis court were similar to de
linquency hearings, except that agents of the Minneapolis Children’s
Protective Society who had made the investigations and had usually
filed the petitions took the place of probation officers. The children
were always present during the original hearing though they were
often taken out of the room while testimony was being presented.
The proceedings were conducted with some formality, even when the
facts were admitted, and a stenographic record of all sworn testimony
was made. If the parents retained counsel, an assistant county
attorney was called in to act for the State. In hearings of continued
cases the agency which had been given charge of the child reported
to the judge, through its agent, on the work that had been done,
the status of the case, and recommendations as to further action.
The children and parents were not required to be present at such
hearings.
The procedure in Minneapolis in dependency cases was practically
the same as for cases of neglect, except that dependency cases in
volving children born out of wedlock were handled in a special man
ner. Under the Minnesota laws many of these children were brought
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H
E A R IN
G
S .
131
before the juvenile court in dependency proceedings, adjudication of
dependency giving the court authority to place the child under the
general guardianship of an agency or institution which had power
to consent to adoption. The procedure was usually for the purpose
of preparing the way for adoption.
The county board of child
welfare, acting as the representative of the State, made investigations
in all such cases, saw that action was taken to determine paternity
whenever such proceedings were desirable and feasible, and assisted
in making arrangements whereby the mother and child could remain
together for at least part of the nursing period.
Dependency proceedings in Minneapolis were not initiated, in the
case of a child bom out of wedlock, until the child was 3 months of
age— usually not until he was older. The hearings were in chambers,
and the testimony was taken by the court reporter. All witnesses
were sworn. A representative of the city health department was
present with the child’s birth certificate and introduced the state
ment on the certificate as evidence. A representative of the county
child-welfare board was present, usually the person who had signed
the petition. She was questioned with reference to the steps that
had been taken to establish paternity. If paternity had not been
established and the reasons for failure to take action were not satis
factory to the judge, the case was continued. If the child had been
in a maternity home or under the care of a social agency a representa
tive of the agency accompanied the mother and child to court and
was present at the hearing. The “ consulting and court officer”
questioned the witnesses, and the probation officer in charge of
dependency and neglect cases was also present. The mother was
questioned with reference to the child’s paternity, her ability to
support the child, and her plans for him. If it appeared that the
child’s interests would be served best by having him placed for
adoption he was placed under the general guardianship of an agency,
which might be the State board of control, the State school for de
pendent children, a private child-protective agency, a maternity
home, or some other private agency.
Dependency hearings in the District of Columbia were public
and were conducted formally, the corporation counsel representing
the District.206 Agents of the Board of Children’s Guardians, who
made the investigations in these cases, testified as to the conditions
found. The children were brought in for 'h moment only, to be
identified.
.
.
Procedure in neglect cases in the San Francisco court was very
much the same as that in dehnquency cases involving boys. .County
aid was granted through the San Francisco court both to children
in their own homes and to children under the care of agencies and
institutions. On days when these cases were heard the court room
was usually crowded with mothers, babies, and older children.
The hearings were brief, as the judge nearly always followed the
recommendations made by the head of the family-relations depart
ment in conference with representatives of the three private child
caring agencies to which the children granted aid were committed
for supervision or for placement if they could not remain in their
own homes. The representatives of fhese agencies were present
206 Such hearings are now held in the judge’s chambers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
132
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
at the hearing. The judge questioned the children and the mothers
briefly and explained what would be required of the mothers in the
care of their children.
The Denver, Minneapolis, and Seattle courts had jurisdiction over
mothers’ pensions or county allowances to mothers with dependent
children.21 In Denver, where the judge had designated the Bureau
of Charities of the City and County of Denver as the agent of the
court in the investigation and supervision of these cases, the hearings
were very informal, only the mother and the representative of the
county bureau appearing before the judge. The presence of the chil
dren was not required. The representative of the bureau presented
the results of her investigation and her recommendation. The judge
explained to the mother the purpose of the law and of the supervision
which would be given. In cases of application for increase of pen
sion the mother’s presence was not required, but in cases of decrease
or discontinuance the mother was almost always present.
In hearings of county-allowance cases in Minneapolis the mothers
and other witnesses were usually examined by the chief probation
officer and the judge, testimony being given under oath. Sometimes,
however, if there was no point in controversy, the mother was not
examined by the judge, and action was based entirely upon the report
of the chief probation officer and the recommendations of the advisory
county-allowance board. The law provided that all findings and
orders might be made upon the written reports of official investi
gators with like effect as if based upon competent testimony given in
open court.22 In order to grant an allowance it was necessary to
adjudge the children dependent. If there was a difficult legal point
to be settled, involving the mother’s residence, for instance, a pre
liminary hearing was held prior to the investigation and that point
determined. Children were never required to be present in court in
county-allowance cases.
The mothers’ pension hearings in Seattle were private, and usually
neither the mother nor the children were required to be present.
Five members of the mothers’ pension department met with the judge
in his chambers, and he read the history and questioned the investi
gator. The stenographer of the department took notes and gave
them later to the clerk of the court. When a decision was made a
letter was written the mother telling her of the action taken. If a
difficult problem came*up or the mother was unresponsive she was
called before the judge.
JURY TRIALS.
In five of the courts jury trials were not permitted under the law
in children’s cases, and in four of these courts no cases of any kind
were tried b y jury. In the adult part of the Buffalo court, at the
request of the defendant, the trial might be by a jury of six. Jury
trials were not permitted under the California juvenile court law
unless the judge held the child not to be a fit subject for juvenilecourt procedure; in such a case the child might be proceeded against
in the criminal court. In San Francisco it was reported that there
21 County aid in San Francisco was divided between the court, as described above, and the widows’
Bnsion bureau.
MMinnesota, Laws of 1917, ch. 233, sec. 5, as amended b y Laws of 1919, chs. 328 and 333.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
HEARINGS.
133
had been only three cases of this kind since the establishment of the
court.
Jury trials in the District of Columbia court were in practice con
fined to nonsupport and bastardy cases. During the year ended
June 30, 1920, seven cases— six bastardy and one nonsupport—were
tried by jury. The law provides as follows:
In all prosecutions * * * in which, according to the constitution of the
United States, the accused would be entitled to a jury trial, the trial shall be by
jury unless the accused shall in open court expressly waive such trial by jury. In
all cases where the accused would not under the Constitution of the United States
be entitled to trial by jury, the trial shall be by the court without a jury, unless
in such of said last-named cases wherein the fine or penalty may be $50 or more,
or imprisonment as punishment for the offense may be 30 days or more, the
accused shall demand a trial by jury, in which case the trial shall be by jury .23
The law of the State of Washington provided as follows:
In all trials under this act, any person interested therein may demand a jury
trial, or the judge of his own motion, may order a jury to try the case.24
Jury trials were seldom demanded in Seattle. They were held in
the courthouse, since the juvenile-court room was too small to
accommodate a jury.
Serious cases in the St. Louis juvenile court were occasionally tried
by jury, though the number of jury trials was said not to average
more than one ay ear. The law provided that when a child stood charged
with violation of the criminal statutes of the State, trial by jury
might be demanded by the child, his parents, or any person standing
in loco parentis.25 Cases tried by jury were heard in the courthouse,
where the facilities were adequate for such trials.
In the Denver juvenile court a jury trial might be demanded in
any case,26 but it was reported that there had been only one or two
juvenile-delinquency jury cases in a period of seven years. Most of
the jury trials in the Denver court were in contested nonsupport
oases. Because the juvenile court was independent of any other court
system it was necessary to impanel a special jury.
In the Minneapolis court jury trials might be had upon demand27
but were seldom requested— not more than five or six times a year.
The jury trial was a civil proceeding and was conducted as such,
except that the judge thought it best to apply some of the rules of
evidence governing criminal cases. Rules of competency of evidence
were rigidly adhered to. The attendance of the public was restricted
in the same way as in other cases. Trial was by a jury of 12. In
his charge to the jury the judge explained briefly the nature of the
juvenile-court proceeding, stating that its purpose was the protection
and not the punishment of the child. After the verdict was returned
the judge called before him the persons interested; if the child was
found delinquent, the further procedure was exactly the same as the
procedure following adjudication of cases heard without jury.
23 34 Stat. 75. B y a 1922 decision in the case of United States v. Moreland (258 U . S. 433) the United States
Supreme Court held unconstitutional a provision permitting the District of Columbia juvenile court to
proceed b y information against a person neglecting or refusing to provide for the support and maintenance
of his minor children.
24 Washington, Remington’s C om p. Stat., 1922, sec. 1987-2.
25 Missouri, Rev. Stat., 1919, sec. 2592 (Laws of 1911, p. 177, sec. 2).
28 Colorado, Com p. Stat., 1921, secs. 607, 5506.
27 Minnesota, Laws of 1917, ch. 397. sec. 2.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
134
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
APPEALS.
In all the courts studied appeals might be taken, in some on matters
of law only, and in others on matters of law and fact. The Louisiana
Constitution provided that appeals should be allowed on matters of
law only and should be direct to the supreme court.28 The Missouri
law provided as follows:
An appeal shall be allowed to the child from any" final judgjnent of delinquency
or dependency or final order of commitment made under the provisions of this
article and from any modification of such order, and may be demanded on the
part of the child by its guardian, by either parent, or by its previous custodian,
or by any person within the fourth degree of kindred o f such child. * * *
P rov id ed , how ever, That such appeal shall be taken at the same term of the
court at which the order is made * * *.29
In none of the courts were appeals frequent. For instance, in
St. Louis it was stated that there had been only four or five appealed
cases in the last four or five years. Annual statistics secured from
court reports or court records showed for only two courts the number
of appealed cases— 1 pending on appeal at the end of the year in
Denver and 16 delinquency cases appealed in Boston. It is possible
that some of the reports listed appealed cases under the heading of
“ other” or “ pending,” or grouped them with other cases according
to the disposition made by the appellate court.
The Massachusetts law provided that a child adjudged a wayward
child or a delinquent child or a juvenile offender might appeal to the
superior court and that such child should, at the time of adjudication,
be informed as to his right of appeal.30 Appeal lay both from a
finding of delinquency and from commitment to an institution or
to the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare. Appeal could
not be taken after a suspended commitment had been accepted. In
neglect cases appeal lay only from the finding of neglect31 and was
taken to the superior court sitting for civil business. The law
prescribed the procedure in appealed cases as follows:
The appeal, if taken, shall be entered, tried and determined in like manner as
appeals in criminal cases, except that the trial of the said appeals in the superior
court shall not be in conjunction with the other business of that court, but shall
be held in a session set apart and devoted for the time being exclusively to the
trial of juvenile cases. This shall be known as the juvenile sessions of the superior
court and shall have a separate trial list and docket. All juvenile appeal cases in
the superior court shall be transferred to this list and shall be tried, unless other
wise disposed of by direct order of the court.
The Massachusetts law specified also that the superior court
before passing sentence or ordering other disposition should be sup
plied with a report of any investigation made by the probation officer
of the court from which the appeal was taken.
The Massachusetts practice of notifying the child and his parents
of the right of appeal in each case32 has resulted in appeals in a
larger number of cases than in courts in other States.. In the Boston
juvenile court in the year ended August 31, 1920, 16 delinquency
cases were appealed, or 1.7 per cent of the 952 cases of delinquency
and waywardness dealt with by the court during the year. Thirteen.
28
29
80
81
82
Louisiana, Constitution of 1913, art. 118, see. 1. Th e constitution of 1921 (Art. V I I , sec. 96) provides
that appeals shall be on questions of law and of fact to the criminal district court.
Missouri, R ev. Stat., 1919, sec. 2610 (Laws of 1911, p. 177).
Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, secs. 56, 81.
Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, sec. 47.
See p. 128.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
HEARINGS.
135
cases were appealed from an adjudication of delinquency, 1 from
commitment to the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare,
and 2 from commitment to an industrial school. All the cases were
set for hearing b y the superior court within the same month as that
in which the appeal was taken, or the month following. In 3 cases
the child failed to appear and was not found; 5 cases were placed on
file on recommendation of the district attorney; 1 case was placed on
file because the boy was serving the sentence from which the appeal
had been taken; 2 cases were placed on file by order of the court; in
1 case the appeal was withdrawn; and in only 4 cases was the child
placed on probation.33
Juvenile sessions of the superior court of Suffolk County, the
county in which Boston is located, were held about twice a month
at no fixed time but whenever it was convenient. The list of cases
was publicly posted in the clerk’s office. Sessions were held in the
main court room in the afternoon, and sometimes 12 or 15 cases were
heard at a single session. The court room Was cleared, and only
those interested in the particular case were present. Cases were
usually heard within a month, unless continuance was requested by
counsel, but it was stated that it was usually two or three months
before cases were finally.disposed of. Children under 14 unable to
furnish bail were usually cared for, pending hearing or continuance,
b y the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare. Jail deten
tion was rarely resorted to, it was stated, the probation officers
giving nominal surety if bail could not be furnished.
Records obtained from the lower courts gave the charge, plea,
finding, birthplace, residence, employer’s name, previous court
record, and other pertinent information. This information' was
sometimes supplemented by visits to home and school by a woman
probation officer attached to the superior court.
Cases of girls and school boys placed on probation by the superior
court of Suffolk County, Mass., were assigned to a woman probation
officer, and those of other boys were assigned to a man probation
officer. Each case assigned to the woman officer was reviewed in
advance of the hearing by the assistant district attorney and the
probation officer. These reviews were in reality informal hearings,
the parents, child, and interested parties being present. If the
evidence was insufficient, the offense trivial, or the child already on
probation, the district attorney recommended to the judge that the
case be filed without appearance. Such an order had to be signed
b y the judge, but the effect was practically the same as though the
case were nolle prosequied— a practice forbidden by a law passed in
1916. Prior to 1916 district attorneys, it was stated, had been
inclined to nolle prosequi cases too readily, thus leaving the children
without the protection and special care needed.
In the great majority of cases heard by the judge the child pleaded
guilty, and jury trials were rare. There was usually, but not always,
a plea of guilty before a case was filed. Fines were seldom imposed
in juvenile cases, and costs were never assessed, but restitution was
-said to be ordered frequently. Children were not committed to
institutions without a period of trial on probation. The probation
period was two years, but cases were often continued from four to
33Information compiled from court records.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
136
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
six months, the child being supervised by a probation officer. Occa
sionally girls’ cases were continued on condition that the girl be placed
in an institution.
In 1919 a total of 124 juvenile cases were appealed to the superior
court of Suffolk County, Mass. The dispositions in these cases
were as follows: Placed on file, 86; placed on probation, 31; fined, 4;
committed to State school, 3.34
The number of children on probation to the superior court was
usually between 30 and 40, though sometimes as high as 60. From
50 to 75 boys and only 2 or 3 gins were under the care of probation
officers during a year. The total number of probationers— adults
and children— under the supervision of the officer to whom girls
and school boys were assigned was 150. She stated that the chil
dren were visited either at home or at school, two or three times a
month. Probation histories were kept in loose-leaf notebooks.
The practice of allowing appeal in all cases, without limiting it
to appeal on matters of law, was felt to be undesirable by some of
those most familiar with juvenile-court work in Massachusetts.
The children whose cases were appealed were less likely than chil
dren dealt with wholly in the juvenile court to secure prompt treat
ment adapted to their needs.35
34
38
Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Prisons of Massachusetts for the Year 1919, p. 150. Boston, 1920.
On M a y 9, 1922, “ The New s About the Department,” issued b y the Massachusetts Department of
Public Welfare, contained the following item: “ In Suffolk County, District Attorney Thomas C . O ’ Brien
has taken up the consideration of cases appealed from the juvenile courts» and b y probation or otherwise
is disposing of many cases which were formerly dropped. The district attorney will give these cases his
personal attention. ”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H E COURT O R D ER .
ORDERS IN DELINQUENCY CASES.
Variations between courts.
The orders made by the court in the various classes of cases are
affected by the law, the facilities available to the court, and the
proportion of cases adjusted without formal court action. Because
of variations in these factors, differences in terminology, and lack
of uniformity in the compilation of statistics, it is impossible to
compare one court with another except in general terms and with
many qualifications.
The usual dispositions in delinquency cases are as follows:
1. Dismissal (upon hearing or after continuance unaccompanied by
probation order).
2. Order for restitution or reparation, and dismissal of case.
3. Probation, with or without an order for restitution or repara
tion.
4. Commitment to an agency, public or private.
5. Commitment to an institution.
a. State.
b. County or city.
c. Private.
In addition, costs are sometimes assessed, and courts of criminal
or quasi-criminal jurisdiction may impose fines.
In California and Washington the law provided for making the
children over whom the court desired to exercise control “ wards of
the court,” this wardship continuing during minority unless the
case was sooner dismissed or the control passed from the court to a
State institution to which the child had been committed. The
Seattle court sometimes adjudged children wards without placing
them under supervision— an order similar to the “ placing on file”
in other courts but perhaps conveying to the child and his family a
somewhat stronger sense of the court’s authority.
In six of the courts— those in Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Seattle, St. Louis, and the District of Columbia— a large proportion
of cases were adjusted informally; that is, without the filing of a
etition or complaint.36 Cases not requiring prolonged attention
y the court or the sanction of a formal order to secure the ends desired
were eliminated, and hence the proportion of dismissals was smaller
and the proportion of commitments in cases in which formal action
was taken was increased.
E
Dism issal.
- The Denver court dealt with a large proportion of cases informally,
and only about 9 per cent of the formal cases were dismissed upon
86
See Cases adjusted without formal court action, p. 109.
80306°— 25t------ 10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
137
138
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
hearing or were continued indefinitely. In the Buffalo court, on
the other hand, a court which did practically no informal work,
half of the cases were discharged or dismissed. In Minneapolis 9
per cent were dismissed at hearmg and 16 per cent after continuance.
In St. Louis 39 per cent of the formal cases were dismissed or “ con
tinued generally,” 37 while in, San Francisco the percentage so dis
posed of was 58. In the District of Columbia 39 per cent, in New
Orleans 32 percent, and in Boston 27 per cent of the cases were
dismissed, discharged, placed on file, or continued.38 The relatively
high proportion of dismissals in San Francisco, where a large number
of cases were handled informally, was probably due to the practice
of placing cases on file after short continuances if successful ad
justments appeared to have been made. The proportion of delin
quency cases dismissed or placed on file was not obtained for the
Los Angeles or Seattle court, but for these courts and for the others
also statements of policy were obtained in the course of interviews
with the judge and members of the probation staff.
The officers of the Los Angeles court stated that very few cases were
dismissed upon hearing but that many cases coming before the
judge were placed “ off calendar” and later dismissed if no report
of further trouble was received. This procedure was particularly
common in traffic cases, in which bail was usually required and was
often ordered refunded at the time of dismissal. The referee some
times continued a case and ordered the child to report in court at a
specified time. If conditions were then found to be satisfactory
the case was dismissed. The judge sometimes continued a case for
a specified period— usually six months— and released the child in
the custody of the parents during good behavior. If no adverse
report was made the case was dismissed at the end of the period.
The same order with a direction that the child be under the super
vision of a probation officer was sometimes used and constituted in
effect an order for short-time probation.
Seattle court statistics made no distinction between formal and
informal cases. About two-fifths of the cases before the court in
1919 were dismissed or were entered as disposed of under the head
ing “ Parents and child advised.” Very few formal cases were
dismissed or continued indefinitely. Most of the cases in which
parents and children were “ advised” were cases handled without
formal court action.
The Minneapolis court dismissed cases upon hearing if the evidence
was not sufficient or if it was established that the child was not
delinquent. If the child was found to have committed an offense,
but i f it was trivial or if supervision was not believed to be needed,
the case was continued without probation to a given date, six months
or a year from the time of hearing. The judge in such a case told
the child that he was making a memorandum to the effect that the
facts warranted adjudication but that if the child got into no further
87
The phrases “ continued generally,” used'in St. Louis, “ placed off calendar,” used in San Francisco,
and “ placed on file” or “ continued subject to call,” used in some of the other courts, all mean that the
child was allowed to go without-any supervision from the court but that the case could be reopened at
any time that report of misconduct b y the child was brought to the attention of the court.
The figure for the District of Columbia includes the following cases: Dismissed with warning; dis
missed for want of prosecution; dismissed for want of jurisdiction; adjudged not guilty; continued subject
to call; nolle prossed; proceedings discontinued; sentence suspended,
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H E COURT ORDER.
139
trouble the case would be dismissed without adjudication on the
date specified.
Many trivial cases before the Buffalo court were dismissed or
discharged upon hearing, frequently with reprimand. A great many
cases of trespass on railroad property or theft from railroads were
disposed of in this way. In New Orleans at the time of the study
cases were discharged if they were trivial or if the judge thought
the promise of good behavior would be effective. The St. Louis
court discharged or dismissed very few cases of violation of State
laws, but the great majority of cases of violation of city ordinances
were reported as being disposed of in this way. In Boston cases of
children committing trivial offenses— stone throwing, window break
ing, peddling, “ gaming,” etc.—were often placed on file, with or
without a finding of delinquency, and might be taken from the file
at any time.
Fines and costs.
A fine is a penalty and as such is usually considered to have no
place in juvenile-court procedure.39 Juvenile courts operating under
quasi-criminal procedure, however, have a right to impose fines,
and some of the courts of chancery jurisdiction included in this
study had made use of expedients comparable to fines in certain
cases, believing that the imposition of a small money penalty was
the best means of awakening the child and his parents to the serious
ness of the offense. Since the juvenile court has been established to
render service to children and there are no parties defendant the
cost of proceedings should, it is generally agreed, be borne b y the
State or the community. In some of the courts, however, it was
found that costs were sometimes assessed, though usually for the
urpose of discipline, as it was believed that a fine would impress
oth the children and the parents.
In the Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle courts fines or
costs were never imposed in children’s cases. The District of
Columbia court had power to impose fines but seldom exercised it,
only three cases being thus disposed of in the year 1919-20.
In Denver costs were never assessed in children’s cases and very
rarely in cases of adults. Technically fines were not imposed, but
the court had a plan, sometimes used in cases adjusted without
court hearing, whereby in certain types of cases, such as catching
rides on cars, the boy paid from $1 to $5, which was refunded if he
did not repeat the offense and forfeited if he did. When forfeited,
the money, with the b oy’s consent, was given to a welfare organiza
tion. Sometimes as much as $10 was assessed in this way. The
plan had been found to be very successful in reducing the number of
cases of jumping on moving railroad cars. The boy was expected
to earn the money, but the parents might pay if the boy did not
have it.
The Los Angeles court never imposed fines or assessed costs, but
in all traffic cases the police required bail of $3 to $25. The bail
was sent by the police to the bookkeeper of the probation office,
who deposited it with the county treasurer. Frequently at the
hearing the judge placed the case “ off calendar” (i. e., continued the
E
® See The Legal Aspect of the Juvenile Court (U- S. Children’s Btireau Publication N o . 99), p. 9, foot
note 7.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
140
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
case indefinitely) and determined whether the hail should be re
turned to the child or forfeited. If the child could not furnish bail
the parents were permitted to do so, and the amount was usually
returned if the judge thought it would be a hardship on the parents
to forfeit it. For a second offense the permit to operate a motor
vehicle was taken away. It must be borne in mind in this connection
that the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles court was exclusive to 18
years and concurrent to the age of 21, so that many older boys were
brought in for traffic violations.
In St. Louis in 192Q fines or costs were imposed in 17 out of 1,708
cases— approximately 1 per cent. Fines were imposed only in cases
of violation of city ordinance and even in such cases very rarely.40
Costs were determined in each case, the court operating under the
fee system for the issuance and service of papers, but the costs were
usually borne by the city. Sometimes the children were ordered to
pay one-half or one-third of the costs, which varied from $2 to $5.
Parents were expected to pay the costs when assessed if the children
could not.
Fines were never imposed by the Boston juvenile court, but “ costs ”
were often assessed. Unlike the practice in St. Louis, they were not
estimated on the basis of actual cost to the court "but were imposed
for the purpose of making the child and his parents recognize their
responsibility to society. They were in the amount of f l , $2, $3,
$5, $10, or sometimes even more, and they might be paid in install
ments. If the child was working, the judge insisted that the amounts
come from his earnings. They were not assessed if the judge thought
the family was so poor that to pay them would be a hardship. Often
the case was continued for two weeks for the purpose of determining
whether the family was able to pay. • Costs might be assessed either
with or without an order for probation. In 1919-20 costs were as
sessed in a total of 275 cases, or 29 per cent of the 936 delinquency
cases in which information as to disposition was obtained by repre
sentatives of the Children’s Bureau. An. order for probation accom
panied the order for the payment of costs in 117 cases. In almost
half the cases in which payment of costs was ordered the amount
was under $3, and in less than one-tenth of the cases was the amount
$10 or over. In the calendar year 1920 a total of $963.40 was col
lected as “ costs.” 41
Fines were imposed in the Buffalo court in amounts of $1 or $2
for such offenses as burglary, petit larceny, theft from railroads, and
train riding. In 1920 fines were imposed in 92 of 1,176 delinquency
cases, or 8 per cent.41® The main object of the fine, the judge stated,
was to impress the parents with the gravity of the offense. Steal
ing coal from railroad cars was a great problem in Buffalo, and the
imposition of a fine of $2 or $3 for $1 worth of coal taken was found
to impress the parents and the neighbors. Fines might be paid
in installments, and the children were frequently placed on proba
tion until the fines were paid. If the financial condition of a family
was such that a fine would be a hardship, it was not imposed. •
40
N o commitments could be made in city ordinance cases except for failure to pay fine.
« Statistics of County Finances for the Year Ending December 31, 1920, Division of Accounts, Depart
ment of Corporations and Taxation, Boston, pp. 22-23.
410In 1923 fines were imposed in only 34 (3 per cent) of the 973 delinquency cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TH E COURT ORDER.
141
Restitution and reparation.
Restitution for property taken or reparation for damage done was
ordered occasionally by two courts and somewhat more frequently
by eight. A restitution order was often accompanied by placing
the child on probation, but in some cases it was felt that the pay
ment of money as restitution or reparation was a sufficient lesson to
the child and that prolonged supervision by the court was unnecessary. In such cases an order for restitution or reparation accom
panied a suspended sentence or a continuance. If the child was
working he was expected to make restitution or reparation out of
his own earnings and might pay in installments. The following
are statements of policy with reference to restitution or reparation
in two of the courts studied:
In Minneapolis the judge laid great stress on restitution or repara
tion if the child was of sufficient age to earn the money; the child
was expected to pay out of his earnings, and the amount might be
paid in installments. In cases of younger children such payments
were not usually required, though the judge sometimes advised the
parents to make good the damage. The court discouraged the mak
ing of complaints simply for the purpose of obtaining restitution.
Restitution or reparation was frequently required by the Boston
court when property had been stolen or injury done, and might be
paid in installments. A provision of the Massachusetts law reads
as follows:
If, in adjudging a person a delinquent child, the court finds, as an element of
such delinquency, that he has committed an act involving liability in a civil
action, and such delinquent child is placed on probation, the court may require
as a condition thereof, that he shall make restitution or reparation to the inj'ured
person to such an extent and in such sum as the court determines.42
The judge sometimes required the payment of money as ^ atone
ment ’ for the wrong done, when restitution or reparation was not
involved; money so collected was paid to charitable agencies, the
children being allowed to select the agency to which it should be
given.
Orders for restitution or reparation were made by-most of the courts
in relatively few cases. For instance, in Buffalo in 1920 such orders
were made in 4 per cent of the cases and in the District of Columbia
in 1919-20, in less than 3 per cent. The Seattle court reported $400
collected as restitution in 1920.* In Boston in 1919-20, restitution,
reparation, atonement, or forfeiture was ordered in 94 cases in which
costs were not assessed and in 33 cases in which payment of costs
was ordered. For the year 1920 the chief probation officer of the
Boston court reported $1,960.57 collected as restitution, $46 for
reparation, and $205.92 for atonement.43
Continuances.
Reference has already been made to the use of continuances during
good behavior or pending the payment of fines or costs, restitution,
or reparation. Many cases are of course continued for short periods
_jn order to secure more information about the child, to give oppor
tunity for physical and mental examinations, or to get in touch with
relatives, make arrangements for the return of runaway children to
4f Massachusetts, General Laws, 1921, ch. 119, sec. 62.
140, footnote 41.
43See p.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
142
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
their parents, or perform other services of like nature. Further dis
cussion of the policies of the courts with reference to continuances
will be limited to the San Francisco court, which had developed the
use of short-term continuances with a certain amount of supervision
as a method of utilizing probation for those children only who gave
promise of benefiting by it.
The development in San Francisco of the plan of using continuances
for short periods of supervision pending decision as to final disposi
tion was based upon the theory (1) that the officers could be held
more successfully to prompt, decisive action at the beginning of the
case if they had to report to the court after a short period than if
they were given an indefinite time to show results through an order
placing the child on probation; and (2) that constructive probation
work could be stimulated and the officers made to feel that they were
securing results if probation were limited to cases in which, after
careful study and, if it seemed necessary, after a trial period, the
decision was reached that a fair chance of success under probation
seemed to be indicated. Continuances with supervision were not
used, of course, where probation seemed from the beginning to be
the logical order for the court to make. In the boys’ department
at the time of the study about 5 per cent of the cases were carried
on the “ continued calendar.” The girls’ department not only
carried cases on a “ continued calendar” but bad also a “ reserve
calendar” of cases. These were cases in which reports to the court
were required every three months, supervision being given by the
probation officers. The plan was developed in order to provide for
feeble-minded girls who could not be placed immediately in the
State institution for the feeble-minded and who could not be received
in other institutions. While such cases were in effect probation
cases the plan had the merit of keeping constantly before the court
and the staff the problem of the mentally defective and at the same
time of confining the group of children on probation to those with
whom the probation officers might achieve a large percentage of
success.
Probation.44
The proportion of formal cases in which the child was placed on
probation was naturally affected by the number of cases adjusted
informally or continued without a.probation order. Some judges
endeavored to select for probation only promising cases, and others
used probation for all cases in which no other disposition was immedi
ately indicated. The smallest percentage of formal cases in which
probation was ordered was found in New Orleans 45 (8 per cent),
while the largest percentages were in Boston 45 (45 per cent) and
Minneapolis46 (44 per cent). In the District of Columbia the per
centage of probation cases was 38, in Denver 34, in St. Louis 32,
and in San Francisco 15.46 For Buffalo and Seattle it was impossible
to obtain separate percentages for dependent and delinquent chil
dren; the percentage for all cases in 1920 was 22 in the former
44For a discussion of methods of probation see p. 161.
46 D ata obtained by representatives of the Children’s Bureau.
46Reports of the courts (in manuscript). In the District of Columbia the percentage Of probation cases
in the year ended June 30,1924, was 30.3.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TH E COURT ORDER.
143
and 16 in the latter.47 In the District of Columbia, Denver, San
Francisco, and Seattle a large proportion of cases were adjusted
informally, so that only the more serious cases came formally before
the court.
Statistics for the Los Angeles court can not be compared with
those for the other courts for the reason that in Los Angeles the
policy was to adjudge as wards of the court nearly all children whose
cases were not dismissed or who were not committed to State institu
tions. In some cases children were placed on probation on a continu
ance order for six months or a year, without the court’s having
declared them wards. The majority of the wards were on probation,
but a considerable number were cared for in private institutions of
various types. The statistics published by the court made no
distinction between children who were under the care of the court
by reason of dependency and those who had been delinquent.
_Qf 1,787 new cases filed in the Los Angeles court in 1919, 1,294,
or 72 per cent, were under the supervision of the court in their own
homes or in other family homes or institutions at the end of the year.48
Interesting differences in the comparative frequency with which
probation was used in boys’ and in girls’ cases were found. In four
courts a larger proportion of girls than of boys were placed on proba
tion, and in two a larger proportion of boys than of girls. ' The pro
portions of boys and of girls were about the same in one court;
in one court separate statistics regarding boys and girls were not
available; and in two courts the statistics for dependency and delin
quency cases were combined.
Commitment to child-placing agencies.
Public agencies which placed delinquent children in family homes
or in institutions were available to four of the courts. The Minne
apolis court sometimes committed children to the Minnesota State
Board of Control, which placed them in institutions or otherwise
provided for them. This order was, however, infrequent. The
court in the District of Columbia often committed delinquent children
to the Board of Children’s Guardians, either for definite, relatively
short periods, or during minority. Only children under 16 could
be committed to the board. In 1919—20, of 1,641 delinquency cases,
154 (9 per cent) were committed to the board as compared with 146
(9 per cent) committed to the national training schools.48® The
court had no power to commit to other institutions. The children
were placed by the board in free or boarding homes or in institutions.
The Boston court had authority to commit children to the Massa
chusetts Department of Public Welfare, to be placed in boarding,
free, or wage homes by the division of child guardianship of that
department, which had the right to transfer delinquent children to
the State training schools. Children having settlement in Boston
might be committed to the Boston Institutions Department, to be
placed in family homes. In 1919-20, in only 4 of the 952 cases of
47
N inth Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Buffalo, p. 17, and the Seattle Juvenile-Court Report
-for the Years 1920-1921, p. 13. The Seattle figures included cases dealt with formally and cases adjusted
without court action. In 1922 the percentage was 17 and in 1923, 11. In Buffalo in 1923 the percentage
placed or continued on probation was 19.
Annual Report Los Angeles County Probation Department for the Year Ending December 31,1919,
p. 3. Los Angeles, 1920.
In the year ended June 30,1924, of 1,904 official delinquency cases in the District of Columbia, 133 (7
per cent) were committed or returned to the Board of Children’s Guardians (93 of the commitments being
temporary), as compared with 129 (6.8 per cent) committed or returned to the national training schools.
48
480
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
144
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
delinquency before the court were the children committed to the
State department, and no commitments were made to the city.49
“ Wayward children’ ’— a class between the delinquent and the
neglected provided by the Massachusetts law— could not be com
mitted to institutions but might be committed to the State or the
city child-placing department.
The Buffalo court might commit children to the city commissioner
of charities for home placement. This order, however, was made
usually only in cases of destitution or improper guardianship.
Working boys or school boys 14 or 15 years of age were sometimes
committed by the Buffalo court to. the children’s aid society. They
remained in the receiving home of this agency for a time and were
then placed in family homes. The Seattle court in 1921 committed
children to a home-finding society in 44 cases— 3 per cent of all the
dependency and delinquency'cases that came to the attention of
the court. The Los Angeles court in 1919 placed 20 children in care
of a home-finding society, 3 of them under temporary commitments.
It is probable that most, if not all, of these children were dependent.
Some of the courts utilized child-placing agencies for the care of
children on probation who needed to be provided for away from
their own homes. Such a disposition was not an official court order
but was an informal arrangement, made usually by the probation
staff. For instance, the Boston Children’s Aid Society had devel
oped a highly specialized placing-out service for a limited number
of delinquent boys on probation recommended for such care by the
Judge Baker Foundation. Other agencies also performed somewhat
similar service for delinquent boys or girls on probation. In Los
Angeles, and to a lesser extent in seven other courts, the probation
officers sometimes placed in family homes children needing such
care.50
Commitment to public institutions.
State institutions available.— State training schools for boys (or in
the District of Columbia, a national training school) were available
to eight of the courts, and State (or national) training schools for
girls were available to nine courts. In three of the States there was
but one State training school to which the court might commit a
delinquent boy. Two of these courts, however, had available a
county school to which the younger and less seriously delinquent
boys in need of institutional care were usually sent. Massachusetts
had two State schools for boys, one for those under 15 years of age
and the other for those 15 to 17 years of age, inclusive. Boys might
be transferred from the former to the latter, and one parole depart
ment served both institutions. A somewhat similar situation existed
in California, where one State school received boys under 16, and
another received boys between the ages of 16 and 21 years. Here,
also, children might be transferred from the former to the latter.
The Buffalo court could commit delinquent or ungovernable boys
12 years of age or above to a State institution in the western part
of the State, and for violation of probation it could send boys 16 to 18
years of age to an institution in the eastern part of the State which
received boys of all ages from the eastern district. Missouri had
« Information obtained from court records.
6° See The administrative work of the court,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
p. 216.
TH E COURT ORDER.
145
no State training school for boys, but delinquent boys of any age
might be committed to a reformatory which received men under the
age of 31 years. A city institution for delinquent boys was avail
able to the St. Louis court.
In Louisiana the State training institute, a reformatory, received
a few of the older white boys committed by the New Orleans court
for felonies or repeated misdemeanors. A city institution was avail
able for other children in whose eases commitments were made.
To each court but one (that in New Orleans) a State training school
for girls was available, and the St. Louis court made commitments
to two such institutions— one for white girls and one for colored.
The Seattle court sometimes committed older girls suffering from
venereal disease to the “ Women’s Industrial Home and Clinic,” an
institution for girls and older women with venereal disease, to which
commitments were indeterminate, with a maximum of three years.51
The courts in California were conditioned in their commitments by
the fact that the State school was unwilling to receive tuberculous,
syphilitic, or feeble-minded girls. Moreover, the capacity was limited,
and each county was assigned a quota which could not be exceeded.
In the State of Washington, also, admission to the State school was
limited to girls of sound health and mind. This institution occa
sionally received dependent as well as delinquent girls, and the
dependent children were not separated from the delinquent.
County or city institutions available.— In one of the communities
studied a county school for delinquent boys, and in three a city
school, was maintained. The county school to which the Min
neapolis court committed boys was under the joint management of
the judge and the county commissioners and was in reality part of
the probation system. This school, located about 14 miles from
Minneapolis, received delinquent boys of juvenile-court age; occa
sionally neglected boys were boarded there, with the consent of the
judge, by the children’s protective society. The capacity of the
institution was 54, and the children were housed in three cottages.
The school had considerable acreage of wooded and farm land.
Like the Hennepin County (Minnesota) school in purpose but
under the management of the school department, was the Boys’
Parental School of Seattle, situated on an island in Lake Washington
and accommodating 115 boys, all of whom were committed by the
juvenile court. Boys living in the county outside the city were cared
for at the expense of the county. School boys under 16 (and under
the part-time school law, those under 18 who were habitual truants
or incorrigible) were received. Boys could not be committed to this
institution for offenses punishable by confinement in a penal institu
tion. Occasionally dependent boys were committed to the school,
but in such cases, in addition to dependency, some element of delin
quency was usually present. The school, consisting of three d o r
mitories, a school building, shops, and farm buildings, occupied 180
acres, practically all of the land being under cultivation. Military
drill every day and band practice twice a week, schooling, farm and
industrial work, and recreation, made up the program of training.
Located on the banks of the Missouri River some distance from St.
Louis, Beliefontaine Farms had recently been built by that city to
6i
This institution has since been closed because of the failure of the legislature to make appropriations*
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
146
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
take the place of an old industrial school of the congregate type.
Eight cottages, accommodating 30 boys each, a combined receiving
cottage and hospital, an administration building, and a chapel and
recreation building were in use at the time the study was made, and
other cottages were planned. Delinquent boys of juvenile-court age
were committed to this institution by the court, which had available
no other institution for delinquent boys except the State reform school
for boys and men. School and farm work and recreation comprised
the program of the school. No industrial work had as yet been
provided.51®
The city school for boys in New Orleans was a congregate institu
tion, one building being used for white and one for colored boys, and
served the court both as a detention home and as the only public
institution, aside from the State reformatory, to which delinquent
boys could be committed. Sixty white and 80 colored boys were
cared for at this institution, which was under the management of the
commissioner of public works. Aside from the school work, for which
public-school teachers were assigned, nothing constructive was done
for the children in this institution.
Except for the occasional use of the detention home for short-term
commitments and of municipal hospitals for the care of sick children,
the other six courts included in the study had access to no local public
institution for the care of delinquent boys. To all these six, however,
State schools were available. Boston had formerly had both a city
parental school for the institutional care of truants and a county
school to which delinquent children might be committed. It had
been found desirable to close the former in 1914 and the latter in
December, 1920.
County or city schools for delinquent girls were available to three
of the courts. The county school for girls in Minneapolis and
the girls’ parental school in Seattle were under the same management
as the corresponding schools for boys and occupied similar places in
the community’s program for the care of delinquent children.
In Seattle a new building was nearly ready for the occupancy of the
girls’ parental school, which had been using an old frame house and
several portable cottages. The new institution occupied 10 acres
on the lake shore. The building, two stories, with full basement and
attic, included 22 single rooms for the girls in addition to the hospital
wing, which had operating rooms and seven single rooms. The popu
lation of the school at the time of the study was 34. Commitments to
it have increased somewhat since the completion of the new building.
School work, housework, gardening, and recreation comprised the
daily program. Like the Seattle boys’ school, the institution was
under the supervision of the attendance department of the public
schools, and girls were received only on commitment from the
•juvenile court.
A unique experiment in the reeducation of delinquent girls was
being made by the Los Angeles juvenile court. “ El Retiro” was
established in 1919 by the county board of supervisors and was con
sidered a branch of the detention home (Juvenile Hall) so far as~
finances and administration were concerned. Built originally as a
sanitarium for convalescing tuberculous patients, it is described by
A'sim ilar institution for delinquent girls was to be opened about Oct. 1,1924. It occupies approxi
mately 140 acres and is on the cottage plan. It will be called tbe Meramec H ills School for Girls,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT ORDER.
147
the first superintendent as hidden in an olive grove near the moun
tains and as giving physical expression to the idea of adjustment
and of the restoration of the girl to confidence in normal life.52 At
the time of the study it accommodated 30 girls and in 1923 cared for
about 50. These girls were selected after careful çtudy at the de
tention home and were not committed as wards of the court but
were “ permitted to go to El Retiro until further order.” After a
period of trial they were either accepted by the El Retiro Association—
the student body of the institution— or were rejected and had to be
provided for by the court in some other way. Under the guidance of
those in charge, thé spirit of loyalty to the group and the sense of
individual responsibility for carrying out the project which was as
signed each girl, after careful study and conference, formed the basis
for later readjustment to community life. A club was maintained
in Los Angeles for graduates of the school who worked in the city
and could not live at home. The club housed 20 girls and served as
a clubhouse for all El Retiro graduates. A field secretary was
employed and lived at the clubhouse.
The six courts having detention homes under their management
used these homes for the care of children during continuances, and
in some cases the purpose of the continuance was to provide a short
period of discipline for children who were to be placed on probation.53
Children awaiting admission to other institutions were cared for in
the detention homes, and in Los Angeles and San Francisco girls
with venereal disease were thus cared for during long periods, their
cases being continued until it was safe for them to be returned to
the community.
None of the courts sttidied used commitment to jail as a method
of disposition, but one of the courts occasionally suspended sentence
to an institution on condition that the boy serve from 10 to 30 days
in j ail. This method was used only in cases of boys 14 years of age
and over and chiefly in cases of automobile theft or joy riding. The
boys were usually kept with the “ trusties.”
Policy governing commitments.— Commitments to State institutions
were seldom made without a period of trial on probation. In fact, in
Los Angeles, the order of commitment to State institutions usually
read “ John Doe, having failed on probation * * *.” The judge of
the Boston juvenile court stated that since the establishment of the
Judge Baker Foundation for the study of the children dispositions had
become more certain, and that commitments to State institutions
without a preliminary trial period were made in serious cases upon the
recommendation of the foundation. Particularly in cases in which
home conditions are such that the child must be provided for elsewhere
a period of probation is often impossible. Many courts utilize for such
cases intermediate institutions— county, city, or private— or place
ment in private homes b y child-caring agencies. The school for girls
under the court’s management and several private institutions for
boys met this need in Los Angeles County, and children were seldom
committed to State institutions without trial on probation or in one
of these intermediate institutions. In San Francisco the first step
in the treatment of a delinquency case was usually a continuance
62 Van Waters, M iriam : “ Where girls go right.”
Survey Graphic, June, 1922, p. 363. See also E l Retiro:
The N ew School for Girls, b y the same author. California State Board of Health, Sacramento, 1920.
63 See p. 56.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
148
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
or several continuances; the second, probation at home; the third,
foster-home care or commitment to private institutions, of which
there were a number suited to cases of various types; and the fourth,
commitment to a State institution. In several of the courts it was
stated that commitment to institutions without a period of trial on
robation was more frequent in the cases of girls than in those of
oys, since institutional care was often necessary for girl sex offenders
whose home conditions were unfavorable.
The commitments to State schools were usually minority commit
ments, the schools retaining custody until the child reached the age
of 21 years. In Minnesota children committed to the State schools
were subject to the guardianship of the State board of control. The
St. Louis court often committecf girls to the State schools for a period
ending with the eighteenth birthday (though it might commit them
to stay until they were 21) and sometimes made commitments for
two or three years. Practice varied with reference to the term of
commitment to city and county schools. The Minneapolis court
usually made such commitments indeterminate, though in boys’
cases the understanding was usually that the boy would be released
in three months if his conduct was satisfactory; boys, sent to the
county school for stealing automobiles were committed for definite
terms, usually 10 days. Girls usually remained in the county school
in Minneapolis for three to six months. The Seattle commitments to
the parental schools were indeterminate. In St. Louis commitments
to the city school for delinquent boys were of three types: Division
I, 1 to 2 years; Division II, 6 months to 1 year; and Division III, 1
day to 180 days. The last division was used for runaway and home
less boys and for boys 16 years of age or over.53“ The school could not
retain control over the boys after they had reached the age of 17 years.
The usual length of stay in the New Orleans institution was six
months.
E
Commitment to private institutions.
Four of the courts utilized to some extent private institutions for
the care of delinquent boys, and all the courts but one utilized such
institutions for the care of delinquent girls. The juvenile courts of
the District of Columbia and of Boston had no power to commit
delinquent children to private institutions, but certain institutions
in Boston were receiving without commitment girls who were on
irobation, the probation officer retaining responsibility for them,
n the District of Columbia a policy recently adopted by the juvenile
court has been to defer commitment in certain cases of delinquent
children who would otherwise be committed to the Board of Children’s
Guardians, on condition that the parents place the children in suitable
private institutions and pay board for them.
The courts of Boston, Denver, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Seattle
did not send delinquent boys to private institutions, but all these
courts sometimes sent delinquent girls to the House of the Good
Shepherd, which usually received them free of charge on court com
mitments. In St. Louis a junior department of the House of the
Good Shepherd was maintained for the younger girls. Protestant
girls were not committed to these institutions unless their parents
so requested. In two of these five cities a Florence Crittenton Home
i
Mo in 1924 the court was committing boys only for two-year periods.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT ORDER.
149
and in one a home maintained by a church young people’s society
received delinquent girls from the court. In Boston a private society
received from the court girls who were on probation and cared for
them for periods of about a year in a small home accommodating 13.
Here they received school instruction and training in domestic
science and gardening and were taught to be self-reliant and to assume
responsibility. After they left the home they remained under the
supervision of the society. Another small institution in Boston
specialized in the care of delinquent girls between the ages of 12 and
16 years, giving them training in academic subjects, sewing, and
household service. Still another society which maintained a tempo
rary home and a second home where girls remained six months or
more cared for girls and women between the ages of 15 and 23 years,
giving them instruction in housework, basketry, and sewing.
The New Orleans court depended entirely upon private institutions
for the care of delinquent girls. The House of the Good Shepherd
received white and colored girls of all ages and of any religious faith.
An industrial school for colored children which received a yearly
appropriation from the city cared for young colored girls and boys
who had not been seriously delinquent.
The Buffalo, Los Angeles, an'd San Francisco courts had access to
more private institutions than the others included in the study.
Protestant boys in Buffalo might be sent with the consent of their
parents to an industrial farm in another city, where they often
remained for several years, the parents in most cases paying hoard.
The institution had a capacity of 100 and preferred to take boys be
tween the ages of 10 and 12 years who had not been seriously delin
quent. A large congregate institution caring for 1,600 Catholic
boys from all over the United States was located in Buffalo and
received children from the Buffalo court. This institution admitted
boys under the age of 14 years only; truants were received from the
school department without court commitment. Private institutions
for delinquent girls in Buffalo were the House of the Good Shepherd
and a training school under the same management which received
girls under the age of 16 years who had not been immoral.
Three private institutions for delinquent boys were available to the
Los Angeles court: One accommodating 50 boys between the ages
of 8 and 14 years who were described as “ mildly delinquent” ; a
second institution some distance from Los Angeles, which received
children of the same age; and a third— the California George Junior
Republic— which cared for boys between the ages of 14 and 18 years
and gave them industrial and farm training. Girls might be sent to
the second of these institutions, to the House of the Good Shepherd,
or to two institutions giving care to unmarried mothers.
The San Francisco court utilized five private institutions, one
caring for “ mildly delinquent” boys between the ages of 7 and 15
years; a second receiving boys between the ages of 10 and 17; a third
receiving boys and girls between the ages of 8 and 14 years; and two
private training schools for girls, of which one specialized in the care
of girls from 14 to 16 years, though it received some girls older and
younger, and the other cared for more experienced girls between
the ages of 14 and 20, some of whom had venereal disease. Both the
Los Angeles and the San Francisco court used the private institu-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
150
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
tions as intermediate institutions providing treatment between pro
bation, and State institutional care.
The care of children committed to private institutions was usuallypaid for by the parents, who in some communities—Seattle, for
instance— could be compelled to pay. In Seattle one institution re
ceived from the county a lump-sum annual appropriation of from
$800 to $900. In California, county aid to the amount of $20 a month
for each child was paid institutions caring for juvenile-court wards,
and State aid was available for orphan, half orphan, and abandoned
children.54 In Buffalo, county aid was given on a somewhat similar
basis.
Relation between the court and the institution.
Public institutions.— In all the courts studied, when a child was
committed to a State institution the control of the court over him was
practically at an end. In California the courts had the power of
“ vacating the order of commitment” and occasionally exercised this
power; in Minnesota it was provided by law that a State institution
could not discharge a child within oneyear of the date of commitment
without the consent of the court. The Seattle court had power to
vacate an order of commitment to -a State institution, but it was
never exercised. None of the courts was kept informed of the child’s
progress while in the institution, and only one— the Seattle court—was
notified when a child was paroled or discharged from a State institu
tion. The Seattle judge visited the institutions frequently and to
some extent kept in touch with the children in that way. None of
the courts did parole work for State institutions.
The records sent to State institutions when the child was com
mitted varied from the order of commitment accompanied by no
statement whatever of the child’s history and home conditions to a
complete copy of the court investigation and a summary of the child’s
history during the period when he had been known to the court.
Some courts sent brief letters summarizing the main facts. Others
sent a chronological summary. The interesting practice in San
Francisco was to have a review of the summary by. the chief proba
tion officer, followed by a conference with the child, during which the
points made in the summary were discussed with the child; emphasis
was placed on the importance of the child’s understanding why he
was being sent to the institution. The probation officer of one court
stated that he had tried very hard to interest the institutions in secur
ing complete information with reference to the children sent to them
but that they had not seemed to care to receive such information;
hence only a brief letter summarizing the main facts of the case was
sent.
In the main the institutions were furnished with insufficient in
formation about the children whose lives they were expected to re
shape, and the courts had little opportunity to measure the extent to
which commitments to State institutions were successful solutions of
the problems which occasioned them.
The five courts which utilized county or city schools for delinquent
boys or girls retained jurisdiction over the children sent to these insti
tutions and authorized, their release, and the Los Angeles and Minne54 in 1921 this aid was extended to children of fathers incapacitated for gainful work b y permanent physical
disability or b y tuberculosis.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT ORDER.
151
apolis courts were directly concerned in the management of the schools.
Each girl sent to the Los Angeles County school was assigned to a
probation officer who kept in close touch with her during and after
her stay in the school. In Seattle children committed to the parental
schools remained wards of the court until 21 years of age, though the
authority of the school department terminated at 16. Usually if
supervision was needed after release from parole, the child was brought
before the court on a new petition, but this procedure was not essential.
Records sent the county and city institutions were usually similar to
those sent the State institutions. In one court the commitment
paper furnished the only information about the child which the insti
tution received. In contrast, the Los Angeles County school for
girls had the advantage of a full report of the social investigation and
physical and mental findings. After a period of observation at the
school a conference was held in which the referee of the court, the pro
bation officer, the physician, the psychologist, the superintendent of
El Retiro, the principal of El Retiro school, the recreation director,
and one of the girls chosen from the student body participated.
The purpose of the conference was the formation of a project or
activity-goal for the girl, a task suited to her strength anu personal
ity.55 In Los Angeles a very close relation existed between the court
and the institution.
In Minneapolis, too, the court was in close touch with the children’s
progress in the county schools. Monthly reports concerning the
children were furnished the judge and the chief probation officer, who
frequently visited the institutions. In Seattle the probation officers
kept in close contact with the children in the parental schools and
were notified when they were paroled or discharged.
After leaving the Los Angeles school, the girls remained under the
supervision of probation officers, and in Minneapolis the children
were nearly always on probation for six months following release.
Boys released from the St. Louis institution were on parole to proba
tion officers of the court. In Seattle parole work for the boys’ parental
school was under the school-attendance department, and the super
intendent of the girls’ school served as parole officer for that institu
tion. Children on parole might be returned to the parental schools
by the school department or by the court.
Private institutions — The commitments to private institutions
were usually indeterminate, and the court retained control of the
children and consented to their release. Most courts sent to the
institutions records similar to those sent to public institutions. The
judge of one court sent one of the private institutions for delinquent
boys a letter giving his idea of the characteristics of each boy and
the treatment needed for him.
The probation officers of three courts— those of St. Louis, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco— kept in touch with the children while
they were in private institutions; and in Boston, where children cared
for in private institutions had been placed there as part of the proba
tionary treatment, reports were made to the court on the date of
ontinuance or the last date of probation. In Los Angeles at least
once a month each child in a private institution was visited by a
65 See “ Juvenile-court procedure as a factor in diagnosis," b y Miriam Van W aters, in Papers and Pro
ceedings of the American Sociological Society, Vol. X V I , p. 209.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
152
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
probation officer, or the child wrote to the probation officer, or a
report was received from the head of the institution. One member
of the probation staff in San Francisco specialized in work with
private institutions. Each institution receiving children from the
court was visited at least once a year by this officer; if the county
was paying for the care of the child the commitment had to be renewed
every six months, the officer assigned to institution work passing
upon the renewals. Efforts were made to return the children to
their homes as soon as possible.
In Los Angeles all children released from private institutions were
under the supervision of probation officers, and in San Francisco
such children were frequently placed under probationary supervision.
Several of the courts did parole work with children whom they had
committed to certain private institutions.
Proportion o f commitments.
For eight courts information was obtained with reference to the
proportion of delinquency cases in which commitments to institu
tions were made. Table 26 shows that the proportion varied from
5.1 per cent in Boston and 8.9 per cent in the District of Columbia
to 41.1 per cent in New Orleans, 41.6 per cent in Minneapolis,56
and 44.6 per cent in Denver. Two factors must be borne in mind
in considering these figures: First, the large proportion of cases
adjusted without court hearing, in some courts, of which Denver
was a notable example: and, second, the fact that the courts of Boston
and the District of Columbia had no power to commit to private
institutions, though children might be placed in care of institu
tions during continuance, or while on probation, or, in the District
of Columbia, while under care of the Board of Children’s Guardians.
The fact that the Boston court had the smallest proportion of insti
tution commitments is doubtless due in part to tb.e fact that it had
no power to commit to private institutions and that it did little in
formal work.
» w This percentage, however, is probably an overstatement, for the reason given in Table 26, footnote 4.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT ORDER.
153
T a b l e 26. — Number and percentage o f children committed to institutions, by sex;
delinquency cases in eight courts.
Delinquency cases. 1
Both sexes.
Boys.
Girls.
Court and period.
Institution
commitments.
Total.
Total.N um
ber.
Boston juvenile court— year ended
Aug. 31,1920......................................
952
Buffalo children’s court— 6 months,
1919_________ _____ ________
491
Denver juvenile court— year ended
June 30, 1920......................
287
District of Columbia juvenile court—
year ended June 30,1920.___________ 1,641
Minneapolis juvenile court— 1919_____ 1 ,0 0 0
N ew Orleans juvenile court— Jan. 1 Oct. 1 ,1 9 1 9 ............................................
1,385
San Francisco juvenile court— year
ended June 30,1920______
881
St. Louis juvenile court— 1920................ 1,708
Institution
commitments.
N um
ber.
Per
cent.
Num
ber.
Per
cent.
49
5.1
850
35
4.1
102
14
13.7
52
1 0 .6
465
43
9.2
26
9
34.6
63.0
128
3
4
Per
cent.
Institution
commitments.
Total.
44.6
206
77
37.3
81
51
146
416
8.9
41.6
1,399
(6)
1 02
7.3
312
242
(6)
44
104
569
4Î.1
1,231
476
38.7
154
93
60.4
203
444
23.0
25.8
656
1,484
153
352
23.3
225
224
50
92
41.1
8
2 2 .2
ia
2
2 2 .2
1 In St. Louis the figures relate to children; in the other courts, to cases.
a The high percentage of institution commitments in Denver is due to the large number of informal cases—
1,658 as compared with 287 dealt with formally. The same element affects to a lesser degree the figures
for the District of Columbia, San Francisco, and St. Louis.
8 Including only commitments to the national training schools.
Some of the children committed to the
Board of Children’s Guardians were placed in institutions b y that organization. In the year ended June
30, 1924, 129 children (6 .8 per cent) were committed or returned to the national training schools.
4 This m ay be slightly above the true figure; it was obtained b y adding together the commitments to State
schools, county schools, and private institutions. Some children were committed to the State school,
then- commitments were stayed, and they were sent to a county school; if they failed to do well the stay
was revoked, and the children were sent to a State school without the filing of a new petition.
6 Total for boys and for girls not available.
In all but one (San Francisco) of the courts in which separate in
formation was available for boys and girls the proportion of commit
ments was much higher in girls’ cases than in boys’ cases. For
instance, in New Orleans 60.4 per cent of the girls’ cases as compared
with 38.7 per cent of the boys’ cases resulted m commitment to insti
tutions. The high percentage of commitments in girls’ cases in
Denver may be due largely to the amount of informal work done;
those involving girls, particularly, were not likely to be made formal
unless the desirability of commitment was indicated.
The proportions of commitments to State, local public, and private
institutions are given for seven courts in Table 27. Differences in
institutional facilities available, in the power of the court to commit
to private institutions, and in practice with reference to informal
adjustment of cases must be kept in mind in studying this table.
8 0 3 06 °— 2 5 f -------11
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
154
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
T able 27 .—
N u m b e r and 'percentage o f children com m itted to S ta te, local p u b lic, and
private in stitu tio n s; d elin q u en cy cases i n seven cou rts.
Delinquency cases.1
Commitments to
Commitments to local public insti
State institutions.
tutions.
Court and period.
Commitments to
private institu
tions.
Total.
N um
ber.
Buffalo children’s court— 6 months, 1919.
Denver juvenile court— year ended
June 30, 1920_________ _____ .....................
District of Columbia juvenile court—
year ended June 30,1920-------------------- Minneapolis juvenile court— 1919...........
N ew Orleans juvenile court— Jan. 1Oct. 1,1919...............................- ..............- ,
San Francisco juvenile court— year
ended June 30,1920-----------------------------St. Louis juvenile court— 1920....................
Per cent.
N um
ber.
Per cent.
N um
ber.
Per cent.
491
36
7.3
4
0 .8
12
2.4
287
83
28.9
2 21
7.3
24
8.3
14fi
8 .9
14 2
273
27.3
46?
33.0
104
7.5
12.9
179
29
20.3
1.7
3
1,384
7
0 .6
1,708
24
< 194
2.7
11.3
5 221
.
1 In St. Louis the figures relate to children; in the other courts, to cases.
a Including 19 boys committed to county jail and 1 hoy and 1 girl committed to detention school.
« Commitments to national training schools.
, , . .
,
,
, , . .
4 including 129 boys committed to a reformatory, 64 girls committed to State training schools, and 1 girl
committed to a penitentiary.
6
N ot including 9 committed to a city hospital.
The Los Angeles court made no distinction between dependency
and delinquency cases in its statistics, except in tables showing
offenses. Of 1,787 cases filed in 1919, 1,314 involved delinquency;
452, dependency or neglect; and 21, feeble-mindedness or insanity.57
It is impossible to make an exact comparison between the number of
institution commitments and the number of cases filed, since many of
the commitments might have related to cases filed the year before.
The number of commitments to State institutions during the year was
186— 22 commitments of girls and 164 commitments of boys. A
total of 298 children were placed in private institutions, 20 in El
Retiro, 2 in a school for the deaf and blind, and one each in a hospital,
sanatorium, or fresh-air camp.
Los Angeles County not only paid $20 a month toward the care of
children placed in private institutions or in private families but also
met part of the expense of the care of children committed from the
county to the State institutions. On November 1, 1920, 126 insti
tutions and private families were receiving county aid through the
court for the care of dependent, delinquent, or mentally detective
children. The number of children in private institutions for whom
county aid was paid was 191, and 49 children in boarding homes for
defectives were receiving aid. About 30 children were in the county
school for girls. On the same date 77 Los Angeles County children
were at the State school for younger delinquent boys, 73 at the school
for older boys, and 35 at the State school for girls, making a total of
185 in State schools for delinquent children.
The Seattle juvenile court did not distinguish in its annual report
between formal and informal cases; neither did it give separate
statistics for dispositions in delinquency and dependency cases. In
5?
439;
The figures for 1922 were as follows: Total cases filed, 1,922; delinquency, 1,461; dependency or neglect,
feeble-mindedness and insanity, 2 2 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H
E
C O U R T
O R D E R .
155
1921 the total number of children’s cases was 1,345; 19, or 1 per cent
of the total number, were committed to a State school for delinquent
children, and 114 children, or 8 per cent, to a parental school. Com
mitments to the State school for the feeble-minded were made in 28
cases, or 2 per cent; to the State institution for diseased women, in
1 case; and to the detention home, in 1 case. In 79 cases, or 6 per
cent, the children were placed in the care of private institutions.58
ORDERS IN CASES OF DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT.
In addition to the order of dismissal, the orders the court might
make in cases of dependency and neglect included in the majority
of courts the following: Placing the family under the supervision
of the court, by declaring the children wards (as in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Seattle) or by placing them or their parents on
probation, or by continuing the cases with or Without an adjudica
tion as to dependency; placing the children under the supervision of
a private agency, the court retaining control through continuances;
committing to private institutions; committing to a public agency;
committing to public institutions.
Supervision o f children in their own hom es.
Seven of the courts supervised dependent or neglected children in
about the same manner that they supervised delinquent children on
probation, placin*g emphasis, of course, on the home conditions and
on reconstructive work with the family. In Buffalo the children
might be placed on probation on a charge of improper guardianship,
or the parents themselves might be placed on probation in the adult
part o f the court. Three courts— those in Boston, the District of
Columbia, and Minneapolis— rarely placed neglected and dependent
families under the direct supervision of the court. In Boston,
destitute children did not come under juvenile-court jurisdiction,
and neglected children, if allowed to remain in their own homes, were
usually placed under the general supervision of the Massachusetts
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, their cases being
continued for definite periods. The situation was similar in Minne
apolis, where neglected and dependent children were usually placed
under the supervision of the children’s protective society. In the
District of Columbia no agency was responsible for the supervision
of neglected children who were allowed to remain with their own
families. The juvenile court had no power to order probation or
supervision in these cases, and the only alternative to removal from
home and commitment to the Board of Children’s Guardians was to
allow the children to remain in their own homes over which the court
exercised no control.
Commitment to public or private agencies.
The Boston court could commit neglected children for home
placement to the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare or to
the Boston Institutions Department, and the Minneapolis court
sometimes committed such children to the Minnesota State Board of
Control to be placed in institutions or in family homes, as the board
68 The figures for 1922 were as follows:
Total cases, 1,645; commitments to State schools for delinquent
children, 29 (2 per cent); commitments to parental schools, 146 (9 per cent). For 1923: Total cases, 1,609;
commitments to State schools for delinquent children, 39 (2 per cent); commitments to parental schools,
1 21 (8 per cent).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
156
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
deemed best. The St. Louis and the District of Columbia court
committed dependent and neglected children to a public board of
children’s guardians for placement in family homes; the St. Louis
board also gave aid to children in their own homes, and the District
of Columbia board placed some of the children in institutions. The
Buffalo court occasionally committed children to the city commis
sioner of charities for home placement. Private child-placing agen
cies were utilized to a greater or less extent by the courts of Boston,
Buffalo, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and San Francisco. The Boston
court did not commit to private agencies, but children were placed
in their custody on continuances for three months, six months, or
one year, surety being given. One child-placing agency, in par
ticular, was utilized for the care of children 3 years of age and over
in free homes, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children keeping in touch with the children’s own homes.
Children under 3 years of age were placed by this agency in an
infant asylum. In Buffalo a private agency which served mainly
as a clinic for the study of the physical and mental condition of
children sometimes provided boarding homes for working or school
boys committed to it by the court. The Minneapolis Children’s
Protective Society received children for placement, and in San
Francisco a nonsectarian, a Catholic, and a Jewish agency super
vised dependent and neglected children who were granted county
aid through the court and were cared for in thei» own or in foster
homes. The St. Louis court occasionally committed neglected chil
dren to a private child-placing society.
Commitment to public institutions.
Public institutions for dependent children were utilized by only
two of the courts studied, but two others occasionally committed
dependent children to institutions intended primarily for the care
of delinquents. These Were the District of Columbia court, which
sometimes sent destitute children 16 years of age but under
17 to the national training schools, ana the Seattle court, which
sometimes committed dependent girls to the girls’ parental school.
Colorado and Minnesota each had a State school for dependent
children which received dependent and neglected children on court
commitments. Both these schools placed children in free homes or
on indenture, but some of the children remained in the institution
for considerable periods. The Colorado institution received children
under the age of 16 years and the Minnesota institution, children
under the age of 15.
Commitment to private institutions.
All the courts except two— those of Boston and the District of Co
lumbia— committed neglected and dependent children to private
institutions. The District of Columbia court occasionally continued
cases without adjudication, allowing the children to be placed in
institutions. The private institutions available to the court usually
included orphanages for boys and girls of various ages, conducted
under denominational or, less frequently, under nonsectarian auspices.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT ORDER.
157
Relation between the court and the agency or institution.*
Courts committing children to the care of public agencies or insti
tutions for dependent children did not retain control of the children.
All the courts which utilized private agencies and institutions, except
the courts of Denver and Minneapolis, retained control of children
placed in the care of these organizations and usually kept in close touch
with the children. The Minneapolis court retained control over
children placed in care of agencies and institutions on continuances;
when temporary guardianship was given, the court had no control
during the time the order was in effect, and when general guardian
ship had been given to an agency or institution the court had no
further control over the child.
In Los Angeles the contact of the court with children under the
care of private institutions was maintained through the probation
officers, who received reports or visited the children at least once a
month. The probation officers of the Seattle court also kept in close
touch with children in institutions. In San Francisco a special officer
of the court visited institutions.
Support o f children in institutions.
, Ip Los Angeles and San Francisco county aid was given private
institutions caring for children.59 In Seattle several private institu
tions received lump-sum subsidies from the county, and a child-plac
ing society received $50 for each ward of the court who was placed.
In Buffalo children whose parents could not pay for their support in
institutions became wards of the county and were cared for at county
expense.
r arents might be compelled to pay for the support of their children
who had been committed to private institutions as dependent or
neglected, in Seattle, Buffalo, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In
San Francisco a special officer of the court was employed to collect
payments from parents.
Summary o f dispositions made in cases o f dependency and neglect.
Table 28 shows for the eight courts for which information was
available the dispositions made in the cases of neglected and depend
ent children. Variations in terminology make comparisons difficult.
In Denver and San Francisco in a considerable number of cases the
children were left with parents or relatives under the supervision of
the probation staff. Commitment to a public agency was made in
more than four-fifths of the cases in the District of Columbia and in
about one-third of the cases in St. Louis. To the courts of Denver
and Minneapolis State schools for dependent children were available,
but they were utilized in relatively small proportions of cases. Pri
vate institutions were used to a considerable extent in Denver, New
Orleans, San Francisco, and St. Louis.
69
See p . 160, footnote 64.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
158
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
T able 28 .—
D is p o s itio n s o f cases o f dep en d en t a n d neglected children dealt w ith b y
eight courts.
Dependent and neglected children dealt with.
Court and period.
Left
with
parents
or rela
Total. tives,
w ith or
without
super
vision.
Boston juvenile court— year
ended A ug. 3 1 ,19201...... ............
63
Buffalo' children’s court— 6
months, 19191_________________
34
Denver juvenile court— year
ended June 30,19208____ _____
301
District of Columbia juvenile
court— year ended June 30,
1920*_______________ __________
477
Minneapolis juvenile court—
549
19198—...........................................
N ew Orleans juvenile court—
Jan.l-Oct- L 1 9 1 9 1___________
123
San Francisco juvenile court—
year ended June 30,19203____ «944
St. Louis juvenile court— 19203.
356
Placed in
Committed to
care of
Case
institutions.
agencies.
Placed
dis
Other
in care
missed
and
of other
and
not
indi
case
re
viduals. Pub Pri
Other Pri
pend ported.
State.
lic. vate.
ing.
public. vate.
26
16
12
81
3
24
2
2
4 169
56
32
407
7 215
81
6 40
53
2
8 105
48
8
1
10H7
116
6
32
364
116
8
3
21
68
22
12
7
186
43
6
5
119
52
11 323
33
18 25
D ata compiled from court records.
Institution for the feeble-minded; arrangement for commitment made.
Data obtained from reports, published or unpublished. In the District of Columbia in the year ended
June 30,1924, 279 dependent and neglected children were dealt with b y the juvenile court, of whom 204
were committed to a public child-caring agency temporarily or during minority, 9 were committed
to institutions, and 11 were placed on probation; the remaining cases were dismissed or withdrawn, or
continued subject to call.
4 Including 72 cases in which custody was given to parents, relatives, or friends; 97 cases continued in
definitely under supervision, and in custody of parents, relatives, or friends.
8 Guardian appointed.
6 Including 1 committed to a hospital.
7 Including cases continued for further investigation and other cases pending at the end of the year.
8 Care of private homes or committed to individual guardianship.
8 Including only children dealt with b y the family-relations department of the court.
10 Under supervision of probation officer.
I I Including cases placed “ off calendar.”
18 Children declared abandoned and eligible for adoption.
I
8
8
P R O V IS IO N F O R M EN TA LLY D EFECTIVE CH ILD RE N .
The courts of Buffalo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle had
>ower to commit feeble-minded children who were before the court
or delinquency, neglect, or dependency, to State institutions for the
feeble-minded, ana the California courts had jurisdiction over
feeble-minded children who were not delinquent or dependent. In
Louisiana no public provision for the care of the feeble-minded had
been made, but a small private school occasionally received defective
girls from the New Orleans court. In most of the courts the care of
the feeble-minded was a serious problem because of the inadequacy
of institutional provision for them. The reserve calendar in the San
Francisco court on which were placed long-continuance cases of
feeble-minded girls has already been described.60
The Los Angeles court was utilizing six private homes for feeble
minded children. Many of the children were wards of the juvenile
court, and county aid to the amount of $20 per month was paid for their care. Each home was adapted to the care of children of a
certain type, and all were under the supervision of the lunacy com
mission of the county. The number of children in each ranged from 9
i
®° See p. 142.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H
E
C O U R T
O R D E R .
159
to 40. The probation officers kept in touch with the wards of the
court who were cared for in these homes. On November 1, 1920, 49
wards of the court were being, cared for in five of these homes. Of
these children, 5 were in a. home providing for a total of 10 children
who had been graded very low in the intelligence tests, 12 in a home
providing for about 20 young children, 16 in a home caring for 40 girls
who had received high gradings in the intelligence tests, and 15 in a
home caring for 31 boys.
ADEQUACY OF THE COURT’ S RESOURCES.
In each court studied the judge and the chief probation officer
were asked to state in what respects they considered the resources of
the court and the community and State resources at the disposal of
the court adequate, and in what respects they were hampered by in
sufficient means of securing desired treatment. These statements
were supplemented by the observation of the representatives of the
Children’s Bureau.
The number of probation officers in most courts was recognized as
inadequate.61 In one court, for instance, it was stated by the chief
probation officer that three to five more probation officers were
needed for work with children and three more for work with adults.
In two courts, in each of which there was only one woman probation
officer, the need for another woman was urgent. An additional man
to relieve the chief probation officer and an additional woman proba
tion officer were stated as the needs of a third court. In one court,
which had a large number of probation officers, who were neverthe
less carrying too many cases, a better organization of the staff and
more intensive case work seemed to offer a remedy.
In all but two of the courts emphasis was placed on the need of
more adequate provision for delinquent children who did not require
commitment to the State institutions available. Even where public
intermediate institutions were provided it was felt that the need was
not fully met. Two courts, for instance, each of which had available
a school for the training of the more promising delinquent girls, felt
the need for a senior county institution which would take girls more
seriously delinquent or mentally subnormal, whom the court did not
wish to commit to a State institution.62 Another court, which
depended upon expert placing in family homes for care of an interme
diate grade, felt that enlarged facilities for the placing of delinquent
boys were needed. A fourth court had available no intermediate
institutions and no means for expert placing of difficult children.
The judge of a fifth court which utilized private institutions for care
of an intermediate grade felt that such provision should be under
public auspices. Inadequate provision for the unmarried mother and
for girls with venereal disease was felt in one court to present a serious
problem.
In all but one court State institutional provision for delinquent
children seemed to be inadequate in one or more respects, such as
overcrowding, which made proper segregation impossible, inadequate
parole work, refusal of institutions to accept certain types of children,
location of a State institution too far from the city in which the
court was located, and in one court entire absence of any State insti61 For a discussion of the number and qualifications of probation officers, see p. 22.
68
Through one of these courts (that in Los Angeles) a permanent “ vacation cam p” has since been estab
lished for neurotic or psychopathic girls. It is supported b y private funds.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
160
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
tution devoted entirely to delinquent children and in another absence
of any such institution for delinquent boys.
Inadequate provision for the care, of mental defectives created
difficult problems in nearly all the courts. Louisiana had made no
public provision for the feeble-minded, and the one private institu
tion in the State received girls only and had a capacity of 30. In
another State the waiting list of the school for the feeble-minded was
so long that the court which was included in the study sometimes
was forced to utilize for children a city sanitarium for the insane. In
Los Angeles the system of boarding homes for the feeble-minded
seemed to be meeting the needs fairly well, but the psychologist of
the court felt that the establishment of a small institution for psycho
pathic children was desirable. No institution for the feeble-minded
had been established in the District of Columbia,63 and such children
as were provided for, were boarded in institutions outside the Dis
trict or were placed in boarding homes by the Board of Children’s
Guardians.
_ _
„ ¿5
For the care of dependent children many of the courts had available
a considerable number of agencies and institutions of various types.
In the District of Columbia some method of supervision of dependent
and neglected children in their own homes and of public aid for such
children was greatly needed. In New Orleans no provision for
mothers’ pensions had been made at the time of the study, but later
the Louisiana Legislature passed such a law. Some of the courts
studied were committing to institutions practically all dependent and
neglected children who had to be provided for outside their own
homes. In these communities placing out had been little developed,
except placing in free homes with a view to adoption, and for children
who required care temporarily or even for a period of years and who
might ultimately be restored to their parents care in institutions was
the only type of provision available.
In general the resources at the disposal of the court seemed to have
been developed in a haphazard manner and did not fit together to
form a complete community program for the care of delinquent and
dependent children. The court, therefore, was limited in the treatment
it could prescribe. In the development of the juvenile court great em
phasis has recently been placed on careful and scientific study and
diagnosis. Such study is fundamental, but emphasis should also be
placed upon scientific treatment in accordance with diagnostic find
ings. The psychological factor in delinquency has been largely neg
lected on the treatment side, and in many cases effort has been directed
principally toward the child’s environment. Moreover, classification of
the types of cases received b y the various institutions has been based
largely on the child’s experiences and only to a slight extent on mental
habits and attitudes and mental and emotional needs. The work of
El Retiro in Los Angeles and of certain private agencies in Boston
has taken into account the psychological factor and has endeavored
to fit the treatment to the diagnosis. The analysis of the resources
of the community in terms of the needs of delinquent children before
the juvenile court and the cooperation of the various agencies and
institutions in a well-rounded community plan would undoubtedly
achieve marked results
83Provision for the establishment of such an institution has since been made by
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Congress,
PR O B ATIO N .
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROBATION STAFF.
It is generally agreed that effective probation service means regular,
paid service, either full time or in connection with other social work
requiring similar qualifications and approach. Volunteer service is
effective only when supplemental to paid service. The work of a
probation officer requires the application of the principles of social
case work and training and compensation at least equal to that
demanded for case work with families or other specialized work in the
social-service field.64 To be effective probation must enlist all the
available resources of the community.
Although these principles have received fairly general recognition
the means for their application are in many courts insufficient.
Often the first essential— a sufficient number of well-trained workers—
is difficult to secure. The methods of selecting probation officers in
the courts studied, their training, and the salaries they received
have been previously discussed.65
The functions of the probation staff include general administrative
work; reception of complaints; investigation of cases, both before and
after the filing of petitions; supervision of children on probation and
of families; clerical and stenographic service; miscellaneous functions,
such as, in some courts, serving legal papers and taking children to
and from the detention home and to and from institutions. The
same officer may perform several of the functions outlined above.
The primary classification of the organization of a court may be
based not upon function but upon the type of case handled—for
example, delinquency cases, neglect cases, and cases involving
family relations. Secondary classifications may be according to
sex, race, or language, religion, age, or district of residence.
The degree of specialization depends primarily upon the volume of
work and the size of the staff. The number of paid officers engaged
in probation work in the courts studied ranged from 4 to 26.66 Even
where the size of the staff permits specialization opinions differ with
regard to the extent to which it is desirable.
Considering only the cases of delinquent and neglected (or depend
ent) children included in the jurisdiction of all the courts, the 10
courts may be grouped roughly into three classes, according to the
degree to which, the work oi the probation staff was specialized.
Sim ple plan o f organization.
In all the courts included in this report the work had been differ
entiated at least to the extent that general administrative duties
were lodged in a chief probation officer, aided in some instances by
an assistant chief probation officer or b y department supervisors,
64 See Juvenile-Court Standards, p. 255.
65 See p . 23.
68 See p . 22.
161
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
162
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
and that girls’ cases were assigned to women and cases of older boys
to men. Furthermore, in all these courts some help was given the
probation officers in writing records and in other necessary clerical
work which did not belong to the clerk’s office. One other step in the
direction of specialization had also been taken in all the courts studied.
Cases had been divided among the officers according to geographical
districts or some other plan of assignment. Except that girls’ cases
were always handled by women, these classifications were not hard
and fast. In some courts the chief probation officer added to his
administrative duties the supervision of some of the children on pro
bation. As a rule the probation officers were not assigned sufficient
stenographic or clerical help, with the result that time which should
have been spent in the field had to be devoted to office work. In
the assignment of cases b y district or by some other plan it has usually
been found wise to keep the scheme flexible so that assignments in
special cases may be made on the basis of the skill of certain officers
in particular types of work.
In 4 of the 10 courts— those in Buffalo, New Orleans, Boston, and
Minneapolis— the work of the probation staff was not further spe
cialized, except that 2 of the 4 had differentiated their delinquency
cases from cases of neglect and dependency, investigation and super
vision of the latter group being carried by an outside cooperating
agency.
Buffalo.— The staff of the probation office in Buffalo assigned to
the children’s part of the court, which dealt with cases of delinquency
and dependency or neglect, included the chief probation officer, two
men probation officers, and a woman probation officer. The chief
probation officer devoted all his time to administrative work. The
city was divided into three districts, each of the men officers and the
woman having a district. Investigations were made strictly accord
ing to the district plan, but the supervision of all girls’ cases67 was
assigned to the woman officer, and the men officers supervised the
older boys (above 12 or 14 years of age) in her district. All the
adult probation work was done by the special police officer detailed
to the juvenile court.
New Orleans.— The majority of the white boys were formally on
probation to the judge and reported to him, but the chief probation
officer made all home visits to white boys with the exception of boys
on probation for school offenses and those on probation to volunteers.
The woman probation officer visited all white girls on probation.
Some investigations were made by the chief probation officer and the
woman officer, but the majority of cases were not investigated. The
two men assistants divided the city between them and served court
papers, took children to and from institutions, served as attendants
at court hearings, and occasionally made investigations or visited
probationers. All negro children were placed on probation to vol
unteer officers of their own race, and their cases were rarely investi
gated.
Boston.— The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Children made the investigations m neglect cases and supervised
neglected children who were allowed to remain in their own homes.
The judge exercised closer supervision over the probation work than
87Except for a few girls on probation to the superintendent of the detention home.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION.
163
was the case in most of the courts studied, and accordingly thn
chief probation officer had somewhat less executive responsibility.
He supervised the statistical work and had oversight over the
finances of the court, and in addition did the work of investigation
and supervision of boys on probation in one district of the city.
Each of the other two men officers had a district, but one of them was
responsible for Jewish boys from two districts. The woman officer
Was responsible for the investigation and supervision of all delin
quent girls except the Jewish girls, who were cared for by a private
agency, and unlike the woman officers in the courts described above,
she Was free to devote all her time to girls’ cases.
Minneapolis.— The situation in Minneapolis was somewhat similar
to that in Boston; a private society investigated and supervised
cases of neglected and dependent children. A member of the pro
bation staff, however, was assigned to dependency and neglect
cases. She attended court hearings, summarized the evidence pre
sented, and did other office work.67® The chief probation officer in
Minneapolis was the only man officer and carried the cases of the
older boys on probation in addition to his administrative work, which
included the supervision of the mothers’ pension department.676 The
city was divided into four districts, and each district was assigned
to a woman probation officer who made investigations and super
vised delinquent girls and boys who were under the age of 15 years.
A “ consulting and court officer” received all complaints and had
charge of the records and the statistical work.68
Separation o f investigation and supervision.
In three courts investigations were assigned to a special staff, and
the probation officers were left free to devote all their time to the
supervision of cases. These were the courts in St. Louis, Seattle,
and the District of Columbia.68® The Los Angeles court also had
adopted this plan, but its work had been further specialized and is
discussed under the third type of organization.
St. Louis.— The court in St. Louis had two investigators— a man
who made the investigations in cases of delinquent boys and a woman
who investigated cases of delinquent girls and of neglected children.
Occasionally special investigations were assigned to other officers.
Seven men and seven women were engaged in the supervision of
delinquent and neglected children.69 The men handled cases of
delinquent boys and the women supervised all neglect cases, cases of
delinquent girls, and some cases of delinquent boys, mainly younger
boys. The city was not districted, except that two of the men
officers worked principally in the south, two in the north, and two
in the west and northwest districts of the city. The chief probation
officer assigned cases partly on the basis of race, nationality, and
religion but mainly according to the special qualifications of the
670 She now (1924) makes investigations in informal cases.
676 The chief probation officer now (1924) serves as referee in the hearing of minor delinquency cases.
An additional man officer has been employed.
68 See court-organization chart, p. 25.
vbo in the District of Columbia the investigator now (1924) makes only about half the investigations,
the others being made by the probation officer. The following investigations are made by the investi
gator: (1) Investigations in cases in which mental and physical examinations are ordered; (2) reinvestigationsin cases of wards ofthe Board of Children’s Guardians broughtinto court on new charges or incor
rigibility petitions; (3) investigations in out-of-town cases; (4) special investigations or reports ordered
by the court or made at the request of other courts; (5) investigations during the absence of the proba
tion officer, of probationers charged with new offenses.
69In 1924 there were two men investigators and six men engaged in the supervision of cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
164
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
officers. The staff included a negro man, who supervised all the older
negro boys; and a negro woman, who supervised the negro girls and
younger negro boys. A Jewish woman supervised the majority of
Jewish children on probation, and to an officer who spoke German
were assigned mainly German cases. One woman specially fitted
for work with older delinquent girls was given the majority of such
cases. Another woman specialized in neglect cases.
The chief probation officer carried on the administrative work of
the probation office, passed on all complaints, was present at court
hearings, and assigned all cases for supervision.70
Seattle.— The staff of the Seattle court was considerably smaller
than that of either of the other two courts in this group. The chief
probation officer served also as ‘ ‘ diagnostician ” and made the physical
and mental examinations of many of the children coming before the
court. He was present at all hearings and advised the judge in regard
to dispositions. He also heard a large number of cases informally.
Much of the administrative work was delegated to a “ senior super
visor” who combined probationary supervision of cases assigned to
her with general oversight of all the probation work. All investiga
tions were made by a woman investigator, unless the child was already
a ward, when the investigation was made by the probation officer
having charge of the case. The senior supervisor was responsible
for most of the delinquent girls on probation, though a considerable
number were assigned to the superintendent of the detention home.
Another woman officer supervised most of the dependency and neglect
cases. All boys over 12 years of age except those assigned to the
school-attendance department were under the supervision of a man
probation officer. Cases were assigned for supervision by the judge
at the time of the hearing. Mothers’ pension cases were dealt with
in a separate department m charge of a commissioner, who had under
her supervision an investigator, two field visitors, and a secretary.71
District o f Columbia.— The chief probation officer in the District
of Columbia, who was responsible for the general administration of
the office and also heard a large number o f unofficial cases, had the
aid of an assistant chief probation officer, who was the case super
visor. This officer was in close touch with all probation cases and
held regular periodic consultations with.the probation officers, review
ing the plans formulated and the progress made in each case.
In 1924 a new plan of organization was worked out whereby the
clerk of the court (formerly the chief probation officer) has been
designated director of administrative work and has general responsi
bility for the administration of both the clerk’s office and the proba
tion department. He reviews all complaints; decides which cases are
to be heard officially by the court and which are to be disposed of
unofficially or by adjustment; hears and adjusts all charges and com
plaints in boys’ cases not disposed of officially by the court; is present
in court at all hearings except those of girls’ cases; makes recommen
dations as to dispositions; reads and approves or disapproves proba
tion officers’ reports recommending dismissal from probation, trans
fer to another officer or to the inactive list, or charge of violation of
probation; and is responsible for the entire administrative work of
70See court-organization chart, p. 20.
71See court-organization chart, p. 26.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION.
165
the court. The chief probation officer (a woman), under the general
supervision of the director of administrative work, is responsible for
the organization and work of the probation staff, hears and adjusts
charges and complaints in girls’ cases not disposed of officially by
the court, is present in court during the hearing of all girls’ cases,
maintains cooperative relationships with public and private organiza
tions and contacts with out-of-town organizations, and is responsible
for the educational program for probation officers and the general
educational work of the court. The assistant chief probation officer
acts as case supervisor.
At the time of the study about half the initial investigations were
made by a special investigator whose salary was paid b y the local
chapter of the Red Cross and the balance by an investigator employed
by the court. Special investigations were assigned in some instances
to other officers. Neglect cases were investigated by the Board of
Children’s Guardians. Eight probation officers— three men and five
women— supervised delinquent children on probation. Each officer
also had under supervision a small number of non-support cases.
The staff now (1924) consists of four white men— one of whom is
responsible for adult cases— three white women, two colored men,
and one colored woman. Investigations in about half the cases are
made by the investigating officer and in half by the regular probation
officers. The adult wore of the court is confined principally to
illegitimacy cases.
Many oi the negro children were supervised by officers of their own
race— a man and a woman. Each officer was assigned a certain geo
graphical district, and it was the aim to follow the district plan as
closely as possible. The men, however, supervised the majority of
the boys 14 years of age and over, and white children living in a dis
trict assigned to a negro worker were under the care of a white officer
from another district, and vice versa. The case supervisor assigned
cases to probation officers immediately after the hearing.72
Departmental plan o f organization.
The third type of organization was the more specialized depart
mental plan, in which definite authority and responsibility were lodged
in department supervisors working under the general direction of the
chief probation officer.
In San Francisco this plan was most highly developed, though
the Los Angeles court also was organized in a similar way. Certain
features of the plan had been developed in the Denver court, the work
being divided into several distinct branches.
San Francisco.— The chief probation officer of the San Francisco
court exercised general supervision over the probation staff, the deten
tion home, and the clinic. He was the executive secretary of the
probation committee. He was present at all court hearings, held
regular case conferences with the staff, had charge of the training of
volunteers— a special feature of the work of this court— and had
immediate supervision of about 30 boys on probation.
The staff in San Francisco was organized into three departments
with a supervisor in charge of each. The boys’ supervisor was also
the assistant chief probation officer. He conducted informal hearings
7aSee court-organization chart, p. 29.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
166
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
in boys’ cases, supervised the work of the other officers in the boys’
department, and had some boys on probation. Three men assistant
probation officers and one woman constituted the staff of this depart
ment. The district system was not used, but work was assigned
according to type of case. So far as possible, the policy was followed
of having the officer who made the initial investigation undertake the
supervision of the case. Assignments of cases for investigation were
made b y the boys’ supervisor, and the chief probation officer assigned
probation cases for supervision. The woman probation officer made
most of the investigations in cases involving school boys and super
vised all grammar-school boys on probation, except those presenting
unusual problems which could be nandled better b y men. Even in
such cases she cooperated with the men probation officers by making
all the contacts with the schools. She was the only probation officer
on the staff who regularly visited schools, and she cooperated with the
girls’ department and the family-relations department with reference
to school problems.
One of the men in the boys’ department dealt with Chinese boys
and with all cases involving the theft of automobiles. He did not
understand the Chinese language but had made a special study of
Chinese customs. One man, who was an Italian, was assigned all
Italian, Spanish, and other Latin cases, including schoolboys whose
parents could not speak English. A third man worked with. Roman
Catholic boys of other nationalities over school age, especially those
needing employment. The supervisor of the department had charge
of Protestant boys over school age and of special cases. The chief
probation officer gave direct supervision only in especially difficult
cases. The work of the boys’ department was concerned almost
entirely with delinquent boys, but a few dependent boys over the age
of 10 or 12 years were supervised b y the department.
The girls’ department in San Francisco cared for delinquent girls
and for dependent girls 14 years of age and over. The organization
of this department differed from that of the other departments in that
it included in addition to the supervisor an office manager, who spent
all her time in the office and who took all first interviews and wrote
all case histories. Since most of the girls were brought to the detention
home this arrangement was effective. The supervisor of the depart
ment assigned cases, supervised the probation work, and also had girls
on probation. Two assistant probation officers made investigations
and did probation work. Assignments were not usually made
according to a district system, but frequently an officer visiting a
district made visits also to girls in the district under the care of other
officers. One of the probation officers and the supervisor had charge
of all Roman Catholic girls; one woman had all the Jewish and
Protestant girls. In addition to her regular work, one of the officers
had charge of all employment problems, and another investigated
applications for release from institutions.
In the family-relations department were three women probation
officers, one of whom was in charge. Many of the cases coming to
this department had been investigated by the San Francisco Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and cases in which a definite
order had been made for county aid or for removing children from
their homes were supervised by private child-caring agencies. The
department, however, frequently made investigations after cases
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION.
167
had been continued and supervised families in continued cases and
m cases m which probation was ordered. The supervisor of the
department received all complaints coming to the department and
once a week met in conference representatives of the children’s
agencies. She did no field work. One of the ofiicers who spoke
Spanish handled all Latin cases and sometimes assisted the boys’ or
girls department in such cases. The third officer in the department
specialized m cases in which the home had been disrupted by intemperance. The secretary of the department visited every six months
each home to which county aid was given and visited at least once a
year institutions receiving such aid. When children were recommitted
she went over the reports and if there was anything questionable, made
investigations. The collection of payments from parents or others
was the duty of a collector, who devoted full time to this work.73
Los Angeles. The staff of the Los Angeles court was organized into
two departments, whereas that in San Francisco had three. It also
differed from the San Francisco staff in that the work of investigation
and supervision had been differentiated. Two special investigators—
a man and a woman—made investigations in cases in which petitions
had not been filed by outside agencies. The majority of cases were
reported to the probation office and were investigated prior to fifing
petitions. Whenever possible, the investigators acted as adjusters
In cases in which a petition had been filed without inquiry the regular
probation officers made the investigations later.
The boys’ supervisor, who was also the assistant chief probation
officer, had 11 men probation officers under his direction. The girls’
supervisor had m her department 10 women probation officers To
all the women officers except the supervisor cases of boys as well as of
girls were assigned, and dependency cases were usually assigned to the
girls department. Practically all boys under 13 years of age were
cared lor by that department with the exceptions noted below.
In the boys’ department the entire county was districted. Except
one officer who handled all the traffic cases and those involving
vagrancy or rape, and a Spanish-speaking officer who supervised
Spanish boys over 8 years of age, each officer was assigned to a
Qiscrict.
girls department in Los Angeles the assignments were
usually based on the type of case rather than on geographical location,
though the size of the county made it necessary to divide the work
outside the city, assigning certain districts to each of four officers.
1wo of these officers also had cases in the city, and one of them kept
m touch with girls in El Retiro, the school under the jurisdiction of
One of the women spoke Spanish, and to her were assigned
all Mexican and Spanish girls, and boys of these nationalities under 8
years of age. Another officer, who spoke Russian, was assigned
Russian children, and girls over 14 years of age of other nationalities.
One of the women specialized in family cases and those of girls under
14. Two officers dealt mainly with girls over 12 or 13 years of age*
one supervised younger boys and feeble-minded children. The
division of work was for the most part provisional, and cases were
assigned by the supervisor as circumstances required.74
73See court-organization chart, p. 35.
74See court-organization chart, p. 32,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
168
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
Denver.— The chief probation officer in the Denver court was
responsible mainly for boys’ cases. The officer for girls and the pro
bation officer for dependent children worked directly under the super
vision of the judge and had no subordinates. The chief probation
officer did a considerable amount of legal-aid work, made investiga
tions, supervised boys on probation, and was in general charge of the
work for delinquent boys. Two men probation officers and a negro
woman who was employed on a half-time basis assisted the chief
probation officer. One of the men was also in charge of domesticrelations and adult cases.
For work with delinquent boys the city was divided into three dis
tricts, the chief probation officer and the two men assistants each
having charge o f one. A Jewish officer supervised one of the dis
tricts, which had a large Jewish population, and the negro probation
officer assisted the chief probation officer in work with negro boys, 90
per cent of the negro population of the city living in his district. The
negro officer also made initial investigations in some of the cases
involving negro girls.
Relative advantages of various types o f organization.
The descriptions of the organization of the probation staffs in the
courts studied have shown in what different ways the same problems
may be approached. In juvenile-court work perhaps more than in
other forms of social case work it is impossible to develop set formulas
which will apply under all circumstances. The extent of the court’s
jurisdiction, the other social agencies upon which the court may rely
for various kinds of service, and many other factors must determine
the particular type of organization best suited to local needs.
Even in courts with relatively large probation staffs opinions differ
as to the wisdom of assigning all investigations to one set of officers
and the supervision of cases to another set. The arguments in favor
of having one officer carry through a case from the first investigation
to final discharge or commitment arc chiefly that the child and the
family are thus saved the necessity of making two adjustments to
two different officers and that the probation officer making the inves
tigation is familiar with all the circumstances and needs, has already
formulated at least the general outlines of a plan, and upon^the order
of the court can proceed immediately with the treatment indicated.
Those favoring this plan of combining investigation and supervision
have as precedents the experience of family case-work agencies and
of some child-caring agencies.
.
...
.
The reasons given for preferring an organization with specialization
of service in investigation and in supervision may be summarized as
follows: First, the qualities required of an investigator are not
always those which make the most successful probation officer, and
vice versa. Specialization permits assignment of workers to the task
for which they are best fitted. Second, the assignment of special
workers to investigations insures more prompt attention to cases as
they arise and thus tends to shorten the period necessary for the
preparation of cases. Third, relieving probation officers of investi
gation work permits the use of their full time and energy for the work .
involved in supervision. The overburdened officer who is assigned
both investigation and supervision must often put the investigations
ahead of other work because they have to be completed by a fixed
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION.
169
date— the day of the hearing— and the work of supervision, though
equally important, is likely to be put aside. The probation officer
who is not called upon for investigations is able to plan his time
logically and efficiently and to concentrate upon constructive case
treatment. Fourth, families are more likely to resent the searching
inquiries involved in investigation than the constructive planning
which supervision involves. The probation officer has a better
chance if he enters a case after the decision of the court has been made.
It is evident that difference of opinion exists with reference to
whether or not the cooperation of the family is best enlisted by having
the investigation and supervision by the same or by different officers.
Whatever plan is adopted must meet the following tests if it is to
bring results:
Is the organization successful in general in winning the cooperation
of the child and the family ?
Does the probation officer who takes up the case become thoroughly
familiar with the results of the social investigation and preliminary
study of the child?
Is the work of investigation thorough, prompt, and complete?
Does it eliminate worthless details and gossip and secure all essential
facts?
Is enough time allowed for the supervision of cases, and is this time
sufficiently regular and uninterrupted by emergency work?
These conditions may conceivably be met by either plan of organi
zation. In general if it is impossible to secure a sufficiently large
staff, if the officers must carry more cases than they can handle
successfully, the division of the work of investigation and supervision
seems to promise a more even and efficient distribution of effort.
The statement of an investigator in one court where the plan of
dividing the work had been put into effect is significant. She
believed it to be the best method under existing conditions in that
court, but she believed that if the staff were sufficiently large better
work could be obtained under the other form of organization.
With reference to the assignment of cases for supervision one prin
ciple is generally agreed upon—girls must be under the care of
women officers, and older boys should, if possible, be under the care
of men. Concerning the age under which a boy may well be super
vised by a woman officer considerable difference of opinion exists.
In only two of the courts studied were all the boys under the super
vision of men. In some courts the dividing line was 12 years, in some
13 years, and in some as high as 14 or 15 years, exceptions being made
in cases of boys under these ages who presented difficult moral
problems.
Thu secretary of the civil-service commission of Los Angeles
County in November, 1919, wrote the judges and chief probation
officers of a number of courts, asking their policies with reference to
the assignment of boys and girls for supervision to probation officers
of their own sex. Replies were received from 17 representative
courts in different parts of the country. All the courts agreed that
^ girls should be supervised b y women officers and stated that this
olicy was followed. In five courts the supervision of all delinquent
oys was assigned to men, and in two others this was the general rule,
but exceptions were made. In three courts women probation
E
80306°— 25t------12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
170
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
officers supervised boys of all ages, but in two of these many boys
were assigned to men. Women supervised the younger boys and
men the older in seven courts, 12 or 13 years being the dividing line in
four of these courts, and a higher or an indefinite age in three. The
general opinion was that men officers were better qualified than women
for the supervision of older boys, though in 2 of the 17 courts it was
believed that women could handle boys of all ages as successfully as
men. In four instances it was stated that competent women could
be obtained more easily than competent men for the salaries available.
Replies from five courts indicated the belief that women should not
supervise boys above the age of 12 years; from three, above the age of
13 years; and from two, above the age of 14 years. The arguments
in favor of placing younger boys on probation to women included
the possibility of closer cooperation with mothers and teachers
and the statement that women possess more of a “ personal touch”
than men. The reasons for desiring men officers for boys entering the
adolescent period included the stronger masculine appeal in the age of
“ hero worship,” the greater ease and deeper understanding with
which a man can explain matters of health and sex pertaining to
boys, and the greater freedom with which a boy will bring his prob
lems to a man.
It is probable that many small boys on probation do as well or
better under a woman probation officer than they would under a man.
The problems encountered are often mainly with reference to the
family situation; nevertheless, the probation officer and the chief
probation officer or the supervisor of case work must be constantly
on the alert for signs that the bov is in need of a man’s counsel and
guidance. If the child has no father the supervision of a man proba
tion officer is likely to be particularly desirable.
It is often advisable, when the size of the staff permits, to specialize
somewhat further in the assignment of cases on the basis of age.
Especially where the court has jurisdiction to the age of 17 or 18
years or above, is it sometimes helpful to allow one officer to specialize
in older girls’ cases, another to work with younger delinquent children
and dependent children, and so forth. Or it may be found best to
center in one officer or department all the work wdth families of
dependent and neglected children.
With reference to race, nationality, religion, and geographical
district local considerations must govern. Districting of the area
served certainly results in economy of effort and gives the probation
officer an opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with his district
and to take part in community activities. On the other hand, the
newer immigrant groups that are especially handicapped from the
language standpoint form a community which cuts across geographical
lines, and participation in the activities of such a community is even
more important in preventing delinquency. It is impossible for a
probation officer to understand the conflicts which result in delin
quency without a knowledge of the racial background of the families
which he serves. Ability to talk with the parents in their own
language is essential if their cooperation is to be secured. If it is
impossible for a court to have probation officers of each large racial
or language group, the difficulty may be met in part through the
assistance of persons employed b y other agencies or of other qualified
individuals who belong to races and nationalities not represented
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION,
171
on the probation staff. A district system so rigid that it prevents
assignment of special cases to the officers best fitted to deal with
them is unfortunate.
NUMBER OF CASES UNDER SUPERVISION OF ONE OFFICER.
It is agreed that from 50 to 75 cases are all that one probation
officer can handle effectively,75 but in only four of the courts studied
was this standard generally observed. The average number of
probation cases under the care of a probation officer, including in
some courts cases of dependency and neglect as well as cases of
delinquency, ranged from 36 to 156. In three courts it was more
than* 100. The majority of probation officers had other duties, such
as the investigation of cases and attendance at court hearings, in
addition to their work of supervision. Table 29 shows for the cities
studied the smallest number and the largest number of probation
cases under the care of one probation officer and the average for the
staff, on a given date.
T a b l e
2 9 . — -S m a llest
n u m b er o f cases u n d er care o f o n e p roba tion officer on a given
date, largest n u m b er, and average f o r the staff.
Court and month in which date fell.
Boston juvenile court— September, 19201________________________
Buffalo'children’s court— March, 1 9 2 0 -..________________________
Denver juvenile court— September, 1920__________________ _____ _
District of Columbia juvenile court— M a y , 1921________ _____ _
Los Angeles juvenile court— October, 1920.______________________
Minneapolis juvenile court— March, 1920............................... .......
New Orleans'juvenile court— January, 1920 w
San Francisco juvenile court— June, Ï920_________ _______________
Seattle juvenile court— December, 1920................................ ...............
St. Louis juvenile court— December, 1919............................................
Special
investi
gators.
N o ...........
N o ...........
N o ...........
Y e s_____
Y e s.........
N o ...........
N o ______
N o ...........
Y e s .........
Y e s.........
Probation cases under care of
one probation officer.
Smallest
number.
Largest
number.
79
2 29
89
58
4 79
«53
40
6
20
» 50
46 99
6 104
7 194
72
41
50
73188
195
Average
for staff.
84
44
8 50 to 60
91
8 114
9 56
11 36
44 125
1« 156
1A number of cases had been dismissed just prior to the date to which the information relates, Sept.
30, 1920. On Sept. 30, 1919, the minimum was 75, the maximum 103, and the average 92. Some of the
children were under the care of agencies and did not require active supervision.
2Larger territory covered by officer with minimum number than by others. In 1918 each officer had
60 or more probationers under supervision.
8 Information relates to boys’ cases only, including those on formal and those on informal probation.
4Including 70 children and 9 adults.
6 Including 85 children and 19 adults.
6The girls’ supervisor carried 18 cases on probation but was trying to be relieved of them as fast as
possible.
7Not including one officer who was responsible for boys placed on probation for violation of traffic rules;
these were not under active supervision.
8Including both delinquent and dependent children and a considerable number of children in institu
tions who were not under active supervision.
9Leaving out of consideration 42 cases under the supervision of the chief probation officer. In January,
1924, the smallest number was 39 and the largest 68.
10In many cases no investigations were made. The figures given refer only to white children on proba
tion, some of whom were probably on probation to volunteers. The smallest number represents white
girls on probation. The woman probation officer spent a large share of her time in special investigations
and other work aside from the supervision of cases.
11Leaving out of consideration cases on probation to the chief probation officer or boys’ supervisor.
12Including 47 families of dependent or neglected children.
13Including 58 families of dependent or neglected children.
14Including an average of 66 families of dependent or neglected children.
15Leaving out of consideration 26children on probation to the chief probation officer. In February, 1924,
-the average number of cases under the supervision of each officer was 128.
76 The report of the committee on juvenile-court standards gave 56 cases as the maximum that should
be under the supervision of one officer at any one time. Juvenile-Court Standards, p. 255.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
172
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
CONDITIONS OF PROBATION.
“ Please give my boy a chance, Judge. Give him probation.
H e ll be a good boy.” This plea is frequently made by mothers or
fathers, many of them speaking English with difficulty and bewildered
by their children’s experience in the complexities of American city
life. They look upon the juvenile court as an agency which may
either impose punishment or “ give the child a chance.” The judge
of one of the courts studied was especially careful to explain to the
mothers that the whole purpose of the juvenile court is to “ give the
child a chance” but that his best chance may come through some
other disposition than probation. “ Can you give the child a chance
if I allow him to remam at home?” is a question that might well be
asked of the parent more often. The child, and especially the child’s
parents, must be active agents in the reconstructive process. No
amount of intensive supervision by the most highly trained proba
tion officer can accomplish results unless the interest and cooperation
of the child and his parents are enlisted. Perhaps this is a reason
for hesitation in following the precedent set by the laws of certain
States in emphasizing the wardship of the court over the child rather
than the individual responsibility for making good which the term
“ probation” implies.
Too often, in placing children on probation, judges fail to make the
parents and the children see the opportunities and the responsibilities
mvolved, or they emphasize compliance with formal rules—such as
reporting at specified intervals— at the expense of more important
elements of cooperation. “ Now I ’m going to let you go, but you
must go to see this lady every Saturday afternoon— she’ll help you to
be a good girl,” can hardly by itself convey to the child or her parents
much of an idea of the meaning of probation. Only in a surprisingly
few instances was this understanding of the meaning and spirit of
probation given the child. Yet the first and most important element
m the successful working out of probation is that the child realize
what it means— a chance to do things which are not only right but
interesting. The definite terms or conditions of probation were also
too frequently negative and prohibitory, rather than constructive.
The succession of “ must nots” contained in the instructions of some
of the courts could scarcely fail to have an influence on the child
exactly opposite to that essential to probation work. It is true that
the judge at the time of the hearing can not go into details with
reference to the processes involved, but there is lost many an oppor
tunity to take advantage of an attitude of mind on the part of child
and parents that in many instances is very favorable. The proba
tion officer in well-conducted courts interviews the members of the
family immediately after the hearing or within two or three days, and
it should be his task to explain the details of supervision and coopera
tion and to assure the family of his desire to be of service in carrying
out the reconstructive work contemplated.
In four of the courts studied the judge in making the order usually
explained the conditions of probation. In two of these courts such
items as regular attendance at school, coming home early at night,
and obedience to parents were specified; and in one, particular em
phasis was laid on regular performance of church duties. The dis
persion of gangs was sometimes stressed. In the other two courts
particular conditions applicable to the circumstances of the individual
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION".
173
case were specified. In three of the four courts the judge’s instruc
tions were supplemented by an interview of the probation officer with
the family immediately after the hearing.
The judge in six of the courts did not usually specify the conditions
of probation, exception being made in cases in which it was deemed
desirable to give certain specific instructions. In one of these courts,
however, the judge explamed in detail the meaning and purpose of
probation, and in three courts the probation officer immediately
after the hearing saw the child and the parents and explained the
conditions with which they would be expected to comply. In a
fourth court the probation officer interviewed the child and the parents
immediately after the hearing or sometimes, in continued cases, at a
later time. The practice in two courts was for the probation officer
to interview child and parents just,after the court hearing if possible,
but this arrangement could not always be made. In one of these
courts if the probation officer was not in the office at the time of the
hearing an appointment was made with the family for an interview
in the home within two or three days, and in the other court the child
was told to report for instructions the following Saturday.
Printed conditions of probation were used in five courts, though in
one of these their use was in the discretion of the probation officer
and the form consisted merely of a blank giving the name of the
probation officer, the term of probation, the time and place when
the child would be expected to report, and space in which the con
ditions applicable to the individual case could be filled in. The
form, when used, was addressed to the parents or guardian. In
girls’ cases in this court the printed conditions included a statement
that the court might retain jurisdiction over the girl until she reached
the age of 21 years, unless she was sooner discharged for good con
duct, and the following special conditions were specified:
1. Must not visit public dance halls, cafés, or places of questionable character.
2. Must not be out late at night.
3. Must not use liquor or tobacco.
4. Must obey all the instructions of the court and the probation officer.
5. Must report as often and in such manner as the probation officer shall
indicate.
6. Must not leave home without first communicating with the probation
officer.
7. Must not marry without the consent of the court.
8. Must not leave the court’s jurisdiction without an order of the court.
In another court the children were given cards containing the
rules of probation, and the smaller children were required to memo
rize them. The cards began with the following statements: “ You
are put on probation by the court to give you a chance to do better.
You are put on your honor. Be frank and truthful with the proba
tion officer.” They directed the child to report at a stated time,
and specified the following: “ Keep away from bad company; do
not loiter around billiard halls, street corners, etc.; do not use tobacco;
do not be out evenings after 9 o ’clock, unless accompanied by a
parent or with the special permission of the probation officer; go to
- school regularly or work regularly; obey all laws, obey.parents, and
be of good behavior; do not leave the city without the consent of the
court.”
The form used in one court referred particularly to reporting and
to change of address, school, or employment. In another court a slip
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
174
was given the child immediately after the hearing, stating the period
of probation, the probation officer’s name, and the terms of proba
tion. The terms of probation included: Proper behavior at all times
and obedience to laws, ordinances, and regulations of the school
committee; reporting to the probation officer at times required and
obedience to instructions; notice to the probation officer of change
of address; and any supplementary conditions the probation officers
might impose. Sometimes the child was asked to bring when he
first reported a statement of what probation means.
In the District of Columbia the following form was given the child
at the time he was placed on probation:
Date.
(Name of child.)
You are placed on probation in order that the court may help you in your
efforts to do better and will be under the supervision of________________________
If you do well, you will later be dismissed from probation; if not, you will again
be brought before thè court.
You must follow these instructions:
(1) Go to school regularly; keep steadily at work and hold present job till a
better one is secured and probation officer consulted.
(2) Report, as directed by the probation officer, and if unable to report, write
or telephone your excuse promptly.
(3) Secure probation officer’s permission before leaving the District of Co
lumbia.
(4) Notify probation officer at once if you change your address.
(5) The probation officer represents the court, and you are expected to obey
all directions of the probation officer.
In one of the five courts in whicn written conditions of probation
were not used little actual probation work was done; in the others
the probation officer might impose any conditions he deemed appro
priate to the individual case. One chief *probation officer was
strongly of the opinion that written conditions were undesirable, on
the ground that if certain things were specified the child might think
anything not forbidden was allowable.
It is evident from the foregoing that in all the courts studied the
individual probation officer had a considerable amount of discretion
with reference to the conditions of probation; in all, moreover, this
discretion covered, necessarily, the decision as to whether the child
and his parents were living up to the conditions imposed. The pro
bation officer might also modify the conditions of probation, but in
some courts certain kinds of modification— such as the elimination of
the requirement for reporting— had to be taken up with the chief
probation officer. In difficult cases the probation officers consulted
with the chief probation officer, and sometimes the judge was con
sulted informally. The judge in the District of Columbia gave
personal consideration to serious cases and held informal hearings
one evening a week for cases that were not progressing satisfactorily.
Likewise, in Boston, the judge talked informally with all boys who
were not doing well and decided whether or not they were to be sur
rendered from probation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
probation.
115
PLANNING INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT.
One of the aspects of probation work that is of vital importance
y^t is relatively undeveloped in many courts is that of planning
individual treatment at the beginning of probationary supervision.
In all but four of the courts such planning was haphazard, d e p e n d i n g
upon the capacity and inclination of the probation officer and the
pressure of work.
The courts of San Francisco and the District of Columbia, through
Proka^ on departments, and the Boston court in cooperation
with the Judge Baker Foundation, placed special emphasis upon the
prompt formulation of plans of treatment.- In San Francisco, as
was pointed out in the discussion of the court order,76 many cases
were put on the “ continued calendar” for a brief period of super
vision, during which plans could be made and tested to some extent,
ih e weekly conferences conducted by the chief probation officer
and the department supervisors were of great help in bringing out
possibilities and determining in each case what measures were best
adapted to meet the particular problems presented. In Los Angeles
m cases of girls and smaller boys a system somewhat similar to that
employed in San Francisco was followed. The probation officers in
the District of Columbia court were required to make plans promptly
alter cliildreii were placed on probation. These plans were reviewed
by the case supervisor in weekly conferences, and the extent to which
they were followed was checked up at intervals.
. The study of the child made in Boston by the Judge Baker Founda
tion usually resulted in definite recommendations for treatment.
Irequent conferences .between the judge and members of the staff of
the foundation were held. The judge reviewed probation cases
about once a month and talked over with the probation officers plans
lor the children.
•
REPORTS BY PROBATIONERS.
Most juvenile courts require at least certain classes of children on
probation older boys, for instance—-to report regularly to the proba
tion officer at a specified time and place. Reporting insures frequent
interviews between the probation officer and the child, trains the
child m habits of regularity and promptness, and makes it possible
for the probation officer to establish a confidential and friendly relationship, a thing difficult to accomplish through home visits, when
other members' of the family are usually present. Reporting to pro
bation officers must be carefully planned and safeguarded and must
not be made a substitute for frequent visits to the home.77
In most of the courts studied boys on probation were usually re
quired to report regularly, exceptions being made in certain cases.
In all but one court reporting by girls was rare and was usually con
fined to cases m which it was difficult to see the girl in her home or to
special appointments made for definite purposes and not a part of
the ordinary routine. One of the reasons why reporting by girls
was discouraged was a desire to avoid the necessity of bringing the
78 See p. 142.
o f i u
. i S
f f l S
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a ^ “ 5SSftag' ' system’ see Probation in Childreil’s
m
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
girls frequently to the probation office. However, in one of the two
courts which utilized for reporting settlement houses, libraries, and
similar places in the vicinity of the homes of the children, it was not
the general practice to require girls to report. The fact that many
girls on probation are sex delinquents makes a special problem in
reporting, particularly in evening reporting. Frequently very young
boys were not required to report; in San Francisco only high-school
boys and working boys were asked to do so. It was the aim of the
District of Columbia court to limit reporting as much as possible,
and except in special cases reports were required only of working
boys. In Seattle, also, except for girls on probation to the superin
tendent of the detention home, reporting was very rarely required
of either boys or girls. The St. Louis court, however, required all
boys to report and the New Orleans court, all boys who could afford
the necessary carfare. In Los Angeles practically all boys 13 years
of age and over reported, and in Minneapolis, Boston, Buffalo, and
Denver, all or practically all delinquent boys. In Minneapolis girls
were required to report unless special arrangements were made for
visiting them in their homes more frequently than was usually
possible.
The frequency of reporting varied from once a week to once a
month, more frequent reports often being required at the beginning
than at the end of the probation period. Six courts planned to have
the children who were asked to report come, as a rule, once a week—
at least for a time; and one of these courts sometimes required reports
twice a week. If conduct was satisfactory the interval between
reports was often increased. In one court the frequency of reporting
varied from once a week to once a month, and boys seeking employ
ment were sometimes asked to come to the probation office every day.
Two courts planned to have the children report every other week,
though orfe of them had weekly reporting in difficult cases. Monthly
reporting was the rule in one court. Some of the courts required
boys placed on farms during the summer and other children living
outside the city to report by letter at regular intervals.
In two courts— those in Denver and New Orleans— the boys
reported direct to the judge. During the school year in the former
city the judge received reports every other week for all boys on
probation formally and informally, except working boys and others
who could not come at the time specified. About 100 boys assembled
every other Saturday morning at the courthouse, and the judge
spent about an hour and a half with them. He first gave them
an introductory talk lasting from 5 to 15 minutes. The boys then
lined up and filed past the judge, showing him their school report
cards and each receiving a word of praise or admonition. Boys whose
reports showed serious failure to live up to the conditions of proba
tion were detained a few moments for consultation with their proba
tion officers. Occasionally the judge called the attention of the group
to a particularly good report. The judge felt that this group report
ing made it possible for boys to be publicly praised for good work
and furnished an effective means o f cooperation with the schools.
Only two rules were insisted on in connection with group reporting:
The boys were to go home singly, and they were never to talk about
their misconduct. They conversed freely while waiting to report.
Boys who did not come Saturday mornings reported individually
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R O B A T IO N .
177
to their probation officers on Friday afternoons between the hours
of 4 and 7. During the summer or in the absence of the judge
- group reporting was suspended, and the probation officers received
individual reports in the probation office. On alternate Saturdays
when group reports were not being received boys who were required
to report weekly were interviewed by the probation officers.
In New Orleans, also, the boys assembled on Saturday morning
to report to the judge, though their reports were received individually
and the judge did not talk to the group as a whole. Fifteen or 20
children reported each week after the court hearing. If the judge
was very busy reports were received by the chief probation officer.
Children on probation to volunteers— including all negro children—
reported at the homes of the volunteers at appointed times.
In contrast with the policy regarding reporting in Denver and New
Orleans it was the belief in the other courts studied that the chief
value in reporting lay in the opportunity it gave the probation officer
to talk privately with the child and that the chief danger to be avoided
was the formation of group contacts among children on probation.
In six courts reports were received at the probation office—which,
in one court, was in the county courthouse and, in five, in special
children's court buildings. One of these six courts— that in B u ffa lo made arrangements for some of the children to report at the public
library. In Boston each probation officer had arranged to receive
reports at a settlement or branch station of the public library within
his district, and only special reports were received at the probation
office. In Minneapolis boys over 14 years of age reported at the
courthouse, but those under 14 and most of the girls reported at
settlement houses, except during the summer, when because of
vacations the probation staff was small and it was necessary for the
menlbers to spend more time in the probation office. Each proba
tion officer o f the Minneapolis court spent one hour, on alternate
Saturdays, at a settlement house receiving reports. Boys who found
it inconvenient to report at the usual tune because of their work were
allowed to report at the homes of the probation officers or bv tele
phone.
, In one court 30 or 40 boys reported to one probation officer in a
single evening between the hours of 5 and 7.30. The schoolboys
came first and the working boys later. Another officer in the same
court had from 80 to 100 boys reporting in a single afternoon between
the hours of 3 and 7, the schoolboys coming immediately after school.
The probation officer felt that there was no danger involved in the
boys becoming acquainted with one another while waiting to report;
some of the boys knew one another in school. From 3 to 5 minutes
were spent with each of the boys presenting the less serious problems
and about 10 minutes with other boys. One of the officers stated
that he was likely to be hurried with the schoolboys and that if the
school report was satisfactory and everything seemed to be all right,
he spent only a few minutes with each. If the report was not satis
factory the boy was required to wait.
In contrast with the situation just described, reporting in a second
court was so arranged— by the appointment system— that very few
children came to report at the same time. This court utilized settle
ment houses in some cases, and these houses provided separate rooms
for boys and girls waiting to report. If children under the age of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
178
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
10 years were required to report, they were accompanied by their
mothers or fathers. About 10 minutes, on the average, was spent
with each child, but if special problems arose the interview was much
longer.
The probation office in a third court was open three nights a week
until 9 o ’clock, and reports were also made on Saturday mornings.
From six to eight children at a time were waiting to report and from
15 to 20 minutes were spent with each boy. In another court half
an hour or an hour was sometimes devoted to an interview.
Only two courts required the child, in reporting, to bring from home
a report of his conduct. In one of these courts it was recognized that
the parents’ report was of little value, but to ask for it was thought
to be beneficial as a reminder to the parents that the child was on
probation. In five courts the children were required to bring re
ports from school, and in three others such reports were asked for
m some cases. Contact with the schools was maintained in two
courts by other means than by requiring the children to bring school
reports to the probation officer.78
In each court some or all of the probation officers were asked to
state their opinion with reference to the value of reporting, and these
statements may be summarized as follows:
C ou rt A (rep o rts req u ired o f m o st o f the b o y s o n 'probation). — Reporting is im
portant as a means of discipline and of keeping in touch with the child. There
is little danger of undesirable associations being formed. In the reporting the
chief probation officer tries to have emphasis placed on the constructive aspects
of probation such as personal hygiene, savings, reading, and club activities and
other forms of recreation.»
C o u r t B (rep o rts requ ired o f practically all b o y s o n p rob a tio n ).— The officers
felt that the disciplinary value of reporting was important.
C o u rt C ( rep orts required o f practically all b o y s o n p roba tion ).— The probation
officers regarded reporting as an invaluable feature of probation.
C o u rt D (rep orts required o f w o rk in g b o y s a n d i n sp e c ia l c a se s). — The probation
officers felt that reporting was of little value. If it were possible for the officers
to make evening visits reporting could be still further reduced. Special confer
ences of the child and the supervising officer and the judge were considered of
value when satisfactory progress was not being made.
C o u rt E (rep orts requ ired o f the m a jo r ity o f b o y s over I S ye a rs o f a g e ). — Some
of the probation officers preferred home visits as a complete substitute for re
porting, as a general rule, and believed that there was considerable danger of
undesirable mingling of children when general reporting was required. Re
porting, however, was thought to have value in some cases as a disciplinary
measure or as making possible private interviews or enabling the officer to see
the child very often.
C o u r t F ( rep o rts requ ired i n p ra ctica lly all ca ses o f d elin qu en t b o y s a n d i n m a n y
cases o f delin q u en t g ir ls ) .— The probation officers said that reporting was valuable
for girls as well as for boys; that it impressed the child with the court’s dignity
and his own responsibility and gave the probation officer a chance to see the
child alone.
C o u r t G (reports to ju d g e or p rob atio n officers required o f b o y s on p robation ) .—
Reporting was thought to be of value and was, as a matter of fact, in this court
the principal method of keeping in touch with the child.
C o u r t H (rep o rts requ ired o f h igh -sch ool b o y s a n d o f w o rk in g b o y s ) . — Reporting
was thought to be of value for the older boys, as a means of keeping in touch
with them and as a disciplinary measure.
C o u r t I (rep o rts ra r ely req u ired ). — The probation officers felt that reporting
resulted in the child’s becoming too familiar with the court; occasionally it was
valuable as a means o f discipline, but only in special cases.
C o u r t J (rep o rts requ ired o f all d elin q u en t b o y s bu t ra r ely required o f girls ).—
Reporting was believed to impress the boy with his obligation to the court and
to enable the probation officer to see the boy alone under conditions which he
« See pp. 184-18$.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION.
m
could control. It was said to enable the probation officer to keep in touch with
the boy with less expenditure of time than would otherwise be required. It
would, however, in the opinion of the probation officers, be better if fewer boys
reported at the same time, and they felt that reporting should always be ac
companied by home visits of sufficient frequency.
H O M E V ISITS.
The home visit and constructive work with the child’s family is,
in the majority of cases, the most essential part of effective probation
work. The probation officer must know the child’s environment and
the persons with whom he comes most intimately in contact, and if
unfavorable conditions exist he must attempt to modify them. He
deals not only with problems of poverty, such as insufficiency of
income and absence of mothers who are wage earners as well as
home makers, but also with the more intangible and often more
nnportant phases of home life which involve the parents’ understand
ing of and control over the child, the provisions made in the home for
the child’s leisure time, and the maladjustments that may exist
in the relationships of the different members of the family. To aid
him in performing these services he must call to his assistance all
the available resources of the community. The probation standards
recommended at the 1919 annual meeting of the National Probation
Association include the following:
True probation work consists of definite constructive effort to help probationers
by means of kindly guidance, home visiting, and practical service. Perfunctory
supervision consisting principally of reports to the probation office is not real
probation work.
Complete cooperation with the social agencies of the community with the
endeavor to surround probationers with every helpful influence is necessary
to effective probation work and to the progressive development of the system.
In general, probation officers should not undertake service for probationers
which other agencies are better equipped to furnish.79
The frequency with which home visits were made varied in the
courts studied, chiefly because of differences in the number of cases
carried by the individual officers, the amount of other work required,
and the compactness of the districts. In home visiting, as in making
investigations, automobiles effect great economy of time and permit
more intensive work, and this means of transportation was available
to the officers in some of the courts.
Home visits in three courts were said to be made, as a rule, oftener
than once a month; in two of these courts reporting was seldom
required. Frequently different officers in the same court followed
different practices with reference to home visits. For instance, in
one court the officer who specialized on work with dependent families
stated that she visited each home two or three times a week; another
officer said she visited every family at least once a month except
toward the close of the probation period, when the visits were some
times less frequent; the officer who had charge of most of the boys
attempted to see his charges either at home or at school once a week.
In a second court the chief probation officer, who had a number of
1nys on probation, stated that he would have liked to visit the homes
every week, but that on the average he made home visits about once
in two and one-half weeks; visits were more frequent in the beginning
” Standards for Effective Probation W ork , Topics for Discussion, p. 65.
tion, 1910.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
National Probation Associa-
180
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
of a case than toward the end, and families not under the supervision
of other agencies were visited more often than families being visited
frequently by representatives of agencies. In the same court another
officer who had an exceedingly compact district averaged more than
one home visit a week and often called for a few moments informally
every day; an officer who had a more scattered district visited some
of the homes every three or four weeks and others much oftener, and
one officer was usually unable to visit the families under supervision
oftener than once a month.
In the third court in which the plan was to make visits more often
than monthly the probation officers tried to visit the homes every
week, but some of them were unable to cover their districts more often
than every other week. Visits were made in some of the more difficult
cases, however, several times a week. Supplementing the home visits,
the parents were often required to call at the probation office for
special conferences, and partly for this purpose the probation office
was open one night a week until 9 o’clock. One of the probation
officers who had on probation at the time of the study 65 boys, 8
girls, and 12 adults said that she tried to visit the home, unless it was
an unusually good one, every week. Children who had been diagnosed
as “ psychopathic” she tried to see at home or at school two or three
times a week. Boys who were merely troublesome were seen once a
week or* once in two weeks. The parents were seen every two or
three weeks, the officer frequently making night visits. Sometimes the
father was requested to come to the probation office for a private
interview. Another officer of the same court, who had almost as
many cases under supervision, said that she visited the homes once a
week or once in two weeks, and less often toward the end of the
probation period. The parents were seen in the homes, and the
children were usually seen at school.
The probation officers in two courts tried to make home visits
.about once a month. In one of these courts, where boys but not girls
were required to report, the homes of girls were visited more often
than those of boys. In some cases weekly visits were the rule. In
the other court pressure of work often made it impossible to visit the
homes every month, and in some of the boys’ cases very few home
visits were made. Because girls were not usually required to report
they were visited more often than boys. In some cases weekly visits
were the rule. Visits were more frequent at the beginning than at the
end of the probation period.
Home visits in five courts were usually made less often than
monthly, though in two of these courts a monthly visit was the
standard aimed at. Probably the average interval between visits in
these two courts was, for most of the officers, two months; some of the
probation officers, especially those supervising girls, succeeded in
visiting their charges monthly or even oftener. In a third court in
this group, home visits were made every four to six weeks, and
oftener— even weekly—if needed. In the less serious oases, however,
as much as three months might elapse between visits. The average^
interval between visits in a Fourth court was from one and one-half
to two months; in some cases visits were made much more frequently.
In a fifth court, visits were seldom made by the paid probation officers
in cases of school children on probation or in cases of children on
probation to volunteers— a considerable proportion of the total num
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R O B A T IO N " .
181
ber under care. Visits were reported to be made to some children on
probation as often as every three or four weeks.
^ The time when the home visit was made and the persons who were
interviewed depended partly upon whether the child was reporting
or whether the home visit furnished the principal opportunity for the
probation officer to talk with the child. For instance, in a court where
girls and younger boys were not, as a rule, required to report, the
probation officers frequently visited the homes in the evening, when
they could see the children and their parents. For this purpose they
were allowed leave for overtime to the extent of two days each month.
In other courts most of the home visits were made during the day,
often during school hours. It is frequently necessary to talk with the
parents alone about the child’s needs and the progress he is making.
A probation officer in one court made day and evening visits on alter
nate weeks, one week going at noon when the mother was likely to be
at home, and the next in the evening, when he could see the father.
In this court contacts with the child were usually made by other means
than through home visits, except that in girls* cases the visit to the
home was relied upon for interviews with both child and parents.
In one court some of the probation officers frequently made eveoing
visits to see if the children were obeying the rules about coming in
early; day visits were made principally for the purpose of seeing the
parents. In a court in which home visits in the cases of girls and
younger boys usually took the place of reporting visits were made, as a
rule, during the day, but evening visits were sometimes made in
cases of girls who were employed and who did not report at the
probation office. Evening visits were frequent in one court, since
home visits were relied upon to a large extent to furnish the opportu
nity for contact with the child.
Through the home visit information was obtained from the parents
with reference to the child’s personal habits, conduct at home, com
panionships, use of leisure time, savings, and observance of church
duties. Some of the probation officers made special efforts to gain
the cooperation of theparents and to keep in touch with both mother
and father. In Buffalo efforts were made in foreign-language
speaking families to persuade the parents to learn English. The
courts were greatly hampered, during the period of the study, by the
housing shortage, which made it almost impossible to find homes for
the families of children on probation when conditions made it desira
ble that they move to another house or another neighborhood.
Occasionally, the judge included in his order of probation the require
ment that the family move.
Efforts to improve housekeeping standards, to encourage the
proper feeding o f the children, to find employment for various mem
bers of the family, to induce the father to support his family—if
necessary, to initiate court action for nonsupport— and to secure
financial assistance from relatives, were among the services reported
by probation officers. Family-welfare and child-protective agencies
were called in when necessary, as were Big Brother and Big Sister
organizations, settlements, and visiting nurses. In the Denver court
delinquency cases involving difficult family problems were referred
to the probation officer who specialized in cases of dependency and
neglect; if nonsupport was involved, the officer who specialized in
adult cases rendered assistance. In the District of Columbia and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
i
Juvenile courts at work .
182
in San Francisco special emphasis was placed on seeing that proper
caretakers were provided for the children when the mother was a
wage earner. The District of Columbia had no “ mothers' pension”
law, and the problem of working mothers in the families dealt with
b y the court was a serious one; in half the cases under the care of
one probation officer the mothers were working. The probation
officers helped the mothers to make arrangements for the proper
care of the children.
No difference of opinion existed among the probation officers in
the courts studied with reference to the value of the home visit and
its primary importance in the plan for probationary supervision.
Opinion was not unanimous with reference to the frequency with
which the homes should be visited. In five courts more frequent
visiting than once a month was considered desirable, and in four
courts80 monthly visits were held to be a reasonable standard. One
judge believed that home visits should be twice as frequent as reports
from the children, which were required monthly. In one of the
courts in which it was considered desirable that home visits should
be more frequent than monthly the chief probation officer believed
that visits should be made about once a week in girls’ cases and once
in two weeks in the cases of boys. In another court in the same
group the chief probation officer believed that the homes should be
visited every week for six or seven weeks and thereafter about twice
a month. The officers of a third court thought visits should be
weekly until near the end of the probation period. “ Every two or
three weeks,” and “ once a week to once a month” were opinions
expressed in two courts. Of course those who believed monthly
visits should be the standard would make more frequent visits in
special cases. Individual needs, it was recognized, must govern
the frequency with which the homes are visited, as well as the other
aspects of probation work.
SA FEG U AR D IN G H EA LTH OF C H ILD RE N ON PR O B A T IO N .
The emphasis placed upon health work with children on proba
tion and the agencies called upon b y the court to cooperate in safe
guarding health varied considerably in the different courts studied.
For instance the courts in Boston, the District of Columbia, and
Minneapolis paid special attention to the correction of physical
defects. Of these the Boston and District of Columbia courts
depended entirely upon the cooperation of outside agencies, while
the Minneapolis court maintained its own medical department.
This department, however, had the close cooperation of two hos
pitals.
In Boston children needing dental attention were cared for at a
dental infirmary which specialized in children’s work; the Boston
Dispensary and other clinics and hospital out-patient departments
furnished medical treatment. In the District of Columbia various
hospitals gave free care, and the board of charities bore the cost of
operations. Children were not released from probation b y tha
District o f Columbia court unless physical defects had been cor
rected or a certificate had been obtained from the family physician
80
One of the 10 courts is not included in this discussion because of the small amount of home visiting
th a t w as done.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
«
P R O B A T IO N .
183
stating that he did not believe the corrective work contemplated was
necessary. The parents and other members of the families were
given physical examinations and medical treatment, if need for such
examinations or treatment was indicated.
The staff of the medical department of the Minneapolis court has
already been described.81 The physician employed by the court
performed necessary operations, the consent of the parents first
having been obtained by the nurse who made a home visit in each
surgical case. Two hospitals in the city placed at the court’s dis
posal a total of 8 to 10 beds each week. A dental clinic was main
tained jointly by the court and one of the hospitals, and every child
on probation had his teeth cleaned, at least, if his parents consented.
The Seattle court utilized for minor operations on children of
school age the clinic maintained by the school department, and for
surgical work for older children the county hospital. After the
operations the children were brought to the detention home for
convalescence. The school dental clinic did the dental work for
children on probation. A dispensary in St. Louis gave general
medical and surgical service to wards of probation officers. In New
Orleans operations found to be necessary were performed by private
physicians free of charge.
Medical care and hospital service were furnished in connection
with the detention homes of Los Angeles and San Francisco. In
Los Angeles dental work was done in the detention home, but for
other corrective work, aside from the treatment of venereal disease,
the court depended upon outside clinics. In San Francisco tonsil
lectomy and other minor operations were performed in the detention
home, but dental work was done by outside dentists.
The problem of the care of girls suffering from venereal disease
was met in Los Angeles and San Francisco by the provision of special
wards in the detention home and medical treatment furnished by
the court. The girls sometimes remained in the detention home for
several months! The San Francisco court cooperated closely with
a local representative of the State bureau of social hygiene, who
made investigations of the homes of the girls to determine whether
it was safe for them to return home after a period of treatment and
who sometimes placed in boarding homes girls having venereal
disease in a noninfectious stage. In such cases the girls were given
treatment in outside clinics or by private physicians. A small
club accommodating 8 to 10 girls was privately maintained in San
Francisco for the care of girls with venereal disease and for other
delinquent girls in need o f special supervision.
In Boston girls with venereal disease received treatment at the
Boston Dispensary, and if care outside their homes was necessary
it was provided through the boarding-home service furnished by
the children’s aid society in cooperation with the court. One of
the hospitals in the city had a ward for venereal cases, but it was
rarely used for court children. In the District of Columbia children
(both boys and girls) who were on probation and who had venereal
disease were required to report regularly for treatment at the clinic
maintained by the United States Public Health Service. If they
81
See p. 95-96.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
184
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
failed to do so, they were committed to the Board of Children’s
Guardians or to one of the training schools.82
A private institution in Denver gave care to girls of juvenile-court
age suffering from venereal disease. In Seattle such girls were
cared for in the county or the city hospital and in St. Louis, in the
detention hospital for venereally diseased women or in the city
hospital, no provision being made for segregating them from the
older women. No hospital provision for the care of children suffer
ing from venereal disease was available in Minneapolis, except the
venereal ward of the contagious hospital, in which juveniles and
adults were not segregated; few children were sent there. White
girls in New Orleans suffering from venereal disease and requiring
hospital care were sent by the court to a hospital. Negro girls were
sent to an isolation hospital where they were in close association
with older women under treatment.
Except in the District of Columbia court little emphasis was
given to the problem of venereal disease among boys. The experi
ence of the clinic maintained at that court for 14 months by the
United States Public Health Service shows that the problem of
syphilitic infection among boys appearing in the juvenile court is
by no means nonexistent. Among the children examined during
the period from February 9, 1920, to March 31, 1921, the following
percentages were found to have syphilitic infection: White males,
1.52; colored males, 5.58; white females, 7.14; colored females, 22.6.
Few gonorrheal infections were found among either boys or girls.83
RELATION OP PROBATION OFFICER TO SCHOOL.
Since in most courts a large proportion of the children on proba
tion are attending school, the relation of the probation officers to the
schools the children attend and the special divisions of the school
department dealing with problems of nonattendance is surpassed
in importance only by their relation to the homes of the children.
Having accepted the responsibility for a child through placing him
on probation, the court must take the initiative in winning the
school’s cooperation in the task of supervision.
All but one of the courts required, in some cases at least, school
reports to be brought by the children, mailed to the probation office
from the school, or transmitted through the department of compulsory
attendance and child welfare. In the Denver court the report
was signed by both teacher and principal and contained information
in regard to the child’s attendance, conduct, and progress. Re
ports were required every two weeks and in difficult cases, weekly. In
Minneapolis also reports were required every other week and were
signed by the principal. They were not required of children attending
junior or senior high schools, but such children brought their regular
monthly reports to the probation officer. Delinquent boys in St.
Louis were required to bring school reports signed by the teacher,
and the monthly school reports of the girls were seen by the probation
officers when they visited the homes. In Buffalo special reports were
88 The practice now (1924) is to send these children to the hospitals until they are reported to he noninfectious. Children approaching 17 years of age are in some instances committed to the national training
schools, i f the Wassermann results are positive beyond doubt.
88 Prevention of Venereal Diseases in the District of Columbia: Hearings before the Committee on the
District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session— Hearings on Bill
H . R . 4118, June 9,1921, p. 23. Washington, 1921.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R O B A T IO N .
185
brought from the teachers, or the regular monthly report was shown
to the probation officer. The latter practice was followed if it was
thought best not to inform the school that the child was on probation.
Weekly school reports were required in New Orleans in all school
cases.
Special methods of keeping in touch with the schools through a
modified system of school reports were followed in Boston, Los
Angeles, Seattle, and the District of Columbia. In San Francisco
visits to the schools were depended upon wholly, and reports from
the schools were not required.83“
In Boston a blank ana a return envelope were sent each week from
the probation office to the teacher of each boy or girl on probation,
with the request that a report of the child's attendance, conduct,
and scholarship be furnished. Such reports were not required for
children attending continuation school; but a list of children on pro
bation was sent the continuation school, and the teachers informed
the probation officers if any difficulty arose. In Los Angeles school
reports were not always required, but some of the probation officers
arranged with the department of compulsory attendance and child
welfare to be given monthly reports on attendance and conduct,
signed by the school principals and forwarded through the office
o f the department. The same forms were used as in other cases in
which information was requested by the school department, and thus
the teachers did not know from the request that the children were on
probation. The Seattle court notified the school principals when
children were brought before the court, and the principals notified
the probation officers whenever any difficulty arose. If the proba
tion officer failed to visit the school during the month the principal
sent him the child’s monthly report card. The officer who supervised
the majority of boys on probation required monthly reports from
teachers and principals.
Visits to the schools by the probation officers were made invariably
or frequently in six courts, and seldom or in special cases only, in
four. School visits were sometimes relied upon as the principal
means of keeping in touch with the child, and in such cases an inter
view with the child as well as with the teacher and principal formed
part of the visit.
Visits to each school attended by children on probation were
usually made once a month in Seattle. The probation officer went
over the children’s school records with the principal, interviewed
the teachers if necessary, and sometimes saw the children. In Den
ver some of the officers visited the schools every month, and others
made visits only when called upon or when making investigations or
when a child brought a poor report. Whenever a school visit was made
the probation officer saw every child in the school who was on proba
tion. A t the beginning of the school year each principal was fur
nished a list of school children on probation, and this list was kept
up to date throughout the year. Absence was supposed to be re
ported at once to the probation officer, whose duty it was to see that
the child was in school before the day was over.
880 In the District of Columbia at the present tim e (1924) probation officers do not visit any schools,
public or private, Reports are requested in writing on a form sent periodically to the supervising prin
cipal of the district in which the school is located. T h e supervising principal secures information from
the teachers. This makes it unnecessary to let the teachers know that the children are on probation.
80306°— 25t------ 13
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
186
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
RELATIO N OF PR O B A T IO N T O RE CR E A TIO N .
The use the child makes of his leisure time and the constructive
recreational programs developed by such organizations as the Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts, the Young Men’s Christian Association, the
Young Women’s Christian Association, settlements, and various
kinds of clubs for boys and girls are generally recognized as of special
importance in work with delinquent children. Nine of the courts
studied devoted more or less attention to recreation as a part of
probation work. The emphasis placed on recreation varied from
that in one court in which the statement was made that the probation
officers tried to keep in touch with the playgrounds, clubs, and
other agencies and in some cases tried to direct the reading of the
children but did not have time to do a great deal along this line, to
that in the Boston court, the probation officers of which stated that
the recreational aspects of practically every case were given careful
consideration. One of the officers tried to get boys between the ages
of 12 and 15 years into scout troops, settlement clubs, the Young
Men’s Christian Association, or church activities. Another officer
cooperated closely with a settlement that did considerable recrea
tional work. Other local agencies also had highly developed recrea
tional programs that were utilized by the court. Special attention
was paid to recreation in the cases of girls as well as of boys, espe
cially when the girls were not living at home but were placed in private
families. In Seattle the Boy Scouts, the Young Men’s Christian
Association, and other recreational agencies were utilized, and women
volunteers from the university were of great assistance in providing
recreation for girls on probation. The Minneapolis probation officers
tried to encourage the children to take the initiative in affiliating
with recreational agencies.
A D VISIN G IN CH O ICE O F O CCU PATIO N AN D SU PERV ISIN G E M P L O Y
M E N T O F CH ILD RE N O N P R O B A T IO N .
Successful probation work with children who are soon to enter
employment and those who are already gainfully employed requires
on the part of the probation officer knowledge of the vocational
opportunities in the community, the kind of preparation required for
various occupations, the legal regulations governing the employment
of children, working conditions, and opportunities for advancement.
Keeping children out of “ blind-alley” occupations is one of the most
important vocational problems which the probation officer should be
able to meet. It involves determining as far as possible the child’s
capacities, stimulating his ambition, and arranging opportunities for
more adequate preparation for industrial or commercial life.
The maintenance of a separate employment or vocational-guidance
bureau under the auspices of the court is not desirable. The work
should be done through cooperation between the court and the agen
cies specializing in the vocational guidance and placement of children.
Unfortunately, in only comparatively few communities are such
agencies fully developed and capable of meeting the needs of all the
children, and probation officers are often forced to carry all or prac
tically all the burden of the guidance and placement of their charges
or to leave the choice and securing of positions largely to the dis
cretion and initiative of the children themselves.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R O B A T IO N .
187
In the boys’ department of the San Francisco court one of the
probation officers specialized in employment problems. He was in
touch with certain firms willing to take boys whom they knew to be
wards of the court. The boys, however, were encouraged to get jobs
themselves if possible, and in such cases the employer was not in
formed that the boy was known to the court. Efforts were made to
stimulate the boys’ ambitions and direct them along right lines. The
principle of specialization was also followed in the girls’ department,
one officer haying charge of all employment work in that department
and cooperating closely with the State employment office. Girls
were sometimes placed in homes where they could attend school,
receiving an average wage of $15 a month. Visits were made to
employers and reports secured from them by telephone only in cases
in which the position had been secured by the probation officer.
In the other courts studied no one officer specialized on employment
problems. Four courts did not give special attention to the vocational
aspects of probation and very seldom got in touch with the employers
of the children, though they cooperated to a greater or less degree
with such agencies as the junior employment office, vocational schools,
the Young Men’s Christian Association, and the school-attendance
department.
The probation officers in the Minneapolis court encouraged the
boys to take positions with a future. The probation office did not,
as a rule, find employment for the children and did not keep in touch
with employers but cooperated with the attendance department, the
Big Brother organization, and similar agencies.
In Seattle the public-school department of vocational education
placed children in positions, and boys on probation were often referred
to that department. The probation officer in boys’ cases did not
usually keep in touch with employers. Girls were helped to take
vocational courses and to find employment. The probation officers
were in close touch with employment managers of stores or factories.
The majority of employed girls were in domestic service, some of
them having been placed as mothers’ helpers.^ In such cases the
probation officers frequently conferred with the employers and
visited the homes.
The boys’ department in the Los Angeles court did little along
vocational lines but referred the children to the public-school depart
ment of vocational guidance and child welfare. Boys who lived in
the county outside the city were sometimes placed on farms through
the efforts of the probation officers. The women officers frequently
found employment for girls and in such cases kept in touch with the
employers by telephone or letter and sometimes by personal visits.
The welfare workers in stores cooperated helpfully with the probation
department.
In each case in the District of Columbia decision was made as to
whether or not the probation officer was to get in touch with the
employer. The city lacked organized facilities for junior placement,
and to some extent the probation officers found positions for children.
Hbut they were able to give little time to such work.836
836 It is reported (1924)that this situation has been remedied to some extent.
Th e United States E m
ployment Service is utilized, the Big Brothers and Big Sisters assist in finding work for the children, and
the greater development of case supervision has also helped to increase the service rendered in connection
with the child’s occupational life.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
188
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
The probation officers in Boston cooperated with State and private
employment offices and with the continuation school, which did
placement work. A vocational counselor employed by an industrial
school was helpful in finding positions and adjusting difficulties be
tween the boys and their employers. In some cases the probation
officers themselves found positions for the children, and this was
particularly true in girls’ cases. One of the probation officers stated
that he frequently consulted employers if the boys did not report
regularly and that this practice had never resulted in the discharge
of a child. Girls placed at housework were frequently visited m
their places of employment, and reports from the employers were
received by telephone and letter.
SU PERV ISIO N O F CASE W O R K .
Supervision by the chief probation officer, assistant chief probation
officer, or department supervisor of the case work done by the in
dividual officer, both in the making and in the carrying out of plans
of treatment, has been referred to from time to time in the discussion.
The work of a probation officer who has behind him the authority of
the court to insist that plans be carried out is certainly as much in
need of careful supervision as the work of an agent of a family-welfare
or child-caring agency. Yet in many courts, even in some of those
with relatively large probation staffs, the emphasis is still on the
individual responsibility of each probation officer for his own cases, as
opposed to any effective system of centralized responsibility and
control. The result is uneven work, uncertain policies, unnecessarily
prolonged probation periods, and often friction within the staff and
complicated relationship with outside agencies and institutions.
Effective supervision of case work includes the following:
1. Prior to hearing: Review of social history and physical and
mental findings and. assistance in the formulation o f the general
outlines of a plan oftreatment to be presented to the judge for his
guidance in disposing of the case.
.
.
2. At the beginning of probation: Consultation with the probation
officer with a view to defining the main ends to be achieved by
probation and formulating the detailed plan by which these results
may be achieved.
„ i
3. Periodically during probation: Review of the progress of the
case, of achievements and failures, and advice as to modifications in
the original plan which may be necessary from time to time. This
periodic review will hold the officers to definite constructive programs
from the beginning of the probation period and will result in closing
cases as soon as they are ready for discharge.
4. When special problems arise that can not be solved satisfactorily
by the probation officer or when a case is to be reheard for any reason:
Special consultation and review of case with the probation officer.
The failure to make definite plans for meeting the needs disclosed
in each case was one of the most serious weaknesses in most of the
courts studied. Periodic review of cases was somewhat more fre
quent, but in four of the courts supervision of case work consisted
mainly in consultations with the chief probation officer or other super
visor when special difficulties arose, and other occasional conferences.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R O B A T IO N .
189
In one of these four courts the chief probation officer supervised chil
dren under the care of the assistant probation officers during the time
. that the assistant probation officers were on vacation; he felt that this
gave him an opportunity to ascertain from first-hand knowledge of
the cases the quality of the work that was being done. In this court,
also, all cases coming before the court for hearing were discussed in
formally with the chief probation officer just prior to the hearing.
The chief probation officer in another court held frequent conferences
with the probation officers and passed on all cases of violation of
probation or application for discharge from probation or supervision;
if a child got beyond the control of the probation officer the chief
probation officer sometimes had the child report to him for a time.
In a third court the chief probation officer conferred informally with
members of the staff, received monthly reports from the probation
officers, and kept for each boy on probation a record of all changes in
disposition. He was consulted in cases involving disagreement
between the parents and the probation officers and also whenever
•the question arose of excusing a child from reporting.
The judge in one court and the chief probation officer or some
other supervising officer in four other courts reviewed probation cases
with the probation officers every month or, in one court, every week.
In a sixth court the supervisor of one of the departments tried to read
the probation histories once a month, but other duties prevented her
from adhering closely to this plan. The judge in several courts was
consulted frequently in regard to cases presenting problems of special
difficulty.
Staff meetings for the general discussion of policies and methods
and of matters affecting the welfare of the court were held weekly or
semiweekly in Minneapolis and at irregular intervals in St. Louis and
Los Angeles. Some of the Minneapolis staff meetings were open to
volunteers. Interesting cases, methods of work, and reports of visits
to other courts were among the subjects of discussion.830
Staff meetings for the discussion of cases were held regularly in
only one of the courts studied— the San Francisco court. Its organ
ization was noteworthy for the centralization of responsibility and
the constructive supervision of case work that had been developed.
It will be remembered that the chief probation officer exercised
general supervision over the probation staff, the detention home,
and the clinic, and was the executive secretary of the probation
committee. Although the probation staff was divided into three
departments— the boys’ department, the girls’ department, and the
family-relations department— and responsibility for the conduct of
each department was placed upon the department head, the chief
probation officer himself served as “ case supervisor” for all depart
ments. In the girls’ department, however, tne details of supervision
were delegated to the head of that department.
In San Francisco cases of delinquency were heard by the judge
Thursday morning and those involving dependency and neglect
Thursday afternoon, one Thursday afternoon each month being set
"aside for county-aid cases. The evening before the hearing the
chief probation officer read over all reports in continued cases. Every
83i The chief probation officer in Minneapolis now (1924) has weekly conferences with county allowance
workers, weekly conferences on clinical cases, and m onthly conferences with probation officers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
190
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Friday morning lie conducted a “ case conference” of the familyrelations department, which dealt with problems of dependent and
neglected children. Each case that had been before the court the.
previous afternoon was discussed; the chief probation officer stated
the disposition and its purpose, and the conference considered what
the next step was to be. The statement made b y the chief probation
officer was entered on the calendar b y the stenographer of the
department.
Following the family-relations department con
ference, a similar conference of the boys’ department was held. The
disposition of each case heard the day before was stated b y the
chief probation officer, and if the order was probation he assigned
the case to an officer of the department and stated the conditions of
probation. If the case was continued suggestions were made as to
the work that should be done during continuance. The disposition
of the case and special directions were entered on the calendar.
The same day the chief probation officer reviewed with the head of
the girls’ department all girls’ cases heard the day before and en
tered on the calendar the orders and special directions. The staff,
conference of that department was held on Monday, the chief pro
bation officer not being present. At this conference cases to come
before the court at the next hearing were discussed, and directions
were given as to the work to be done prior to the hearing. All con
tinued cases and cases of girls in the detention home were also re
viewed. In addition to the staff of the department the matron of
the detention home, the woman physician, and a representative of
the bureau of social hygiene of the State board of health were present.
Student volunteers attended the conferences of the departments to
which they were assigned.
Once a month, prior to the hearing of the county-aid cases, a case
conference attended by representatives of the family-relations de
partment and of private agencies was held. Budgets were checked
and recommendations determined. The representatives of the
agencies were case workers and not executives.
A monthly conference of all departments of the San Francisco
court was held under the chairmanship of the chief probation officer
and was open for general discussion. Monthly summaries of all
probation cases were prepared and were reviewed by the chief pro
bation officer.
The method of case supervision that had been worked out in the
District of Columbia differed in many respects from the San Francisco
system just described. Supervision of case work was delegated to a
case supervisor.84 Conferences participated in by all the probation
officers or those dealing with particular types of cases were not
held, but the supervision of cases was carried on through individual
conferences between the case supervisor and the probation officers.
The case supervisor in the District of Columbia maintained
chronological records of all probation cases.85 The method of
supervision has been described b y the case supervisor as follows:86
84 _^t the time of the study the case supervisor was also acting as chief probation officer, following th eresignation of the former head of the probation department, who subsequently returned to the court; on
his return, the plan of having a special case supervisor working under the general direction of the chief
probation officer was again followed.
85 S e e p . 2 0 7 .
so Ezekiels, Jeannette: “ N ew methods in probation supervision.” Probation and the Prevention of
Delinquency— Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1923. N ew York, 1924.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P R O B A T IO N .
191
The supervisor is held responsible for the kind of work done, and in all cases
the probation officers report directly to her. She is available at all times for
consultation or advice or to meet the emergencies that continually arise.
Probation officers report to the supervisor at regular intervals * * *
every two weeks * * * for conference covering a minimum period of two
hours. Cases are discussed and recommendations made for increased and
adequate follow-up in cases where plan has previously been discussed. New
cases are taken up and suggestions made for meeting immediate difficulties: for
example, the making of appointments for physical and mental examinations,
reentering children in school, securing work for older boys and girls, and refer
ring to the appropriate agency such problems as had better be handled by them—
such as relief or nursing service, or where health or housing conditions require
attention; acute cases or cases needing immediate court action— such as those
in which the probation officer feels that he can go no further and those who
are arrested upon new charges. Concerning these the probation officer 'is ad
vised as to procedure or is assisted to assemble the proper and necessary infor
mation required by the court for hearing that the case may be properly and
promptly disposed of and is assisted in any other work necessary to bring the
record up to date.
During conference cases that have been referred to the social-hygiene clinic
or to the tuberculosis clinic are checked to ascertain whether those cases reported
by the clinics to the supervisor as not reporting for treatment are being properly
supervised by the probation officer. In many cases it has been necessary to
instruct the probation officer to personally take the probationer for treatment
*n * ln* °x u r casf s to send the.b° y or gi1* to the hospital for proper treatment
* ; these of course are difficult cases and sometimes necessitate commit
ment to ensure treatment.
To supplement the case conferences, where the discussions necessarily center
a 1? r
m.dividual and immediate problems or needs, group meetings at the
call of the chief probation officer are held at regular intervals. A t these meetings
the more general aspects of probation work are presented and discussed; any
change m policy is made known and changes in program are offered for discussion
and suggestion. These group reactions are helpful and welcomed.
The probation officers are, at the present time, making a careful study of case
work standards and methods. A small group * * * three * * * take
charge of the program and present to the others the result of their reading or
study. Both the chief probation officer and the case supervisor are present at
these meetings and enter the group discussion as members of the group. It is
thought that this method will cultivate initiative and independence of thought
and expression and develop greater confidence in carrying out the policy of the
court.
J
.^
order directs that all probation officers, before reporting to the super
visor for conference, make a careful study of their individual cases and within two
weeks after the case has been placed on probation submit to the supervisor a
written plan for approval. This plan may or may not be taken up during the
conference for the reason that if approved it goes back to the probation officer
and becomes effective. When a plan is approved it is entered upon both the
supervisor s and probation officer’s record and thus becomes a part of the pro
bation history.
LE N G TH OF P R O B A T IO N P E R IO D S AN D T E R M IN A T IO N OF
PR O B A T IO N .
Definite probation periods were specified by the judge in two of
the courts studied— those of Boston and Minneapolis. In both
these courts probation ^could be extended at the discretion of the
judge, and especially in Boston, the probation period was often
extended a number of times. In Denver the maximum probation
period was two years and in Buffalo, three years. Probation periods
.m six courts were indefinite, but in only three of these— m Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle— could they be extended until
the child reached the age of 21 years if supervision was needed for so
long a time. In St. Louis the court might retain jurisdiction during
the child s minority, but under the Missouri law girls attained their
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
J U
192
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
majority at 18.86a The M^assachusetts law permitted tlie court to re
tain jurisdiction until the child reached the age of 18 years— one year
heyond the age to which jurisdiction extended in new cases. Chil
dren could he kept on probation in the District of Columbia and in
New Orleans until the age of 17— the upper limit of juvenile-court
j ^ h e Cprobation period specified by the Minneapolis court was
usually six months. Discharge might be recommended b y the pro
bation officer before the expiration of that period, or continuance
beyond six months might be requested b y the parent or the proba
tion officer. Continuances were usually for periods of one to three
months. It was stated that in the majority of cases the child was
dismissed at the end of the first six months and if he had done well
was given “ honorable dismissal.” The officers of the court believed
that the short probation periods kept down the number of probation
cases, stimulated the probation officers to constructive work early m
the probation period, and encouraged the child by holding out hope
of early dismissal.
„
. ^
.,
The average probation period for formal cases in Denver was said
to be 18 months and for informal cases, from 8 to 10 months. The
children were kept on probation as long as help was needed, and it
they were not ready for dismissal at the end of the two-year period
they were continued under informal supervision.
#
Comparatively long probation periods characterized the work of
the Los Angeles court. Children placed on probation were made
wards of the court and were subject to supervision until they reached
the age of 21 years unless sooner discharged. It was the policy oi
the court to keep children on probation as long as there was any
question about conditions in the home or the conduct of the child.
Statistical information concerning the length of time children had
been on probation was gathered in six courts— those of Boston,
Buffalo, the District of Columbia, Seattle, San Francisco, and St.
Louis. Of 411 children who had been placed on probation in the
Boston court between September 1, 1919, and August 31, 1920, 265
had been released from supervision and 97 were still Under care on
February 1, 1921.87 The original probation order for 83 per cent of
the total number had been for periods of less than 6 months. Of the
265 who had been dismissed from probation, 44 per cent had been
released at the close of the period originally specified. The probation period, for 26 per .cent bad been extended once; for 18 per cent,
two or three times; and for 12 per cent, four, five, or even six or more
tUTable 30 shows the duration of the probation periods for groups
of children discharged from probation in five of the courts.
860
87
B v Missouri Laws of 1921, p. 399, the age of majority for girls was made 21 years.
„
Tlie remainder had been committed to institutions or to the State department of public welfare, or
had disappeared.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
193
P R O B A T IO N .
T a b l e 30. — Duration o f probation; children discharged from probation in five courts.
Children discharged after specified period on probation.
Court.
Limitations
on probation
period.
Period
covered.
Less than
6 m onths.
6 to 11
months.
12 to 17
months.
18 to 23
months.
2 years
and over.
Total.
N u m Per N u m Per N u m Per N u m Per N u m Per
ber. cent. ber. cent. ber. cent. ber. cent. ber. cent.
Boston___ Definite periods; max
im um age,
18 years.
Sept. 1,1919- 265
Feb. 1 , 1921i
177 66.8
83 31.3
35
3 1.9
B u ffa lo ...
M a x im u m
pro b ation
period of 3
years.3
(i)
138
46 33.3
52 37.6
38 27.5
District of
Colum
bia.
M axim um
age,
17
years.
July 1, 1919June
30,
1920.
166
43 26.0
72 43.4
26 15.6
San Fran
cisco.
M aximum
age,
21
years.
St. Louis.
M aximum
age,
21
y e a r s for
b o y s , 18
y e a r s for
girls.8
July 1, 1919- 6115
June
30,
1920.
Sept. 1 , 1919Dec.
31,
1919.
102
2
8
1.4
4.8
17 10.2
8
7.0
21 18.3
16 13.9
21 18.3
8 49 42.5
3
2.9
19 18.6
24 23.5
27 26.4
7 29 28.4
1 Including only children placed on probation between Sept. 1, 1919, and Aug. 31, 1920. Of the whole
group of such children 97 were still on probation on Feb. 1, 1921, 265 had been dismissed from probation, 35
had been surrendered and committed to institutions or to the State department of public welfare, 10 had
been lost sight of, and the status of 4 was not reported.
3 Tw elve to 17 months and 18 to 23 months combined.
8 Court had jurisdiction until 16 years of age, and probation might be extended for three years, making
19 the upper age lim it for probationary supervision.
* Children placed on probation between January and October, 1917. Information secured in March.
1920.
5 Figures available only for boys discharged from probation.
6 Including 28 on probation 2 years but less than 3, 10 on probation 3 years but less than 4, and 11 on
probation 4 years and over.
7 1ncluding 15 on probation 2 years but less than 3, 6 on probation 3 years but less than 4, and 8 on proba
tion 4 years or longer.
8 Since 1921 the maximum age for both boys and girls has been 21 years.
It appears from the information available that of the five courts
those in Boston and Buffalo held children on probation the shortest
periods and those in San Francisco and St. Louis the longest. In
Boston 66.8 per cent had been on probation less than six months, and
in Buffalo 33.3 per cent had been dismissed within that time; but in
San Francisco and St. Louis the corresponding percentages were 7
and 2.9. In each of the two latter courts more children had been on
probation for two years or longer than for any other time period, the
percentages being 42.5 and 28.4, respectively. In Seattle data relating
to the length of time current probation cases had been under super
vision showed that the duration of probation up to the time informa
tion was secured was less than six months in the cases of 51.7 per cent
of the children and two years or over in the case of 11.3 per cent.88 Had
figures for duration of probation been available for Los Angeles they
would probably have shown a larger proportion of children under
supervision for the longer periods than was found in any of the
courts for which data were secured.
88
Including cases both of dependency and of delinquency.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
194
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
In all the courts studied the judge made the decision with reference
to release from probation. In most cases, however, the child was
not required to appear in court but was notified by mail that proba- ^
tion had been terminated. Sometimes the child came before the
judge, who endeavored to impress him with the importance of right
conduct in the future. In San Francisco the order might be either
“ release from probation” or “ petition dismissed ana all orders
vacated.” The Minneapolis court frequently placed children on
probation “ without adjudication” and dismissed the cases at the
termination of probation without the children’s ever having been
adjudged delinquent. When cases were “ placed on file,” as was the
practice in some of the courts, and were not dismissed they could be
reopened at any time during the period when the child was within the
age jurisdiction of the court.
If probationary supervision has been developed constructively, with
a view to correcting personal and environmental maladjustments, the
termination of probation should imply that the child is ready to
meet his problems with no other aid than that which can be expected
from the home, the school, the church, and such agencies as settle
ments, clubs, and scout troops. Successful probation service will have
connected the child with these agencies, and their continuing interest
in the child after his discharge from probation may be most helpful.
Few of the courts studied placed emphasis on securing follow-up
care. Six courts reported that no special efforts were made in this
direction; two of these courts reported that children were kept under
probationary supervision as long as there was any need for it, and one
court placed children on informal probation if conditions were not
satisfactory at the end of two years. One of the six courts reported
that during probation the interest of recreational and other agencies
had been enlisted and that these agencies would probably continue
their relationships with the child.
For follow-up work with children released from probation one court
was expecting to utilize a Big Brother organization just being
organized. Another occasionally arranged for follow-up care from
Big Brother and Big Sister organizations. In a third court cases were
sometimes referred to representatives of religious organizations and
to a child-protective agency which had a Big Brother department;
and in a fourth, churches, Big Brother and Big Sister organizations,
and the juvenile protective association sometimes undertook after
care of children dismissed from the supervision of the court.
In some cases, at least, it seems evident that the courts were falling
short of fulfilling their obligations toward the children for whose
supervision they had assumed responsibility unless at the close of the
probationary term they made sure that some agency in touch with
the child understood the problems that had been involved, the con
structive work that had been attempted, and the directions in which
special help might still be needed.
RE SU LTS OF P R O B A T IO N .
Measurement of the extent to which probation is successful is
extremely difficult and in many courts has not been attempted. Some
courts have used as an index the proportion of probationers who
have violated probation and have been committed to institutions.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PROBATION.
195
Others have divided cases discharged from probation into the
following groups: Discharged, showing improvement; discharged,
without any improvement; committed for violation of probation.
Such attempts to measure the results of probation are of value only
if their limitations are recognized. It is not enough to have carried
a child through a period of supervision without a recurrence of the
difficulty that brought him into conflict with the law. Improvement
in conduct may be due almost entirely to the child’s desire to comply
with the conditions of probation and win prompt release and may cease
when supervision is removed. Careful study of the results of proba
tion as compared with the problems involved in each individual case
would contribute much to the development of scientific methods of
dealing with juvenile delinquents.
Information with regard to the proportion of children whose
conduct was unsatisfactory and whose probation was terminated
by commitment to institutions was secured for only a few of the
courts studied. Of 411 children who had been placed on probation
in the Boston court between September 1, 1919, and August 31,
1920, 265, or 64 per cent, had been dismissed from probation by
February 1, 1921; 35, or 9 per cent, had been surrendered and com
mitted to institutions or (in 3 cases) to the State department of
public welfare; 10, or 2 per cent, had been lost sight of; and 97, or
24 per cent, were still on probation. Twenty-seven of the children
who had been surrendered from probation had been under super
vision less than six months. The report of the Massachusetts
Commission on Probation for the year ended September 30, 1920,
gives the following results of probation reported by the Boston
juvenile cou rt:89
Number.
Per cent.
Total results reported__________ 1____ 1, 303
100. 00
Surrendered to court for violation of pro
bation___________ _______________________
Disappeared and defaulted (failed to appear) _
Probation ended by new arrest___ ________
Term of probation extended_______________ L
Case filed or probationer discharged_________
48
24
1
862
368
3.68
1. 84
.08
66. 15
28. 24
In his report of the first five years of the Boston juvenile court90
(August 1, 1906, to August 1, 1911) Judge Baker stated that of the
418 children placed on probation the first year, 164, or 39 per cent,
were either committed for failing on probation or were found
delinquent again during the five years for some offense other than
violation of ordinances or license regulations. Statistics for the
second five years (1911 to 1916) showed that of 379 children placed
on probation in 1911-12, 143, or 37 per cent, were either committed
for failing on probation or found delinquent again during the five
years, including for this period, also, children found delinquent for
some offense other than violation of ordinances or license regulations.
In commenting on the figures for the first five years Judge Baker
called attention to the fact that they do not show the full amount of
89The Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Annual Report of the Commission on Probation for the Year
Ending Sept. 30, 1920, p. 63. Boston, 1921. “ Results reported” means results of each probation case.
Since children are placed on probation for definite short terms and probation is frequently extended the
number of children involved is much smaller than the number of results reported.
90Harvey Humphrey Baker—Upbuilder of the Juvenile Court, pp, 34, 104, Judge Baker Foundation,
Boston, 1920,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
196
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
repeating because they do not include91 (1) instances never dis
covered or never prosecuted by the authorities; (2) instances where
a later offense was committed in another jurisdiction; (3) instances
occurring after the defendants had passed the age limit of the juris
diction of this court. He says, however: “ On the other hand, it
should be borne in mind that in a substantial number of instances
not all the offenses for which the child was found delinquent were
serious, even though they were other than the violations of ordinances
and license regulations * * *. It is not practicable to eliminate
such instances from the computation, and they may be considered to
offset to some extent (though not wholly) the unmcluded instances
above mentioned.”
Discussing further the statistics of repeated offenses by probationers
and the possibility of comparing results achieved by different courts,
Judge Baker pointed out certain elements to be taken into con
sideration :92
(a) The greater the percentage of commitments, the less will be the percentage
of repeating in any limited period. A large percentage of commitments means,
first, that some of the less promising children (who would be tried where there
is a small percentage of commitments) are not tried on probation at all; and,
second, that those who prove unstable are early surrendered—a child in an
institution can not repeat.
(b) In some jurisdictions first offenders who pretty clearly need no oversight
are placed on probation just to impress them or their parents or their associates
with the seriousness with which the court regards their conduct. Such juris
dictions will show a less percentage of repeating among probationers than juris
dictions which dispose of such cases either with a reprimand or some suitable
punishment without using probation.
In the course of the study of the Boston court made by the Chil
dren’s Bureau cases of children placed on probation during 1919-20
were traced through the card index of the central information bureau
maintained by the Massachusetts Commission on Probation. This
organization received reports of all arrests and the dispositions made
in all cases from courts in and near Boston. Of 411 children placed
on probation in the Boston juvenile court between September 1,
1919, and August 31, 1920, 61, or 15 per cent, had committed new
offenses by February, 1921, and had been brought before courts
reporting to the probation commission. Thirty of these children
had been before other courts than the Boston juvenile court during
the period.92*
In Buffalo, of 171 children who passed from the supervision of the
court in 1920,93 65 per cent completed the probationary period and
were discharged showing improvement; 3.5 per cent were discharged
without any improvement; 31 per cent were rearrested and com
mitted; 0.6 per cent had left the jurisdiction of the court.
Statistics obtained in Buffalo during the course of the Children’s
Bureau study showed for 199 children placed on probation during
the nine-month period from January to October, 1917, the number
of offenses committed during the probation period and prior to
91I b i d ., pp. 34-35.
92I b i d ., p. 36.
920A recent study of the results of probation, which does not, however, include the Boston juvenile court,
has been made by the Massachusetts Commission of Probation and published as Senate No. 431, March
15,1924. The study covered 312juveniles placed on probation in 1915. Of the boys discharged from pro
bation to the community, 60per cent had no subsequent court record and 87per cent had not subsequently
been committed to institutions.
93Ninth Annual Report of the Children’s Court of Buffalo, 1920, p. 21.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
197
PROBATION.
October, 1920. Seventy-six children, or 38 per cent, committed new
offenses during the period of supervision; 22 of these children, or 11
per cent, committed more than one such offense. Table 31 gives the
length of time on probation and the number of offenses.
T a b l e 31 .— L en gth o f tim e o n 'probation and n u m b er o f offen ses com m itted d u rin g
the prob ation p e r io d ; children placed o n p robation i n B u ffa lo , J a n u a r y to O ctober,
1917.
Children committing specified number of oflenses
while on probation.
Length of probation.
Total _____________________-____________ *4
1year..—. . .............. —................. -...... ——-- —
4
.3
2
1
Total.
None.
199
123
54
19
2
1
89
62
40
2
6
48
42
29
34
12
5
2
1
7
7
4
i
1
1
4
1
Information similar to that obtained in Buffalo was secured for a
group of 102 children discharged from probation by the St. Louis
court during the four months from September 1 to December 31,
1919. Of these children, 76 had committed no new offenses during
their periods of probation and 26 had committed such offenses,^ of
whom 3 had two and 1 had four offenses noted on their probation
records.
The 1919 report of the Los Angeles juvenile court showed that of
2,545 children who were wards of the court and under supervision
during that year in their own homes, in other family homes, or in
private institutions or public institutions under county management, 4
360, or 14 per cent, were brought before the court during the year
for violation of probation. The total number of children included
1,251 continued on probation from former years and 1,294 placed
under supervision during the year. Among the 1,689 boys, 307, or
18 per cent, violated probation, while among the 856 girls, only 53, or
6 per cent, failed so completely that they were brought before the
court for violation. Because of the inclusion of children in institu
tions the figures are not comparable with those of other courts.
In a group of 115 children whose probation was terminated by the
San Francisco court during the year ending June 30, 1920, 100 were
released from probation, 1 child died, and 14 were sent to institu
tions— all but one of them to private institutions.
In the District of Columbia during the year July 1, 1919, to June
30, 1920, approximately 1,000 children were on probation.95 During
the same period a total of 280 cases of violation were heard formally,
and 29 cases were heard unofficially by the chief probation officer.
A new rule was adopted during the year that violations of probation
should be heard unofficially unless it was felt that commitment was
necessary. A total of 173 probationers were committed— 98 to the
'D istrict of Columbia Board of Children’s Guardians, 54 to the
Si All these children were considered to be under probationary supervision.
. „ . __
9J The report for the period Ju ly 1,1917-June 30,1920 (in manuscript) gives the total number
on probation June 30,1920, as 488. The number placed on probation during the year endmg on that date
was 524.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
198
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
National Training School for Boys, and 21 to the National Training
School for Girls. Of 1,125 delinquent children officially before the
court in 1919-20, 67, or 6 per cent, had previously been on probation
in the juvenile court. In each of the two previous years the number
of former probationers before the court was only 3 per cent of the
total number of delinquent children formally before the court.
In connection with this study judges and chief probation officers
were asked to state their opinion of the extent to which probation
was successful. Some of them had no statistical information on
which to base judgments, and in all cases the replies were valuable
only as indicating in a general way the impressions of those who were
responsible for the direction of the probation work. The following
summaries for some of the courts indicate the judges’ and probation
officers’ estimates of the degree of success attained:
Court A .— The chief probation officer believed that probation was successful
in a very large percentage of cases. In 80 to 90 per cent something constructive
was accomplished.
Court B .— The chief probation officer believed that probation was successful
in the majority of cases. One of the probation officers supervising boys stated
that it was difficult to estimate the success of probation, but he believed that it
was of benefit in the majority of cases. He stated that more intensive work
could be done if each officer had fewer cases under supervision. Formerly he
had had not more than 50 cases and had been able to visit the homes once a week.
Boys were then not carried on probation so long as at the time of the study.
Court C .— The probation officers felt that they could do much better work if
they had fewer cases under supervision. One probation officer stated that he
had to decide what cases it was safe to neglect in order to do necessary work on
other cases. Two of the officers thought they ought not to have more than 50
cases under supervision if neglect cases were to be handled as well as delinquent,
since neglect cases took more time. Two others thought they could handle
75 to 100 cases if not more than 20 delinquency cases were included. Other
officers estimated 50 or 75 cases as the maximum that should be carried by one
officer.
Court D .— About three years prior to the time of the study the chief probation
officer made a composite chart showing the progress of probationers (100 cases
selected at random). Each officer had kept for each child a record of the child’s
progress from month to month. The charts showed success, to the extent that
no commitments had been necessary, in 95 per cent of the cases. The chief
probation officer thought probation work could accomplish better results than
were being achieved at the time of the study if the staff were not so overburdened.
Court E .— One of the probation officers who had a responsible position stated
that probation was successful in about 75 per cent of the cases. The judge
stated that probation was handicapped by an insufficient number of probation
officers. He believed that the purpose of probation should be to teach the child
the meaning of legal and moral responsibility.
Court F .— One of the probation officers who had been with the court for a long
time stated that she believed probation to be successful in the majority of cases.
The greatest trouble, she said, was with children who were mentally incompetent.
Court G .— The judge attributed to the probation system the fact that delin
quency had not increased over a period of years and that statistics for the year
prior to the time of the study showed a decrease. The chief probation officer
believed that still better results could be obtained if the probation officers were
less overburdened and could develop more personal relationships.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RECO RDS AN D STA TISTIC S.
IMPORTANCE OF RECORDS AND REPORTS.
Juvenile-court records are of three kinds: (1) The legal records,
which show that the procedure required by law has been complied
with and furnish the basis for statistics on the volume of work,
the charges, and the dispositions made; (2) the records of the social
investigation and the scientific study of the child, which should
contain the diagnosis of the case and form the basis for disposition
by the court and for subsequent measurement of the results obtained;
and (3) the records of supervision, which should show the plans
made, the work done, and the results. These three types of records
are essential to the work with each child. They also form the basis
for statistical measurement of the problems dealt with over a period
of years, in comparison with other courts, in comparison with other
groups of children, and according to the types of problems, the
facilities available, and the methods used.
The legal records are of fundamental importance in court work
and should be in such condition as to facilitate the work of the court
and safeguard the legality of its orders. For them the clerk of the
court is responsible. The amount of record keeping required of the
clerk and his assistants differs in different court systems, and the care
with which records were made out and filed varied greatly. It is
important that all information be entered currently, that the filing be
systematic, and that an index be kept in such a way that cases may be
identified readily and information with reference to previous ap
pearances of cmldren coming before the court quickly obtained.
In the course of the study it was found that the index was often kept
in a bound book which made strict alphabetical entry impossible and
often necessitated searching through several pages to find a name.
The social records— principally the records of investigation and of
supervision— are of vital importance as a part of the equipment of
the court for service to the children. These records are kept by the
probation department, and the confidential nature of the information
can be strictly safeguarded since they in no sense constitute legal
records. The inadequacy of the social records, particularly the
records of probationary supervision, was marked in most of the courts
studied. It was usually impossible to determine from reading them
even the frequency with which the probation officer had been in touch
with the child; the information given rarely showed the constructive
work that was attempted; and except in a most general way it did not
show the results obtained.
The juvenile court has had a sufficiently long history to make fea
sible some agreement upon terminology and methods of compiling and
^presenting statistical material, but in fact the diversity between courts is
so great that combination or accurate comparison of the statistics of
different courts is impossible. Even the unit of tabulation differs,
being sometimes the case, sometimes the child, and sometimes groups
199
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
200
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
of children involved in a single complaint. No general agreement
exists with reference to classification of offenses or of dispositions
made or to the social information which it is practicable to present.96
In many courts— even those in large cities— no funds are available
for printing the annual report, or sometimes even for compiling sta
tistical material.
LEGAL RECORDS.
The legal records of the court must be kept on forms determined by
the need for exact legal language; but, as Flexner and Baldwin point
out, it is possible to draft the forms and keep the legal records so that,
while meeting the requirements of the law, they will also represent
the spirit and the procedure of the children’s court.97 The legal
papers commonly in use by juvenile courts may be outlined as
follow s:98
1. The petition or complaint on which a child is brought to court,
sworn to by the complainant, a probation officer, or an attendance
officer.
2. The citation or summons, the subpoena, and the warrant, used
to secure the attendance of children and witnesses in court, a war
rant being issued in children’s cases only after a summons has failed.
3. Probation orders and commitments to institutions, used in dis
posing of cases.
4. The court docket, usually kept in a book and providing for entry
of the names of the children or, in adult cases, the defendants; a no
tation of the charge; the finding of the court; and the disposition of
the case. In courts of broad jurisdiction separate dockets are often
kept for various types of cases— children’s cases, mothers’ pension
cases, adult cases, and so forth.
5. The daily sheets or calendars, which constitute a fist of the cases
coming before the court on a given day and on which notations are
made that are usually entered later in the docket.
6. The index, which should preferably be an index to both the
clerk’s records and the probation records but which frequently is an
index only to the former.
7. Other records which must be kept by the clerk, including min
utes, financial records, and so forth. These differ in different court
systems.
Petition or complaint.
In five of the courts delinquency cases were brought officially to the
attention of the juvenile court through the fifing of a petition, and
in five through an “ information,” “ complaint,” or “ affidavit.” 99
Informations read “ The S t a t e s .----------,” and petitions read,
“ In the matter of,” “ On behalf of,” “ In the interest of,” or “ In re the
welfare of.” For instance, the form used in the San Francisco court
read “ The people of the State of California on behalf of John Doe,
alleged ward o f the juvenile court.” The facts alleged which would
bring the child within the provisions of the delinquency law, or in the
courts operating under quasi-criminal procedure the exact provisions
98The U. S. Chfldren’s Bureau is endeavoring to promote the compilation of uniform statistics. A com
mittee of the National Probation Association is at work on the subject of juvenile-court statistics.
97Flexner, Bernard, and Baldwin, Roger N.: Juvenile Courts and Probation, pp. 194, 196. The
Century Co., New York, 1914.
98I b i d ., pp. 196-197.
99See Legal processes prior to hearing, p. 50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RECORDS AND STATISTICS.
201
of the statutes alleged to have been violated, were stated in the peti
tion or information. In courts of the latter type different forms of
information or complaint are usually necessary for different types of
offenses.
In Seattle no printed form of petition was used, but the contents
of each petition were separately dictated by the chief probation
officer. A typical petition for Seattle is given in Appendix II, page
257, and samples of petitions for the Denver and San Fran
cisco courts are shown on pages 257 to 260. It will be noted that
the Denver petition names not only the child alleged to be delin
quent but the parents or guardians whose rights to the further care
and custody of the child are in question by reason of the child’s
delinquency.
Petitions were used in dependency and neglect cases in seven of
the courts. In four of these courts the form of petition was the same
as that used in cases of delinquency. In the District of Columbia
the dependency petition was a petition to commit the child to the
Board of Children’s Guardians.
Notice and summons.
The child and his parents were notified of delinquency hearings
through summons, notice and summons, or, in the California courts,
citations. These notices were usually required by law to be served
a given number of hours prior to the hearing, but in most courts
service might be waived b y the parents if they consented to an earlier
hearing.1 Warrants were issued if the summons or citation was not
sufficient to insure the child’s presence in court. Witnesses were
served with subpoenas.
The form of citation used in the Los Angeles court is reproduced
on page 260, blue forms being used for hearings by the judge and
yellow for hearings by the referee. Other forms reproduced are the
summons and notice to parents or guardian used in the Denver court,
the warrant and the waiver of service used in San Francisco, the
Denver order for detention, and the pledge signed b y St. Louis
parents or guardians to be present in court ana to be responsible
for the appearance of the child.2
Docket and calendars.
The docket usually serves as the permanent chronological record
of cases. The Seattle “ juvenile-appearance docket,” for example,
contained for each day a list of the cases heard, with the following
information concerning each: Parents’ names, date of birth, the name
of the petitioner, the nature of the action, the date filed, the date of
hearing, notations ^ith reference to the service of notice and summons,
and the disposition of the case. The specific offense was not entered.
The daily sheets or calendars usually called for the name of the
child, the charge, and the disposition oi the case. In some courts—
those of San Francisco and Minneapolis, for instance— the calendars
constituted the minutes of the court. In some of the courts the
calendars contained only the names of the children and the numbers
of their cases.
1Idem.
1See Appendix II, pp. 257-266.
80306°— 25+----- 14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
202
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
Findings and orders.
The entry on the docket was usually sufficient record of the orders
made in children’s cases, except when the child was committed to an
institution or agency. In such cases an order of commitment was
made out in duplicate, addressed to the superintendent of the institu
tion or the executive of the agency to which the child was committed.
In some of the courts a special journal or register of actions was
kept in addition to the docket, in which orders of probation, of com
mitment, or of any other kind were entered. The disposition of the
case was sometimes noted on the petition or summons.
The form used for the findings and orders in the Minneapolis court
and the commitment forms used in San Francisco are reproduced on
pages 267 to 271.
M ethods o f recording orders.
Although in some of the courts the calendars constituted the min
utes of the court, in others special journals were kept. In Seattle,
for instance, typewritten minutes and orders were entered in a
journal. The mmutes included the date and for each case heard on
that date, the case number, the name of the child, the nature of
the action, and the disposition and order. For each minute entry
there was an order of some kind. The Denver court kept separate
books for commitments of delinquent children, for orders in depend
ency cases, and for commitments in adult cases. The minutes of
the court were hound.
Keeping a complicated system of books is a considerable item of
expense. It is essential that the legal record system of the juvenile
court be adequate to insure that all changes of status of the children
are recorded in due form and that the business of the court is con
ducted in an orderly fashion. The amount of record keeping required
of the clerk’s office should be the minimum needed to comply with
these requirements.
The index.
A card index of cases coming officially to the attention of the
juvenile court was kept in six courts— in Denver under the super
vision of the clerk of the court and in Boston, Buffalo, San Francisco,
Seattle, and St. Louis under the direction of the chief probation
officer. In Seattle and Denver the index included both formal and
informal cases, though in Denver it related only to children coming
to the attention of the court on complaints of delinquency. A
special card index for cases dealt with mformally b y the boys’ de
partment was kept in San Francisco. The Denver index consisted
of a series of loose-leaf books, 5 inches by 8 in size, each page being
devoted to the facts concerning one child.
In some of the courts in which a card index was kept indexes to the
dockets were also kept— in book form. For instance, in one court
all cases were looked up both in the book index of official cases and
in the card index kept by the probation office. The book index con
tained only the name and the number, whereas the card index con
tained a considerable amount of social information.
In the four courts in which card indexes were not kept indexes to
official cases were kept in the clerk’s office, sometimes on the first
pages of the dockets and sometimes in separate books. In these
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RECORDS AND STATISTICS.
203
courts as well as in those using card indexes each case was looked
up to determine whether the child had previously been before the
court.
The card index serves primarily as a guide to the files containing
information about the case, and hence in some courts contains
only the name of the child, the file number, and the addfess. The
St. Louis card illustrates this type of index. The Denver index
gives, in addition, each previous appearance of the child, the com
plaint, and the disposition. The Buffalo index adds to this infor
mation concerning previous appearances a considerable ainount of
social information obtained at the time of the first investigation.
The Seattle card, though somewhat simpler, calls for similar infor
mation. Index cards are shown on pages 271 to 273.
The simple indexes calling only for name, file number, and ad
dress can be kept up at a minimum cost, but they have the serious
disadvantage of making identification difficult because of differences
in spelling of names and changes of address. Such additional items
as the date of birth of the child and the names of the parents are great
aids in identification. The inclusion of many social facts, such as those
related to the status of the parents and the conditions in the home,
is probably unwise, since such facts are constantly changing and
the information should be given in full in the records of investigation
and supervision. Index cards, filed alphabetically and usually
covering a period of years, do not readily lend themselves to statis
tical analysis, which should be provided for through special statis
tical forms.
It is, however, desirable that enough facts concerning the family
be included to make it possible to connect new cases with cases of
other children in the same family who have been known to the court.
It is surely desirable to know the families, as well as the children,
who are coming more than once to the court’s notice.
Special card indexes, for example, of children committed to in
stitutions or of children placed on probation, are kept in many courts,
usually in, the probation office, and are very helpful. They will be
included in the discussion of the social records of the court.3
The filing system .
In five courts the legal and the social records were separately
filed, the former in the clerk’s office and the latter in the probation
office. Four courts filed legal and social records in the same folders,
and in one court practically no social records were kept. The separa
tion of legal and social records has been deemed to be important for
the reason that often legal records can not be withheld from inspec
tion upon demand, whereas social records constitute confidential
and unofficial memoranda.4 However, in six of the courts studied
the legal records were to some extent held to be confidential. In
Minneapolis and Seattle, for instance, the juvenile court held that
none of the records were public records, and access to them was
permitted only to the child’s family or their attorney. In three of
—the courts in which social and legal records were filed together they
were so arranged that the social records could easily be removed
8See p. 208-209.
4See Juvenile Courts and Probation, by Bernard Flexner and Roger N. Baldwin, p. 195.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
204
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
before the folder was given for inspection. For instance, in San
Francisco the two classes of records were clipped together, and the
legal papers only were given out unless the judge specifically ordered
that the social records also be shown.
When the legal records were filed in the clerk’s office the files were
usually less carefully kept than when they were filed with the social
records in the probation office. The Seattle court was an exception.
There the clerk was responsible for the fifing of both the legal and
the social records, which were kept together in flat legal-size folders.
In some*of the courts in which the clerk had charge of fifing the
legal papers they were folded and placed in jackets and kept in
open shelves unprotected from dust.
The work of the court is greatly facilitated if one numbering sys
tem is used throughout the records of the clerk’s office and the
probation office, so that all the records with reference to a given case
.carry the same number. The methods of numbering and of filing
vary greatly in different courts. In Seattle all records pertaining to
one family were given the same number and placed in the same
folder, the folder number corresponding to the docket number.
Even though no member of the family was under care at the time
when a petition is filed, if any member of the family had previously
been before the court, the old case number was used for the new
records. This system had the very great advantage of bringing
together all the records pertaining to a given family. In one court,
on the other hand, in the files of social records a separate folder was
given to each child, but the unit was considered to be, not the child
nor the family, but the “ case” of delinquency. For instance, if
five boys were involved in one complaint, they would all be given the
same file number, the children being distinguished by the letters
“ a,” “ b ,” “ c,” “ d,” or “ e.” This system is less useful than the
preceding one. In San Francisco, except when several children of
the same family were included in the same petition, each child was
given a separate folder, and the same number was kept for the child
throughout the court’s contact with him. A somewhat similar sys
tem was used in Los Angeles. In that court, when several children
in the same family were dealt with, the folde/pertaining to one child
was made a complete file and so marked. The other folders were
marked “ complete in file No. — .”
Various devices which enabled one to determine quickly the legal
status of the case were in use. For example, in Seattle a memoran
dum on the folder showed the facts relating to the petition, notice
and summons, and order. A blue card attached to the folder in Los
Angeles showed the orders.
In some courts cases of delinquency and dependency were placed
in the same file, and a consecutive numbering system was used. In
Minneapolis, where this practice was followed, cases of dependency
and neglect were filed in folders with right-hand tabs and cases of
delinquency in folders with left-hand tabs. When the family is
the unit in the fifing system it is difficult to make this distinction, as
some of the children of one family may be under care as delinquent
and others as dependent or neglected. Separate files were often
maintained for mothers’ pension cases and for contributing-todelinquency or other adult cases.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RECORDS AND STATISTICS.
205
SOCIAL RECORDS.
Statement o f reason for complaint.
Prior to the filing of legal papers bringing cases formally to the
attention of the court most of the courts required of the police officer
or other complainant, a written statement giving sufficient information
to enable the probation office to proceed with an investigation, as
well as the conditions complained of. In some courts the written
report of the police was usually accepted in lieu of the personal ap
pearance of the police officer at the hearing. This was the custom m
Buffalo. A typical police report to that court is given on page 273.
The form used in San Francisco for the police report is also repro
duced, as are the various forms used for complaints by the iuvenile
court of the District of Columbia.5
Social investigation.
In all but one court written records were made of investigations,
but the amount of information recorded varied from a few notes on a
card to a complete history of the child and the conditions in his
home. In six courts the report of the investigation was typewritten—
sometimes from dictation, but usually from penciled entries on a
blank similar to the blank used for the typewritten report, of a
size that would fit into a small notebook, or, in one court, on rough,
pencil paper. The use of special forms for the investigators’ writeup’
in which notes can be entered in the field, saves time that would
otherwise be used for dictation, but when this practice is used the
notes made in the field should be carefully edited and revised by the
investigator before being turned in for copying.
The amount of information called for by the investigation forms in
use in the various courts has already been described.6
The forms used for the reports of investigations in dependency
cases placed more emphasis on the home conditions and the financial
condition of the family and less on the histories of the children than
did the forms used in delinquency cases.
In two courts— those of Los Angeles and Seattle— the report of the
investigation was principally in the form of a narrative prepared
according to an outline of points to be covered. A few printed
questions were included on the form. A report of one of the Seattle
investigations is given in Appendix II, page 276.
The reports of the social investigation of the District of Columbia
court were quite complete and included a number of items with
reference to the family, the home, and the child’s history, and a com
prehensive summary prepared according to a carefully planned out
line. The field notes for the investigation .were taken on notebook
sheets
by 8-J inches in size, which contained all of the items
covered by the final report, 8$ by 14 inches, and which were carried
m a notebook. The investigation form, the outline for the summary
and the school report, together with the investigation form used in
dependency cases m the Seattle court, are given in Appendix II, pages
.277 to 284.
.
F 6
1See Appendix II, pp. 274--276.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
206
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Records of studies o f the children.
For records of physical examinations various forms, some very
general and some more detailed, were used. The blank in use by
the Judge Baker Foundation of Boston is reproduced on page 287.
For intelligence tests the record booklet for the Stanford revision
of the Binet-Simon tests as described in Terman’s The Measurement
of Intelligence was used in the Denver court, and other record blanks
for Binet tests were used in other courts. The Minneapolis court
used 5 by 8 cards for all cases given physical and mental examinations,
a buff card being used for the physical record, orange for the intel
ligence tests, and blue for sociological and pedagogics records. The
physical, sociological, and pedagogical cards are reproduced on pages
285 and 286 together with the form used for the card index kept by
the nurse on the staff of the court. The form for the parents’ con
sent to treatment is also given (p. 289).
The Judge Baker Foundation of Boston kept two card indexes, one
for statistical purposes, summarizing the physical findings, type of
delinquency, home conditions, and so forth, and the other showing
recommendations and adjustments. The cards for the two indexes
are shown in Appendix II, page 288. Different-colored cards were
used for different types of cases, brown indicating a defective girl,
blue a normal girl, red a mentally defective boy, and yellow a normal
boy. A clipped left-hand corner indicated a repeater and a clipped
right-hand corner, a child of doubtful mentality. The follow-up
cards were filed according to the agencies caring for the children.
Detention-hom e records.
Several forms are necessary in the administration of a detention
home. The most common of these are (1) the slip signed by the
police officer requesting that the child be received into custody, (2)
the ledger on which are entered in chronological order the names and
identifying information concerning all children received, (3) the card
index of children cared for in the detention home, and (4) the records
of the children, containing sometimes a considerable amount of social
information. When the detention home is a part of the juvenilecourt organization it is usually not considered necessary to keep any
considerable social information on file in the home. Sometimes the
physical and mental examinations are considered a part of the ad
ministration of the detention home, and the records of physical and
mental examinations are included among the detention-home records.
A page from the record book used by the Seattle detention home
is reproduced on page 289, and on subsequent pages are the slip used
in San Francisco for requests by the police that children be received
into custody, the card record kept by the Denver detention home, and
the form of report to the court used in Los Angeles. It will be noted
that the last-named form calls for information concerning the child’s
record while being detained. A very complete record of each child,
containing social information, a report of the physical examination
and mental tests, illnesses in the home, and record while in the home
was kept in Los Angeles. This record included the following items:
Discipline; kind of work, quality, attitude; playground report;
reading; interests and ambitions; attitude to officers; attitude to
children; school report; remarks; recommendation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R E C O R D S
A N D
S T A T IS T IC S .
207
Records o f supervision.
The most important record in connection with the supervision of
children on probation or of families under the care of the court is
the record of supervision, which should contain information con
cerning the status of the case at the beginning of supervision, plans
made, contacts with the child, his family and others interested, and
results accomplished. This record is the responsibility of the indi
vidual probation officers, but if the information it contains is to be of
value it should be carefully planned and frequently and regularly
reviewed b y a supervising officer. Records of this kind are usually
kept either in the form of a 4 by 6 inch or 5 by 8 inch card index,
filed in a tray on the probation officer’s desk, or in a loose-leaf note
book of correspondence size, kept by the probation officer. Small
field notebooks containing names and addresses of children on
probation, in which notes may be entered, are essential.
Other records commonly in use include the card given the child,
notifying him that he has been placed on probation and stating
what the conditions of probation are; the letter notifying the parents
that their child has been placed on probation and calling upon them
for cooperation; forms for school reports and parents’ reports; special
summaries and reports; the recommendation for discharge from pro
bation; and the card signed by the judge in discharging a child
from probation and given to the child.
The histories of supervision used by the Buffalo and Seattle courts
were quite similar and consisted of a four-page, correspondence-size
form, the first sheet of which contained identifying information
about the case and a digest of supervision, showing the dates the
home was visited and the dates the child reported, the other three
pages being left blank for a full chronological history. The Seattle
form is shown on page 291. The Los Angeles form was very much
like the Seattle form, except that it was a single sheet, to which
additional sheets could be attached for a chronological history.7 In
Boston blank sheets filed with the investigation sheet were used.
The probation record used in San Francisco was in the form of
a chart calling for entries according to a code under each date. No
narrative record was kept, except as summaries and special reports
were called, for. The headings of the charts were as follows: Month
and year; in touch with probationer; home (harmony, discord, etc.);
church attendance (regular, irregular); health; habits; recreation;
school; employment record; financial data (earnings, savings, etc.);
discipline and data on arrests, police complaints, or special progress.
A similar record was kept for dependency cases.
In Minneapolis and St. Louis card records were kept. Such
records involve the minimum amount of clerical work but do not
give sufficient space to record fully the plans made, changes in condi
tions, progress, and so forth. In the District of Columbia a large
card was formerly used, but the system has recently been changed to
that of a correspondence-size face sheet and chronological summary.
The District of Columbia form, a sheet from the notebooks kept
'b y probation officers, a blank used to notify the probation officer
when a child is placed on probation, and an outline for special reports
are shown on pages 293 to 295 of Appendix II. The record system,
7See Appendix 11, p. 292.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
208
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
which in 1922 underwent thorough revision, was described by the
case supervisor, Miss Ezekiels, in her paper given at the 1923 annual
meeting of the National Probation Association, in part as follows:
A new form was designed to conform to the face sheet of the investigation
form. It provided for an adequate desk record and made it a simple matter for
any one of the typists to copy the needed information without direct supervision.
It also relieved the probation officers of unnecessary clerical work and gave them
the benefit of immediate information, which previously had to be entered in
long hand or necessitated constant recourse to the investigation files. In addi
tion, a field blank was designed which could be carried in a pocket loose-leaf
binder upon which the necessary facts about the probationer could be entered
and provided space for the record of all work done. A daily report blank was
also designed to be carried in the same binder with the field record and includes
not only the record of work done by the probation officer each day, but also
the time spent in the field and in the office.
In May, 1922, we introduced the method by which the supervisor and pro
bation officer are both made responsible for the history of children who are
placed on probation. A chronological record is kept in each case * * * the
supervisor entering one group o f items and the probation officer entering another
group. These records parallel, but do not duplicate, each other. They rather
supplement and complete the history and serve to check the work of the proba
tion officer, and by the use of this double-entry method the children have the bene
fit of careful case study and treatment.
* * * On the form kept by the supervisor all items that come to the atten
tion of the probation department are entered, such as telephone messages from
parents and others interested; school reports, reports from clinics, reports from
cooperating agencies, reports from police precincts and the house of detention,
and any casual happening in a case that requires the attention of the probation
officer. This information is immediately sent to the probation officer. There
are also entered upon the supervisor’s form the suggestions, recommendations,
or instructions to the probation officer at the time of conference. On the pro
bation officer’s form are entered all visits, all reports, all developments in the
case, as well as the suggestions, recommendations, ana instructions received at
the time of conference.
The instructions given a child, placed on probation in the District
of Columbia, the letter sent to parents or guardians in boys’ cases
in Los Angeles, and the card used for a similar purpose in Denver,
the parents’ report, the school report, and the post card used when
a child fails to report in St. Louis, the card used in Minneapolis
when a child is discharged from probation, the application for dis
charge from supervision used in St. Louis, and the form used in
Buffalo for reports of violation of probation, are reproduced in
Appendix II. A special form worked out by the Seattle court is
that used for reports on the competency of applicants for the care
of children under the supervision of the court. It is shown on
page 300.
Indexes and files.
In some of the courts in which a general card index did not serve
both the clerk’s office and the probation officer, a card index of all
cases known to the probation office was kept. Special indexes were
usually maintained; for instance, for active probation cases, for
children in institutions and under the care of agencies, and for
complaints.
A general card index of all cases known to the probation office wag.
kept in St. Louis, and three special indexes were maintained—une
for active probation cases, one for children in public institutions
(filed according to sex), and one for children in private institutions
(filed by institution). Each probation officer had his own card file
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R E C O R D S
A N D
S T A T IS T IC S .
209
of active probation cases. The private-institution index and the
active-probation index were checked each month.
In the Seattle court a card index of all cases, formal and informal,
was kept by the secretary to the chief probation officer. In the
same office was maintained, on blue cards, an index of all institution
commitments, with notations showing whether or not the children
had been paroled or discharged. A card index of all cases under
supervision was kept by the probation officer in charge of super
vision. This index contained for each case a summary of the court
order, the date placed under supervision, the name and address of
the child, the name of the custodian, and the probation officer to
whom the case was assigned.
The filing system of the probation office usually included a central
file in which were kept all social records— and sometimes the legal
records also 9— pertaining to cases investigated and cases under
supervision; a “ correspondence file,” which in some courts contained,
in addition to special correspondence, data relating to cases» handled
informally; and the files o f active cases kept usually by the pro
bation officers. Usually the general file was in the form of a flat
file, the folders being correspondence size or legal size, and it was
usually numerical, whereas usually the correspondence file was
alphabetical.
In most courts each probation officer had either a loose-leaf note
book of correspondence size in which the probation histories for
his cases were kept, or a card index on large or small cards, con
taining the names of children under supervision and other identi
fying information concerning them and records of the probation
officers’ contacts with the children and their families.
In developing a filing system it is important that all papers which
will eventually go into the same file be of uniform width. The
length may vary according to the purposes to be served but should
not be longer than the folder.
REPORTS AND STATISTICS.
M ethods o f compiling statistics.
Only one of the courts— the Los Angeles court— employed a full
time statistician to take charge of the statistical work of the proba
tion office, and the person holding this position had not had special
statistical training.10 In eight courts the statistical work was done
by probation officers or clerks whose main duties were other than
statistical and who had had no training in statistical method. The
St. Louis court depended for statistical service chiefly upon students of
the Missouri School of Social Economy, who were occasionally
employed for short periods to compile material for the annual report.
In Boston statistics were compiled by the clerk of the court and
by a clerk on the staff of the probation office; in Buffalo, by the
chief probation officer; in Denver, b y a member of the clerk’s staff;
in the District of Columbia, b y clerks in the probation office; in
9
10
See p . 203.
The report of the committee on records and statistics of the National Probation Association, presented
at the seventeenth annual conference of that organization, M a y 15,1923, stated that as far as the committee
had been able to learn, the municipal court of Philadelphia was the only one in the country employing a
statistician of recognized professional standing.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
210
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Minneapolis, by a member of the probation staff (not a probation
officer); in New Orleans, b y the chief probation officer and an assist
ant; in San Francisco, by members of the various departments of
the probation office; and in Seattle, b y the secretary to the chief
probation officer.
The methods of compiling statistics were in most courts cumber
some and time-consuming. In one court, for instance, the persons
responsible for the statistical work went through the docket three or
four times a year and summarized the cases by offenses. The number
of cases and not the number of children was ascertained, several
children often being included in a single case. Statistics for the
St. Louis court, which were gathered only once every four or five
years, were compiled from the dockets and the investigation sheets.
In Boston the clerk was required to make an annual statistical report
to the department of correction; this was compiled b y going through
the docket at the end of each year. Every five years a special statis
tical summary was prepared b y the probation department, a card be
ing made out for each, child whose case was not immediately dis
missed.
In four courts statistical data were being currently compiled— a
method more accurate and more economical than the plan of waiting
until the end of the year to abstract statistical data. In Denver a
summary, or tally sheet, was kept, based on docket information.
In San Francisco a monthly tally sheet was kept currently b y each
department, and it was planned to combine the information on these
sheets at the end of the year. The headings were inserted on a
sliding rule and the sheet fastened to a drawing board. A pencil
check in the first column indicated that the case was closed. If the
case was reopened, the check was erased. The items included were:
Age, school grade, charge, date of petition, and disposition, with
dates.
The daily check system was also used in Seattle. In Los Angeles
two statistical sheets were kept currently by the-statistician. Pre
liminary reports of investigations were turned over to her and checked
with the transcripts of evidence before the data were entered on the
statistical sheets. Dispositions of cases were checked with the
minutes of the court. When a case was dismissed the probation
officer’s report went to the statistician, who entered on the statistical
sheet the reason for dismissal after checking it with the minutes
of the court. The first sheet showed the reason for filing the petition
and the disposition of the case; the second, the nationality and
ages of the children, the agencies filing the petitions, the nationality
of the parents, the family religion, the conjugal condition of the
parents, and so forth. It was planned in the future to distinguish
between new cases, recurrent cases, and violations of probation.
M onthly reports.
The method of compiling statistics now (1924) in use in the District
of Columbia makes it possible to show the work of the probation
department at any time during the year. The desired data for the
annual report are entered daily from the court calendar upon cards
designed for this purpose. Every disposition,, official or unofficial,
is cleared through the desk of the person responsible for the statis
tical work, and the proper entry recorded. As soon as an investiga-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R E C O R D S
A N D
S T A T IS T IC S .
211
tion is completed that, too, is routed through this desk and all neces
sary information is also recorded. For statistical purposes cards of
_ fo u r colors are used— white for white boys, buff for white girls, blue
for colored boys, and salmon for colored girls. All entries are kept
up to date, so that comprehensive tables for the year ending June 30,
1924, were prepared and submitted on July 1, 1924.
In all but three of the courts monthly reports showing the num
bers of cases dealt with and the amount of work done were prepared
by the probation officers and submitted to the chief probation officer.
A monthly summary covering the work of the entire probation
office was compiled by one of the three courts and by four others, in
which the summary was based on the reports of the individual proba
tion officers. In three of the eight courts which prepared a monthly
summary the summary was in the nature of a report, to a State pro
bation commission (Boston and Buffalo) or to a State board of chari
ties (St. Louis).
The probation officers’ reports in Los Angeles combined a daily
report of activities with a summary of cases continued from the
preceding month, new cases received, and cases passed from super
vision. This form is shown on page 301. The St. Louis report sum
marized the volume of work, the new cases, and the removals, divided
according to sex and color, and this is also reproduced. (See p. 302.)
In the District of Columbia a daily report was kept by each officer
in a loose-leaf notebook, and' a monthly report was prepared, sum
marizing for each child under supervision and for each day of the
month the services rendered. These forms are shown on pages 303
and 304.
The monthly report made b y the Boston court to the Massachusetts
Probation Commission gave for children placed on probation the
age, sex, and offense. The data were compiled from the docket and
daily sheets. The Buffalo report made to the State probation com
mission showed on the face information with reference to juvenile pro
bationers and on the reverse similar information with reference to
adult probationers. It will be remembered that the Buffalo children’s
court had broad adult jurisdiction. The report made by the St.
Louis court to the State board of charities, which was formerly sent
in quarterly, but at the time of the study, monthly, is reproduced on
page 305.
Monthly reports showing the number of children given meals and
lodging were usually required from the detention home. The forms
used m St. Louis are reproduced in Appendix II. In Los
Angeles a statistical report of the detention home was compiled
monthly, showing for each day of the month the number of boys
and girls in each department and the average number per day.
Annual reports.
All the courts studied compiled some sort of annual statistical
statement, but in only four was a report published each year or
every other year. In the other courts a report covering the work
^of the court was published occasionally— perhaps every four or five
years, perhaps even less often. The Boston court had never pub
lished a report of its work, but certain information was included in
the annual report of the Massachusetts Probation Commission, and
material concerning the first and second five years of the court’s
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
•
212
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
work was published by the Judge Baker Foundation.11 A compila
tion of material covering the thud five years, which ended in 1922,
was planned. The annual report of the New Orleans court wasincluded each year in the printed report of the Louisiana Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
For seven courts printed reports and for three others manuscript
reports, covering periods of one to five years, were available at
the time the study was made or shortly thereafter. Nine of these
covered the work of the court and one, the work of the probation
office only. All but one of the printed reports included a statement
of the personnel of the court and of the probation office, and all
but one included some descriptive material relating to the jurisdic
tion of the court, the methods used, or the problems dealt with.
One of the manuscript reports, which was written for publication
but which could not be printed because of the lack of funds, included
a considerable amount of descriptive material. All the reports
presented statistical tables, and six of the printed and one of the
manuscript reports gave at least a slight analysis or interpretation
of the most significant facts shown by the tables.
In some of the reports it was difficult to determine what the unit
of tabulation had been, but in most of the reports it appeared to
have been either cases, with each child counted as many times as he had
been before the court on a new charge during the year, or cases for
some tables and for others, children with duplications eliminated.
Most of the tables seem to have been based upon the number of
cases brought to the attention of the court by petition or complaint,
though one court appears to have based its figures on cases heard
during the year. Cases adjusted without formal court action were
combined with cases dealt with formally in the Seattle court report,
so that it was impossible to distinguish the two types of cases. In
the report of the District of Columbia court unofficial cases and cases
in which no court action was taken were presented in separate tables,
and for the former the charges, ages, and dispositions were shown.
Some information concerning boys’ cases handled informally was
given in the San Francisco report. In three courts totals only
were given for cases settled without formal action, and in four no
information whatever was given for this type of case.
* The charges on which the children were brought to court were
shown in all the reports, but the classifications of charges differed
widely. The reports of most of the courts gave separate tables for
delinquent children and for neglected or dependent children; but in
California no distinction of this kind was made in the law, and the
Los Angeles report gave the two types of cases only in the table
showing offenses charged. A procedure similar, though not occa
sioned b y the law, was found in reports of two other courts. The
organization of the San Francisco court into departments made it
possible to distinguish in a general way between children dealt with
by reason of delinquency and other children. The dispositions of
the cases were shown in the reports of nine courts, and most of these
reports gave the names of the institutions to which children were—
committed and the number of commitments to each.
u Harvey Humphrey Baker—Upbuilder of the Juvenile Court. Judge Baker Foundation, Boston, 1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R E C O R D S
A N D
S T A T IS T IC S .
213
The ages of the children were given in eight reports, and in a ninth
a table showing the ages of children brought to court for larceny
and kindred offenses was included. The nativity or nationality
of the children was shown in five reports and that of the parents
in six, though the classification was sometimes limited to “ native
b o m ” and “ foreign bom .” The family religion was shown in
five reports. Eight gave facts with reference to home conditions,
such information being limited in one report to the item of the death
of the father or mother and in another to the item of whether or
not the parents were living together, but in other reports extending to
such items as intemperance, insanity, confinement in penal institu
tions, and the employment of the mother. The District of Columbia
table on parental condition showed the status of the parents and with
whom the child was living. The Minneapolis report included a
table showing the number of cases in which there had been other
juvenile delinquents in the same family.
The source of complaint and the agencies filing the petitions were
shown in three reports; the child’s grade in school in three; the number
of children reappearing in court on new charges in seven; the number
of working children in two and the number of employed girls in
one other; and the status of probationers in four. Medical and
psychological data concerning both boys and girls were given in three
reports, and concerning girls only, in one. Five courts gave some
comparisons of the statistics for the years dealt with and those for
previous years.
Only three of the reports gave statistical information with reference
to detention homes, and these showed only the movement of popula
tion in the detention home and the average number of days children
had been detained. In no court had information been compiled
showing what proportion of children before the court had been de
tained.
M ethods of increasing the value o f statistical material.
From the preceding analysis of the statistical material compiled
b y the juvenile courts studied it is evident that, except for a few of
the most obvious items, there was no general agreement as to the
subjects which it was desirable to present, nor was there agreement as
to the unit of tabulation or the classifications to be used in statistical
presentation. It is, therefore, impossible to make any but the most
general use of the statistical data available. This situation is by no
means peculiar to the courts included in this investigation. The
report of the nation-wide study of courts hearing children’s cases
made by the Children’s Bureau in 1918, pointed out that for the
country as a whole available figures give only an inadequate approxima
tion of the totals for all courts reporting numbers of cases, and! air com
parison of any one State with other States was found to be practically
impossible.12 A committee of the National Probation Association
reported in 1923 that wide variation existed in the statistical year,
in the statistical unit of measurement, in the classifications of causes
bringing children before the courts, and of dispositions made b y the
courts.13
u Courts in the United States Hearing Children’s Cases, b y Evelina Belden, p. 59. U . S. Children’s
Bureau Publication N o . 65.
_
.
.
^
n Report of the Committee on Records and Statistics, Probation and the Prevention of D e lin q u e n cy Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1923. N ew York, 1924,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
214
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
If juvenile-court statistics are to be of more than local value
statistical methods must be improved and made more nearly uni
form. Before this result can be achieved there must be agreement
among those responsible for juvenile-court administration as to the
purpose and uses of statistical material. The committee of the
National Probation Association referred to above attempted to set
forth in a brief statement the purposes of juvenile-court and other
social-court statistics. Accordmg to this statement all courts
should gather on a uniform basis statistics furnishing an index of the
general nature and extent of the problems dealt with and the extent
and kinds of service given. This information should be cast in such
form that it may be comparable from year to year for the same court,
for different areas, and for the country at large. Additional statistics,
based on careful case records, the committee believed, should be
compiled, when facilities for research were available, and should
point out significant causal factors and the extent to which service
given by the court has been effective.
The juvenile court is a public institution expending each year
large sums of money and dealing with vital social problems. Public
interest requires at least that minimum amount of stock taking which
will show for the States and for the Nation the volume of juvenile
delinquency and the methods of treatment which are employed. This
requires agreement as to the unit of measurement, generally accepted
definitions of the terms used, the compilation of statistical material
by competent persons, and the services of central coordinating agen
cies which can promote uniformity and efficiency in statistical proc
esses, exercise leadership in the development of definitions and classi
fications, and assemble, interpret, and publish statistical material
from the different courts. An increasing number of States are vest
ing advisory or supervisory powers with reference to juvenile courts
and probation in some central State body. Of the courts studied,
six were required to make statistical reports to a State probation
commission or State board of charities. More than a thud of the
States have now made some provision for assistance by State depart
ments in the development of juvenile-court work. The Federal
Children’s Bureau is planning to make a beginning in the collection
of juvenile-court statistics on a national scale by drafting simple
table forms which will be submitted for criticism to juvenile-court
officials. These table forms will then be given to courts undertaking
to cooperate by annually sending to the bureau statistical informa
tion compiled according to a common plan and presented in the form
of the tables agreed upon.
State agencies having authority to require reports are in a position
to make the greatest contribution to the movement for securing better
juvenile-court statistics and hence a more adequate evaluation of the
work being done. The data requested by the State agency should
be an incentive for the compilation of the right kind of statistical
data and not, as sometimes happens, merely a request for data so
general that they have no special significance. Moreover, the State
agency can supply to the smaller courts that trained statistical serv^
ice which only the largest courts can now afford. By advising in the
planning of record systems and record forms, devising the best
methods for the current compilation of statistical material on tally
sheets or on cards, assisting in the formulation of definitions and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R E C O R D S
A N D
S T A T IS T IC S .
215
classifications, and checking the accuracy of- the statistical returns
the State agency can secure a far greater degree of uniformity and
—.efficiency within the State than now exists. Moreover, through inter
change of information with other State agencies and with national
agencies, uniformity on a nation-wide scale may, in a measure at
least, be secured.
Any court that is intelligently interested in the problems it deals
with and fne work it is doing will wish to make, at intervals, special
studies which will reveal causal factors and will show the results of
methods of treatment. The inclusion of such special studies adds
greatly to the interest and value of annual reports. Such analyses
are impossible unless adequate case records are kept, and even then
the staffs are usually too limited to make practicable such inven
tories of their problems and accomplishments. In some courts such
studies can be made in cooperation with the social-research depart
ments of colleges and schools of social work. The committee of the
National Probation Association has suggested the joint employment
of a statistical expert by a number of social agencies in a city. State
agencies to assist in promoting juvenile-court work are the logical
sources of trained service, not only for the compilation of general
information on a uniform basis but also for making special research
studies of problems and results. Such an agency, m addition to the
minimum statistical information that is now required, might call for
information each year on some special problem. It might also
organize special intensive studies in communities where an increase
in delinquency appeared, some problem seemed especially serious, or
some new method of treatment seemed to promise results.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
AD M IN ISTR A TIV E W O R K O F T H E CO U RT.
The term “ administrative work,” when applied to juvenile courts,
properly refers to the entire work of the probation office and the
management of detention homes or of institutions. As the term is
commonly used it refers to the administration of mothers’ allowances
or public aid to dependent children in their own homes, to the place
ment of children in family homes, and to the administration of insti
tutions other than detention homes. Only hah the courts studied
engaged to any extent in one or all of these special administrative
functions. Mothers’ allowances or public aid was administered by
five courts. Two of these, however, dealt with only a part of the
mothers’ aid problem, as other public agencies also handled this
type of case. Only one court placed any considerable number of
children in family homes; the others did placing out very rarely or,
in one case, not at all. Two courts Were concerned in the adminis
tration of county institutions for delinquent children, and one court
had developed a special method of providing for feeble-minded
children.13“
M O T H E R S ’ ALLO W AN CES.
Seattle.
The mothers’ pension law in Seattle was administered by a separate
department of the juvenile court in charge of a commissioner, who
had on her staff an investigator, two home visitors, and a stenogra
pher. Applicants for pensions were first interviewed by the commis
sioner at the office. After this a social investigation was made.
The hearings, which have already been described,14 were more in the
nature of case conferences than of court hearings. When a pension
was granted the mother was notified b y letter, and prior to the first
payment she was required to come to the office for a letter of identi
fication. A t this time she had a long talk with the commissioner.
Visits of supervision were usually made every month. A t the time
of the study 220 families were receiving aid; from 12 to 14 new
cases were added each month.
No definite family budgets were worked out. The law specified a
maximum of $15 a month for the first child and $5 a month for each
additional child, and it was stated that the maximum was almost
always granted. Practically all the mothers were said to work on
part time. The pension was sometimes supplemented by orders for
groceries or fuel given by the public department of charities.
In addition to administering the mothers’ pension fund the court
had authority to order the county to pay not more than $12 per
month per child for not longer than six months, to cover emergency
cases. Not more than two or three families a year were granted aid
of this type.
130 See p.142.
14 See p. 132.
216
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A D M
IN IS T R A T IV E
W
O R K
O F
T H
E
C O U R T .
217
M inneapolis.
In administering, county allowances in Minneapolis the juvenile
court had enlisted the cooperation of an advisory board of three
members— the county poor superintendent, the superintendent of
the Jewish associated charities, and the assistant general secretary of
the associated charities. This committee was formerly on an unofficial
basis, but at thé time of the study it constituted a committee of the
county child-welfare board.
The first step in securing a county allowance was an interview with
a member of the court staff. Following this an application was filled
out and sworn to and the statements contained therein verified by
one of the four investigators on the staff of the court.15 The investi
gator also estimated the amount needed according to a standard
budget. Each member of the advisory committee and the chief pro
bation officer were furnished with a typewritten summary of the
investigation. The committee considered the investigation and the
budget estimate and made a recommendation to the court. The case
was then set for hearing. Before the hearing all cases were reviewed
by the chief probation officer. The method of conducting the hearing
has been previously described.16
The maximum amount that could be granted to a family was $45,
and deficits in the amount estimated as necessary for adequate sup
port were made up so far as possible by other organizations. These
deficits were said to total about $6,000 a year.
Visits of supervision were made by the investigators at least once
in three months and often more frequently. Allowances were recon
sidered once a year. The mothers called at the court for their
monthly checks.17
Denver.
The Denver juvenile court had designated the city and county
bureau of charities as the agent of the court in the administration of
the mothers’ compensation law.17 All of the work of investigation
and supervision was done by the county bureau, but the mothers had
the right to protest to the court against reduction or cessation of
pensions.18 B y a law passed in 1923 the juvenile court is given power
to grant maternity aid for a period not exceeding six months before
or six months after the birth of the child. This law is to be adminis
tered in the same way as the mothers’ compensation law.
San Francisco.
In San Francisco the work of the widows pension bureau was
limited to mothers who could meet the very strict requirements
imposed. Children of other mothers and children in boarding homes
or m institutions, through the juvenile court, were granted county aid
to the amount of $17.50 a month for each child. The State reim
bursed the county to the amount of $10 if the child was an orphan, a
15 The number of investigators has since been increased to six.
18 See p. 132.
17 For a more complete description of the administration of county allowances in Minneapolis and in
D enver, see Standards of Public A id to Children in Their Own Homes, b y Florence Nesbitt, pp. 43-54
and 69-68 (U . S. Children’s Bureau Publication N o . 118, Washington, 1923). A t the time of M iss N es
bitt’s study visits were made in Minneapolis at least every two months.
*
18 For method of hearing, see p. 132.
80306°— 25t------15
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
218
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
half orphan, or abandoned.20 It was stated that most of the recent
orders had been for the maximum amounts.
The application for county aid to children in their own or in foster
homes came through one of three children’s agencies— a Catholic
agency, a Jewish agency, or the children’s agency of the associated
charities. Applications coming direct to the court were referred to
one of these agencies after brief interviews b y a member of the staff
of the family-relations department of the court. The agency
receiving the application made an investigation, following which the
case was taken up in a conference of the head of the family-relations
department of the court and representatives of the three children’s
agencies. Recommendations were made to the court.
In order to secure county aid it was necessary that the child be
adjudged a ward of the court.21 He was then committed to his
mother under the legal control of one of the agencies or committed
to one of the agencies. The responsibility for supervision, for sup
plying clothing and milk, where needed, and for otherwise supple
menting the aid granted, rested entirely with the agencies. Every
six months the cases came before the court for renewals of orders.
Prior to the renewal hearing reports were made b y the agencies and
were reviewed by an investigator on the staff of the court. If neces
sary the court’s investigator made a home visit at this time. All
institutions caring for children who were receiving county aid were
visited once a year by this investigator.
When a family that had been receiving aid through the court had
improved so that the standards were acceptable to the widows’
pension bureau, or otherwise became eligible for aid, the case was
referred to that bureau.
Los Angeles.
The générai policy in Los Angeles was that cases involving only
dependency should be handled entirely by the county department of
charities, but occasionally such cases were dealt with by the juvenile
court on petitions alleging that the parents were unable to provide.
County aid was ordered by the juvenile court in behalf of wards who
were cared for in boarding homes or institutions. In order to receive
county aid through thé court the child had to be adjudged a ward,
and the procedure was the same as in other cases, except that countyorder cases were heard by the referee at a special time. The maxi
mum allowed per child was $20 a month.21“ State reimbursement was
obtained for part of the aid given for orphans, half orphans, and
abandoned children. At the time of the study from $7,000 to $8,000
a month was paid by the county through the court for the care of
children in their own homes, in boarding homes, or in institutions.
Parents reimbursed the county to the extent of $800 or $900 a month.
20 In 1921 this aid was extended to children of fathers incapacitated for gainful work b y permanent physical
disability or b y tuberculosis. The aid for foundlings was increased to $15 a month.
For description of hearing, see p. 131.
,
‘
...
, _
,
210 A n additional amount of $10, making the maximum $30, is now (1924) allowed in cases of delicate,
especially troublesome, psychopathic, or feeble-minded children. T h e staff now includes a superintendent
of county orders and of payment of board of children in private homes and institutions.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A D M
IN IS T R A T IV E
W
O
R K
O F
T H
E
C O U R T .
219
PLAC IN G CH ILD RE N IN FA M ILY H O M E S .
Every court is confronted with the problem of providing for the
child, dependent or delinquent, who can not be cared for in his own
home but who is not in need of institutional care. When other agen
cies, public or private, are able to undertake the placing of such
children it is usually considered better for the court not to assume the
responsibility for this specialized task. In many communities, how
ever, facilities for child placing, particularly for temporary care, are
relatively undeveloped, though the realization of the possibilities of
home care for delinquent children as well as dependent children is
increasing. Although only one of the courts studied engaged in child
placing to any considerable extent, seven occasionally placed children
in family homes. When such work was undertaken it was often for
older boys who would benefit b y a summer with a farmer’s family or
for older girls for whom placement was desired in a home where they
could earn room and board and at the same time attend school.
In Los Angeles the only child-placing agencies were home-finding
societies placing children in free homes, and the juvenile court in 1919
ordered 188 boys and 276 girls placed in family homes, of whom 117
boys and 134 girls were to receive county aid. Figures showing the
number of these children who were delinquent and the number who
were dependent were not available. The children were placed by the
probation officers, who found most of the homes. The homes had to
be approved by the public-welfare commission of the county. The
commission itself found some of the homes in which children were
placed, as did the nurses on the staff of the health department. If
more than one child were placed in a home permits from the city health
department and from the State board of charities were required. A
list of certified homes was kept b y the chief probation officer. Pro
bation officers included in their monthly reports the number of homes
found. The supervision of children placed in homes was of the same
kind as the supervision of children in their own homes and the same
records were kept.
In Seattle, also, placement in free homes was the only type of place
ment engaged in by other agencies, and the court sometimes placed
children, usually those whose parents or relatives could pay board.
Older girls were sometimes placed at housework or as mothers’
helpers. The parents might be ordered by the court to pay board,
but no fund for boarding children was available to the court. Lists
of boarding homes and of homes in which girls might be placed at
housework or as mothers’ helpers were maintained by the case super
visor, who investigated all homes in which children were placed.
For boarding homes the approval of the child-welfare division of the
city health department was required. The probation officers super
vised the homes.
The Minneapolis court sometimes placed boys on farms for the
summer, but such homes were recommended by private agencies.
Placing of dependent and neglected children was done by private
agencies. Supervision of boys placed on farms was by correspondence
onJy-
Placement of children by the San Francisco court was confined
principally to girls who were placed in homes from which they
might attend school. Older boys attending school or working were
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
220
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
sometimes placed in homes. Placement of younger children was
left entirely to private agencies.
The Boston court, whenever possible, secured the cooperation of a
private agency when a child was in need of home placement. It was
sometimes necessary, however, for the court to place children directly.
This work was chiefly limited to the summer placing of boys in farm
homes and to the placing of older girls as mothers’ helpers in homes
which were carefully selected and dosely supervised.
M A N A G E M E N T OF IN S T IT U T IO N S .
Aside from the administration of detention homes the management
of institutions was a function of ouly two courts, those of Los Angeles
and Minneapolis. El Retiro, the school for delinquent girls main
tained by Los Angeles County, was under the jurisdiction of the
probation committee and for aaministrative purposes was considered
a branch of the detention home. The superintendent of Juvenile
Hall, as the detention home was called, was also the superintendent
of El Retiro. The El Retiro staff included an assistant superin
tendent, three matrons, a teacher assigned by the city department
of education, and a farmer. One of the matrons was a domesticscience instructor, one taught manual arts, and one was a trained
nurse and playground instructor. The detention-home physician
also served El Retiro, and the probation officers kept in touch with
the girls during and after their stay in the school.22
The judge of the Minneapolis court and the county commissioners
were jointly responsible for the management of the Hennepin County
Home School for Boys and the Hennepin County Home School for
Girls. The judge was actually responsible for most of the administra
tive work. He appointed the superintendents, who were probation
officers ex officio. Three teachers were assigned by the board of
education to the boys’ school and one to the girls’ school.23
22 For a
employed
missed b y
22 See p.
fuller statement concerning E l Retiro, see p. 146-147. A full-time trained field worker is now
(1924). She cares for all girls who have left the school under supervision, until they are dis
the court.
146.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
RELATIO N O F JUVENILE COURT T O AD ULT CR IM IN A L CASES
IN V O LVIN G CH ILD R EN .
AD ULT CASES DEALT W IT H BY JUVENILE CO U RT.
The jurisdiction conferred upon the courts over such types of adult
cases as contributing to delinquency or dependency, nonsupport and
desertion, the determination of the paternity of children born out of
wedlock, and offenses against or involving children has been sum
marized in another section of this report.24 One of the courts25
had no jurisdiction over cases of this type, and three had none except
with reference to contributing to the delinquency of children, and
this jurisdiction was seldom if ever exercised.
.
Angeles and San Francisco the juvenile court had original
jurisdiction over cases of contributing to the conditions which brought
a child under the juvenile court law, but it conducted the prelimi
nary hearings only, holding the defendants to another branch of the
superior court for final action. The preliminary hearings were held
by both these courts on one afternoon each week. In San Francisco
preliminary- hearings in cases of failure to provide for children under
the care of the juvenile court were also held in the juvenile court on
the same afternoon as contributing cases.
. Except for the time of women probation officers who were present
m court during the hearings of cases in which girls were required to
testily, the probation department of the Los Angeles court had no
functions with reference to contributing cases until the defendant
was placed on probation. The probationary supervision was undertaken by the probation officers of the juvenile department. Girls
held as witnesses were usually made wards of the court and assigned
to the supervision of probation officers.
The arrangement for dealing with adult cases which had been
worked out m San Francisco by the district attorney’s office and the
juvenile court was resulting in a considerable degree of success in
fixing responsibility for the delinquency of young girls. An assist
ant district attorney was assigned to the juvenile court for part-time
service and had an office in the juvenile-court building. He spent
three afternoons a week at the Court and such other time as was
necessary. Since November, 1917, a woman investigator employed
by the district attorney had been assigned to the juvenile court for
gbbtime service and worked with the assistant district attorney.
She had previously worked nine months as a volunteer in the same
capacity. The age of consent in California was 18 years, but it was
believed that there was little chance of securing convictions on rape
charges in cases of girls over the age of 16 years. That section of
the juvenile-court law relating to the performance of any act or the
omission of the performance of any duty, which act or omission
24 See pp. 13-15.
narJil f
H ^0Urt’ whichi however, might order the parents of a neglected child committed to the
care of an institution or agency to make payments toward the support of the child.
221
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
222
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
causes or tends to cause or encourage any person under the age of 21
years to come within the provisions of the act, since it applies not
only to parents hut to other persons was sometimes used effectively
in reachmg men responsible for the delinquency of girls under the age
of 21 years. It was not a prerequisite to prosecution that the girl
should be declared a ward of the court. The penalty provided was
a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than two years, or both such fine and imprisonment,
or release on probation for a period not exceeding five years.
It was stated that 90 per cent of the contributing cases in San
Francisco involved sex offenses and that the remainder were usually
in behalf of boys—pool-room cases, and so forth. Every girl sex
offender coming to the attention of the juvenile court who was willing
to make a complaint against the man responsible for her delinquency
was brought by the head of the girls’ department to the woman inves
tigator assigned by the district attorney’s office. If the interview
with this investigator showed that there were grounds for filing a
complaint the assistant district attorney served citations on the man
or the men involved, requiring them to come to the office for an
interview. The man was interviewed b y the assistant district attor
ney and also by the woman investigator. If a settlement was not
made a preliminary hearing was held by the juvenile-court judge,
sitting as committing magistrate. If at this preliminary hearing it
appeared that the case could be handled without further court
action it was placed on the reserve calendar, and the man thus became
subject to probationary supervision during the continuance, which
might be renewed from time to time over a five-year period. Unless
the man was under the age of 21 years the supervision was assumed
by the adult probation office. Marriages were not encouraged
except in unusual cases. When the man was held to answer to the
superior court, a volunteer worker went with the girl to that court.
The final trial was b y jury unless the man pleaded guilty. Hear
ings in the juvenile court were public unless in a special case the
judge ordered the doors closed. A t the juvenile-court hearing the
girl was accompanied by the probation officer in charge of the girls’
department. If the man was found to be under 21 years of age the
case was dismissed and a petition filed in the juvenile court. Girl
witnesses were usually cared for in the juvenile-court detention home
until after the preliminary hearing and were then, with the consent
of the district attorney, released under supervision, their cases being
continued or probation being ordered.
Collections of the payments ordered in failure-to-provide cases and
in those contributing cases in which money payments were arranged
were made by the collector on the staff of the San Francisco court,
who also acted as complaining witness in the former class of cases
when the wife refused to make the complaint. Failure-to-provide
cases were usually continued after the preliminary hearing, pending
the payments of the required amounts.
The Buffalo and New Orleans courts had jurisdiction over adults
committing offenses against or involving children, contributing to
the delinquency of children, or violating the child-labor laws. The
New Orleans court also had jurisdiction over cases of nonsupport
and desertion of children. In Buffalo hearings in the adult part of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A D U L T
C R IM
IN A L
C A S E S
IN V O
L V IN G
C H IL D R E N .
223
the court were held every morning, and more than a fifth of all the
children’s court cases concerned adults. One probation officer in
— Buffalo gave full tune to adult work. Hearings in adult cases were
usually public, but the judge sometimes cleared the court room and
often conducted part of the hearing in his private office. Adult
hearings in New Orleans were held two days a week and special
hearings, at other times. A t least half the time of the judge was
devoted to work with adults, and about one-third of the cases were
adult cases. First hearings of nonsupport cases and hearings of
cases involving immorality were held in New Orleans in the judge’s
private office; in nonsupport cases the judge made special efforts to
reconcile the parents.
The District of Columbia juvenile court had, at the time of the
study, jurisdiction over nonsupport and desertion,26 contributing to
delinquency or neglect, determination of the paternity of children
born out of wedlock, and violations of the child labor law. Adult
hearings were held twice a week, and the probation officers gave a
small amount of time to adult cases.27 In the year ended June 30,
1920, 605 nonsupport cases were filed, 92 illegitimacy cases, 36 cases
of violation of the child labor law, 4 cases of contempt of court, and
1 case of contributing to delinquency. The total number of chil
dren’s cases, including delinquency and dependency, was 2,000.28 An
assistant corporation counsel was detailed to the juvenile court and
assisted in dependency and adult cases. He conducted preliminary
examinations in adult cases and whenever possible adjusted cases
without court action. Because of the importance of establishing
paternity illegitimacy cases were not settled out of court if there was
sufficient evidence to warrant court action. Nonsupport cases were
often continued by the assistant corporation counsel, subject to call,
on condition that payments for support be made through the pre
cinct station in the precinct of the defendant’s residence. Hearings
were public and were usually without jury. Defendants pleading
guilty or found guilty were almost always placed on probation under
suspended sentence. A t the time the 1920 report of the court was
compiled 324 persons were paying through the court.
The jurisdiction of the Denver court covered cases of contributing
to delinquency or dependency; child labor law violations; nonsupport;
and controversies concerning the custody of children in divorce and
other cases, these cases being brought before the juvenile court as
dependency cases. From 1907 to 1915 the court had jurisdiction
over cases of offenses against children. The court lost this jurisdic
tion, so far as it related to statutory offenses, by a supreme-court
decision but regained it by a law passed in 1923.29 When the study
was made the judge was devoting about half of his time to adult
cases. One probation officer gave a considerable amount of time
to adult work, and the major part of the time of the special police
officer assigned to the juvenile court was devoted to cases of this
type. In the year ended July 1, 1920, about 22 per cent of the cases
filed were adult cases.
,e In April, 1922, the provision under which the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction in nonsupport cases
was held to be unconstitutional.
See p. 14.
27 A probation officer now gives full time to adult cases, supervising about 210 men who are paying for
the support of children born out of wedlock.
28 N ot including cases dealt with unofficially.
20 See p. 14,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
224
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Adult hearings in Denver were in the judge’s office, except that
nonsupport trials were by jury when the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Cases of contributing to delinquency or dependency might be dealt
with under either chancery or criminal procedure.30 Alleged fathers
of children bom out of wedlock were often dealt with under the
contributing-to-dependency law, and paternity was determined as
part of that proceeding. The district attorney had charge of the
prosecution of criminal complaints of contributing to delinquency
or dependency.
C O O PE R A TIO N OF JUVENILE CO U R T W IT H O T H E R CO U R TS.
Some of the courts had worked out special plans of cooperation
with other courts hearing cases involving children, either for the
ose of securing in a larger proportion of cases action against
bs responsible for the delinquency of children or of protecting
child witnesses in criminal courts. In Denver, for instance, the
special police officer assigned to the juvenile court worked up the
evidence in cases which were taken into the criminal court, sub
mitted memoranda to the district attorney, and was present at the
trials. The judges of some of the courts sometimes directed that
prosecutions of adults be initiated, and in St. Louis the probation
officers took steps to have prosecutions begun when such action was
deemed to be desirable. In Minneapolis the chief probation officer
filed complaints in other courts and appeared as a witness, and the
other probation officers also made complaints and gave evidence.
Some of the judges and probation officers expressed great discourage
ment because of the difficulty of securing convictions in cases of
adults responsible for the delinquency of girls.
In several of the courts a woman probation officer or a woman
volunteer was with the girls during their interviews with prosecuting
officers and during their testimony in criminal cases. For instance,
in Los Angeles women probation officers accompanied the girls when
they went before the grand jury, the superior court, or Federal
courts.
S
so S e e p . 1 3 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H E COURT A N D T H E C O M M U N IT Y .
Of the community agencies concerned with child welfare the
juvenile court has a unique opportunity for perceiving conditions
influences favorable and unfavorable to children and informing
.e Puklie with reference to them. In dealing with individuals ana
with community problems the court must combine the functions of
diagnostician and general practitioner. It does not specialize in
improving civic conditions, the prevention or relief of poverty, the
conservation of home life, the promotion of health, mental hygiene,
education, recreation, child placing, or institutional care; yet the
court is daily brought into close contact with the social forces of the
community which determine both the extent of its problems and the
constructive work which it can accomplish. In correcting malad
justments in home or school and in diverting from antisocial into
social channels the energies of the young people for whom it assume
responsibility the juvenile court is largely dependent upon the
outside resources which it can call to its aid.
The court in the large city where there are available social agencies
equipped for child protection and constructive work with families
has a task far different from that of the court in the community
where there is no organized social action for child protection. Yet
some courts of the former class fail to see the possibilities of cooper
ation with existing agencies. These courts attempt to assume the
whole responsibility tor protective and constructive work, as well
as the duties of studying the cases that come before them, discover
ing the treatment best adapted to the needs of each child, and providing probationary supervision. The court should recognize its
place in the child-welfare program of the community, utilize the
agencies available, and let itself be understood and used by them.
The real danger in the court’s assumption of too wide a range of
preventive and constructive activities lies in the almost inevitable
neglect of its own immediate field of work.
Perhaps the most concrete evidence of relationship between juve
nile delinquency and social conditions is to be found in the large
percentage of children who come from broken homes, or homes from
which some element of parental guidance is lacking. An analysis
of all the delinquency cases coming before seven courts in a year—
involving 10,845 children— showed that 40 per cent came from
homes in which death, desertion, divorce, or separation of the
parents had disrupted the family.31 (See chart, p. 236.) Analysis
of the home conditions in the 60 per cent in which both parents were
living in the home would undoubtedly show, as analysis on a smaller
scale has done, that in a large proportion of these cases the way
wardness of the children was directly traceable to absence of the
mother from the home because of outside employment or to abnormal
conditions in the home.
It is the community’s responsibility to provide the resources that
are essential Jto the safeguarding and healthful development of
children. This includes clean civic conditions, proper housing, adeCombining data from the juvenile courts in Chicago, Cleveland. Denver, Kansas City. M o., Los
Angeles, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia.
225
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
226
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
quate policing, good school facilities adapted to both normal and sub
normal children, and industrial or other training that will provide
an incentive for continuing in school. Means must be provided for
supplementing family resources and preventing family breakdown.
Recreational facilities should be available to provide wholesome
activities as an outlet for youthful energies.
The juvenile court, dependent upon public funds, can do only
the grade of work that the public permits. Inadequate appropria
tions; restrictions of size of staff and of salaries that may be paid;
failure to provide the necessary resources for detention, for study of
the children, and for care through properly equipped agencies and
institutions of children who can not be cared for by their own fami
lies— these conditions limit the service which the juvenile court can
render. Nevertheless, the court can not disclaim responsibility for
such community neglect unless it has tried by every means in its
power to interest the community in its problems and to awaken the
conscience of the public to the necessity for providing adequately
for its children.
The chart on page 227 shows some of the most significant relation
ships of the juvenile court in a city of the size of those included in
this study.
From scientific diagnosis and expert treatment the emphasis in
both health activities and social work is fast shifting to prevention.
If the juvenile court were an isolated social unit without contact
with the conserving and constructive forces of the community its
workers would soon become discouraged with the daily grist of
problems. Only as the juvenile court endeavors to reach back into
causes and direct attention to preventive possibilities can its task
be regarded as hopeful.
TH E SC H O O L AN D TH E CO U RT.
Opportunity of the school in the prevention o f delinquency.
The school is in a very favorable position for discovering those
early signs of adverse home conditions which forewarn of neglect
and delinquency and for dealing with conduct disorders when they
first appear before they become so serious as to require court action.
Realizing this fact, some students of the court have held that the
school should take over most if not all of the functions of the pro
bation department.32 For many reasons this proposal seems to be
impractical— at least under present conditions.33
32 For a discussion of this subject in relation to informal work b y probation officers see p. 109.
83 For arguments in favor of the assumption b y the school department of some or all of the functions of
the juvenile court see:
Baker, Judge Herbert M .: “ The court and delinquent child.” American Journal of Sociology,
September, 1920.
Additon, Henrietta S., and Deardorff, N eva R .: “ T hat child.” The Survey, M a y 3,1919.
Should the Schools Take Over the W ork of the Children’s Courts? Social Courts and P rob ation Annual Report and Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the National Probation
Association, 1919.
Eliot, Thomas D .: The Juvenile Court and the Community. Th e Macmillan Co., N ew York, 1914.
----------: “ The back to the school movement. Th e unofficial treatment o f predelinquent children.”
Journal of Delinquency, W hittier, Calif., Vol. V I I , N o. 6, November, 1922.
----------: “ The treatment of misbehaving children b y noncourt agencies.” Probation and the Pr&__
. vention of Delinquency— Proceedings of the National Probation Association, 1923.
For dissenting opinions see:
Thurston, Henry W . : “ Is the juvenile court passing?” The Survey, Oct. 22,1921.
W aite, Judge Edward F . : “ The outlook for the juvenile court.” Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science. Vol. C V , January, 1923, p. 229
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
h e a lt h
U N IT Y .
227
For Feebleminded Children
M
Child-Caring Agenciesand Institutions
Child-Placing A gencies
Public
Private
In stitu tio n s -p riv a te ,co u n ty op
m u nicipal,S tate
For Delinquent Children
For Dependent Children
For P h y sica l iy H andicapped
C h ild re n
C O M
Com m unity O rdam zatiort
Juvenile Court A dvisory Board
Counci Is of Social Agencies
Conferences of Social w ork
Social WorKers’ Clubs
Case Conferences
Confidential Exchange
E
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Juvenile
Court
T H
Prevention of D elinquency
Educational Agencies
R ecreation
Playgrounds
Boy and G irl Scouts,Y.MCA.y.w c a
and s i m i Ia r o rgan iz atio ns
C lubs Settlem ents,Libraries
S a fe g u a rd in g M orals.
Bofree. DeoaPtment;CriminaI. Courts
juven ile Protective Agencu
Inspectors of Commercialized
Am usem ents
Personal S ervice
Big Brothers and B igSisters
Conservation of Family Life
Public A idto Dependent Children
inTheirOw n Homes
Fam ily W e lfa re and Relief Agencies
Child Protective A gencies
Legal Aid So cieties
Courts D ealing w ith Fam ily
Problems
A N D
Agencies Concerned W ithHousing Conditions
Adequate Incom e
Employment Agencies
w orkm ens Compensation
Minimum w age
W orking Conditions
F acto ry Inspection
Employment Management
Churches
Schools
R ecreational A gencies
w ith Program s fo r
Et h ica l T rai ni ng
C O U R T
Improvement of Living Conditions
M oral and Ethical
T rainin fa
g ...
— ■■
................................
E
e d u ca tio n
Superintendent,P rincipals,
and Teachers
V isiting Teachers
Schoo “ Nurses
School Attendance Department
Special C lasses ;
vocational Training
vocational Guidance
Employment C e rtifica te
Issu a n ce
T H
Diagnostic C lin ics
Treatm ent C lin ics
H o spitals
Convalescent homes
Fresh A ir Cam ps
Individual Physicians
Mental Hygiene Programs
Court officials, however, have often been among the first to realize
the importance of correcting conditions tending to cause delinquency
before it becomes necessary to bring the child to court and have been
the means of stimulating school departments and social agencies to
a greater sense of the possibilities in this direction. It has often
been difficult for the juvenile court to shift back upon the school
department the responsibility which logically belongs to the school.
Overburdened teachers and attendance officers have been too ready,
in some communities, to demand from an equally overburdened
THE JUVENILE COURT IN R ELA TIO N TO
SOCIAL FORCES OF TH E COM M UNITY
228
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
juvenile-court staff assistance in problems of attendance and discipline
that should not require judicial action.
The awakening of the schools to their own responsibility for the
development of the child’s character as well as his mind and body
is a sign of the greatest promise. In some instances this awakening,
which has found expression chiefly in the socializing of attendance
departments, has come about as a result of the reluctance of the
court to be used as a place to which children or their parents could
be brought when attendance officers, with little training and few
resources of their own, needed backing. In one of the cities included
in this study effective arrangements dv the attendance department
for handling its own difficulties were the direct result of the refusal
of the juvenile-court judge to handle any more truancy cases until
some reform should have been made in the methods of the attend
ance department. The work of Judge Baker, the first judge of the
Boston juvenile court, in changing methods of dealing with truancy
problems is noted in an explanation of the decrease in the number of
truancy cases during a 10-year period as follow s:34
Judge Baker’s comments under this heading [truancy] in his report for the
first five years indicate the cause for what practically eliminates truancy from
the court docket. Had another written the paragraph on truancy he would
surely have given Judge Baker himself much of the credit for the changed attitude
toward the handling of truancy as an offense among children. It was perfectly
patent to the disinterested observer that the new method inaugurated by Judge
Baker for the handling of truants on probation was what aroused the school
department to. greater activity in the way of suppressing truancy. The school
teachers would probably be the first to sanction this statement. The practice
before the juvenile court was established was to consider that when a child was
brought to court he had had his probationary period and was therefore ripe for
commitment. This is clearly indicated by the fact that 99, or 84 per cent, of
the 118 children brought before the former court for truancy the year before the
establishment of the new court were committed. Judge Baker’s method was to
give the children a trial on probation in the court—a method which resulted in
a very radical reduction in the number of commitments. The efforts of the
schools themselves to cure truancy without resort to the court proved so suc
cessful that it was decided that there was no longer need for a truant school.
Accordingly the parental school was abolished. Now truants must first be sent
to a disciplinary day school before they can be complained of in the court for
truancy.
As is very often the chronology in the development of social re
sources, «departments of education have frequently left to the last
the logical first step in methods of handling attendance and conduct
problems. The order has been: Establishment of parental schools
or resident schools to which children who are truant or incorrigible
may be sent either b y the court or, with the consent of their parents,
by school authorities; employment of trained attendance officers;
and last, employment of visiting teachers or other social workers who
become familiar with home conditions and deal with conduct prob
lems.35 In some cities special day schools or classes for difficult
34 Harvey Humphrey Baker— Upbuilder of the Juvenile Court, p. 101.
38 In 1921 a survey of the visiting-teacher movement in the United States showed visiting teachers in at
least 28 cities in 15 States in all parts of the country. See T h e Visiting Teacher in the United States; A
survey b y the National Association of Visiting Teachers and H om e and School Visitors, published b y th e _.
Public Education Association of the C ity of N ew Y o rk, June, 1921. See also a description o f the demon
strations of visiting-teacher work being conducted in a number of communities b y the National Committee
on Visiting Teachers as part of the Commonwealth Fund’s program for the prevention of delinquency,
in The Commonwealth Fund Annual Reports, 1922, p . 16 (New York, 1923), and 1923, p. 22 (New York,
1924).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
229
THE COURT AND THE COMMUNITY.
children take the place of or supplement parental schools. The
employment of deans or vocational advisers in high schools and the
utilizing of school nurses in the absence of visiting teachers to make
initial contacts and report circumstances requiring special attention
are also among the measures employed b y school departments for
handling their own problems and applying social-service methods at
the beginning instead of waiting until the child has become a com
munity liability.
The supplanting of the old-time truant officer, wearing his badge
of authority and threatening the intervention of the court, by the
P E R C E N T A G E S O F T R U A N C Y CASES A M O N G D E L IN Q U E N C Y C A SE S“ D E A L T W IT H
B Y E IG H T J U V E N IL E C O U R T S
7*
I
11 ■
San
Francisco,
1919-20.
Seattle,
1921.
St. Louis,
1920.
trained social worker equipped to diagnose conditions responsible
for nonattendance and other social difficulties and to utilize the
resources of the community in combatting these influences is one of
the most hopeful signs of progress in our educational system.36
In an article describing the bureau of attendance and child welfare
“ Including only cases dealt with formally b y the court except for Seattle figures, which include both
formal and informal cases.
bN ew cases during year.
36 For discussion of the schools and exceptional children and the schools and social work, see the follow
ing articles in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. X C V H I , November,
1921 (Philadelphia, 1921):
“ Public-school provision for exceptional children,” b y Arnold Gesell, Ph. D ., M . D .
“ The visiting teacher,” by Jane F . Culbert.
“ The relation of teacher and social worker,” b y Anna Beach Pratt.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
230
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
of the New York City public-school system the qualifications of
attendance officers have been described as follow s:37
The new attendance officer * * * must be sympathetic and social minded.
He must know the general principles and aims of education and the organization
of the school system, of which he is a part; he must be a student of juvenile delin
quency, its causes and manifestations; he must study the theories controlling the
common modes of dealing with all forms of delinquency; he must know of every
social and charitable agency that contributes toward child welfare in his district.
Equipment o f school departments for prevention o f delinquency.
Work o f school-attendance departments.— In all the cities studied
there were special departments which included in their field of work
school attendance. These departments were in six cities termed the
attendance department or division; in three, the department of
school attendance and vocational guidance, or of vocational guidance
and school attendance, or of vocational education; and in one, the
department of compulsory attendance and child welfare. In addi
tion to attendance work, and in four cities in addition to visitingteacher work, the functions of these departments included the issuing
of employment certificates in seven cities and of “ poverty excuses”
in one, and in one or two cities each the maintenance of a continuing
school census, vocational guidance or juvenile placement, the regula
tion of street trades, the supervision of boys on parole from the
parental school, and the responsibility for classes for mothers and
tor evening schools and part-time schools.
A full-time supervisor of the attendance department was employed
in all but one city (San Francisco), in which the chief attendance
officer was also the principal of the largest intermediate school.37® He
had only three assistants and a stenographer, and this staff was
responsible for issuing employment certificates and enforcing the
compulsory attendance law m a city of more than 500,000 inhabitants.
In New Orleans, which had nearly 400,000 population, one full-time
chief attendance officer, two men attendance officers for white chil
dren, and one visiting teacher paid by private funds and working
with colored children, constituted the staff of a department respon
sible for the enforcement of school attendance and excusing from
school children of needy widowed mothers. In contrast to the situa
tion in these cities was that in St. Louis, which had a population of
nearly 800,000. Here the attendance department, which also issued
employment certificates and was responsible for the maintenance of
a continuing school census, had a staff of 20 persons including attend
ance officers, officers issuing employment certificates,, and 3 persons
specializing in problems of neglect and delinquency. In Los Angeles,
with a population of almost 600,000, according to the 1920 census, the
department of compulsory attendance and child welfare, which also
issued employment certificates, had besides the director, a staff of 6
women and 10 men attendance officers; in addition, 33 home teachers
were employed by the school department. These teachers visited
the homes, gave instruction to illiterate mothers, and in various ways
promoted understanding and harmony between the home and the
school. They reported special difficulties to the attendance depart-ment and were said to have assisted greatly in securing improved
school attendance.
87 Klapper, Paul: “ The bureau of attendance and child welfare of the N ew York C ity public-school
system.” The Educational Review, November, 1915, p . 384.
87o gan Francisco now (1924) has a full-time supervisor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H E COURT AND TH E COMMUNITY.
231
Boston, with a population in 1920 of approximately 750,000, had
30 attendance officers (including the chief attendance officer and 4
temporarily employed); Buffalo, with a population of about 500,000,
16; the District of Columbia, with more than 400,000 inhabitants, 9;
Denver, with about 250,000 inhabitants, 5. The Boston department
issued employment certificates and supervised minors licensed to
engage in street trades, but the attendance officers were not reauired
to assist in this work, as they did in Denver.
The Seattle department, m addition to attendance work, issued
employment certificates, gave vocational advice and secured employ
ment for children, and was responsible for the supervision of mothers’
classes, part-time schools, and evening schools; it also undertook
special work for delinquent children, including the supervision of
boys on parole from the parental school. The population of the city
of Seattle was 315,000. The supervision of the attendance work was
the responsibility of a supervisor of attendance, working under the
director of the department. He had three men assistants. A woman
“ home visitor” specialized in the problems of delinquent girls, and
such problems also received the personal attention of the woman
assistant superintendent of schools. An Americanization worker who
visited the homes was helpful in improving the attendance of children
of foreign-born parents, and a man and a woman, called respectively,
“ industrial coordinator” and “ commercial coordinator,” specialized
in vocational guidance and juvenile placement.
In Minneapolis, with a population of 380,000, the attendance
■work, which was assigned to one branch of the department of school
attendance and vocational guidance, was the responsibility of a super
visor of attendance and four attendance officers, who had the assist
ance of six visiting teachers working in. eight grade schools and three
visiting teachers working in junior high schools. The visiting teachers
were assigned to districts which had the most difficult problems, and
their first responsibility was in connection with school attendance.
Attendance officers did not go into districts covered by visiting
teachers except in court cases or especially difficult cases referred by
the visiting teachers. The latter assisted in such activities as Ameri
canization work and the organization of mothers’ clubs.
It is interesting to note that in one city all the attendance officers
were men, while in some of the cities all were women. The salary
paid attendance officers was in one city only $105 a month. An in
crease of $300 in the yearly salary was expected for the following year,
and an attempt was being made to secure grade teachers’ salaries for
attendance officers. In another city the salaries of attendance officers
were from $1,600 to $2,400 on a 10-month basis, and the director
received $3,600; in this city also the salaries of attendance officers were
lower than the salaries of teachers. Fourteen of the 16 officers were
college graduates, and it was planned to require both pedagogical and
social-service training for members of the attendance department. In
contrast to these two cities was Seattle, where the attendance officers
received the same salaries as high-school teachers. One of these officers
had been a successful probation officer in the juvenile court.
In Seattle and Minneapolis “ vocational advisers” or “ boys’ and
girls’ advisers” were assigned to the senior high schools— in the for
mer city a boys’ adviser and a girls’ adviser in each high school, and
in the latter a vocational adviser in each high school. These advisers
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
232
JU V E N IL E COURTS AT WORK.
were of service in discovering and helping to remedy unfavorable
conditions in home or school, though they gave less of their time than
did visiting teachers to work with families.
In several cities special mention was made b y the chief attendance
officer of the cooperation of school nurses in reporting difficulties and
helping to adjust problems. In Beattie one nurse was employed for
every 1,500 pupils, and in Minneapolis almost every school had a
nurse. Psychological clinics in the school departments were also of
great assistance to the attendance department, especially in Seattle,
where practically all children coming to the attention of that depart
ment were examined by the child-study laboratory of the public
schools.
Special day schools and special classes.— Classes for truant, un
manageable, or incorrigible children were in operation in Boston, the
District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and
St. Louis. Seattle, also, had during the year prior to the study a
“ prevocational” class for 18 unmanageable boys and was planning
an “ opportunity school” for difficult children. It was believed by
the head of the Seattle attendance department that half the commit
ments to the parental schools could be avoided if such a day school
were established. In Denver the school-attendance department had
the privilege of transferring children to the detention-home school,
where they were day pupils. Special classes for backward and sub
normal children, as well as those for truant and unmanageable children,
were of help to the attendance departments in adjusting school life
to the needs of individual children. The former Were more common
than were classes for children presenting conduct problems.
The Boston disciplinary day school was organized in 1914. At the
time of the study this school, located in a public school building in
Roxbury, comprised three classes, one covering fourth and fifth grade
subjects, one sixth-grade subjects, and one seventh and eighth grade
subjects. In each class were 14 or 15 pupils. To these classes children
came from all over the city, their car fare being paid by the school
department. As far as possible the work was adapted to the indi
vidual needs of the children, and the teachers endeavored to present
the subjects in an especially interesting way. “ Habitual school
offenders” were transferred to the disciplinary classes by the chief
attendance officer on the authority of an assistant superintendent of
schools. The children remained in the classes for varying periods,
but an effort was made to return them to their regular classes as soon
as possible. The teachers encouraged the parents of the children to
come to the school.
Ungraded classes in the District of Columbia cared for truant
children and children who presented serious conduct problems.38
There were six ungraded classes for white children in four localities
and five for colored children— four for boys and one for girls. No
separate class for white girls had been established. The maximum
number of children in a class was 25. Transfers to ungraded classes
were recommended b y attendance officers and authorized by the
“ supervisor of special activities.” The classes were divided into the
first four and the upper four grades. Special time was devoted to
« The classes for subnormal children were called “atypical/
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT ANT) T H E COMMUNITY.
v
233
manual training and handwork. The average length of stay in
ungraded classes was said to be one and a half semesters. The teachers
received the same salaries as other teachers and were appointed as a
result of special examinations.
In St. Louis there were three special classes for truant and unman
ageable boys— two classes caring together for 36 white boys and one
class caring for 16 colored boys. The teachers of two of the classes
were men. Manual training had a prominent part in the curriculum.
The Opportunity School in Minneapolis cared for 100 incorrigible
and retarded boys in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.
The Ethan Allan School in San Francisco was organized in 1904 to
provide for difficult boys on a day-school basis. Children were
transferred to this school by school principals, with the approval of
the deputy superintendent of schools, who was said to allow transfers
only as a last resort. The attendance department was usually
asked to ascertain the facts before the transfer was approved. From
100 to 125 boys were cared for in the school, in which the classes were
small and in which special attention was paid to industrial work and
gardening.
Los Angeles was one of the pioneer cities in the establishment of
special day schools for truant, semidelinquent, incorrigible, and run
away-children, the first such school in that city having been organ
ized in 1906. There were nine of these special day schools and four
others maintained in connection with Juvenile Hall, El Retiro, and
a private institution receiving boys from the court. All of the
schools except those in connection with institutions were for boys
only, but girls with delinquent tendencies were sometimes placed in a
prevocational room for girls only, maintained by one of the intennediate schools. Ten of the 13 principals of special schools were college
graduates. They were paid $51 a month in addition to their regular
salaries on condition that they spend time after 3 o’clock in the after
noon visiting homes. They were expected to visit the homes of all
children under their supervision.
Local institutions.— Parental schools under the management of the
school department were found in only one of the cities studied—
Seattle. In Minneapolis and St. Louis county schools for delin
quent children served practically the same purpose as the Seattle
parental schools, and the educational work o f these schools was also
directed by the departments of education. In all three cities children
could be received by the institutions only through court commitment.
About 75 per cent of the cases in which children were committed to
the Seattle Parental School originated with the school department.
Parole work for the boys’ school was done by the attendance depart
ment and for the girls’ school by the superintendent of the school.
The length of stay was determined by the school department. Thé
superintendents of the parental schools had the sole power to appoint
the teachers, who were selected from the city school-teachers.39
In Buffalo and Boston parental schools formerly in existence had
been abolished. The Boston Parental School was abolished in 1914,40
and the Suffolk County Training School for Delinquent Boys, which
89 For a brief description of the Seattle parental schools see pp. 145.146.
40 See p . 146.
8 0 3 0 6 °— 2 5 1------- 16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
234
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
also served Boston, was closed in 1920. A few boys were later
committed from Suffolk County to the training school of an adjoining
county.41
The Buffalo Parental School was closed by the health department
in. 1919. Children had been transferred to this school with the written
consent of the parents, without having been brought before the juve
nile court. At the time of the study children were being transferred
in the same way to three private institutions. The children remained
for not more than two years. During about 11 months ended in
January, 1920, 6 boys were transferred from the Buffalo public
schools to one of these institutions, and during 5 months ended in
March, 1920, 23 were transferred to another institution. Their
board, clothing, and the like were paid for out of school funds. When
the children were released from the institutions they were placed
on parole to the school-attendance department.
M ethods o f dealing with problem children.
As would be expected from the great variation in the size of the
staff of the attendance departments, the amount of intensive work
which attendance officers or visiting teachers could do in special
cases of maladjustment or misconduct varied greatly. The St.
Louis department was the only one which had assigned special officers
to cases of this type. There, special work with delinquent children
other than truants began in an incidental way in 1905 and in 1911
was further developed. In 1914 it became more fully specialized,
and at the time of the study a man gave full time to delmquent boys,
a woman to delinquent girls, and another woman to neglect cases.
To these officers cases were referred by teachers and attendance
officers. It was understood that the latter were not to question the
children with regard to delinquency but were to refer immediately to
the special officers cases in which there were evidences of serious mis
conduct. When it was necessary to bring cases to the attention of
the juvenile court a petition or an information was made out by officers
of the school-attendance division, and facts concerning the case were
furnished on the history blank shown on page — .
The chief attendance officer in St. Louis stated that he did not
believe the school department should undertake to handle delin
quency problems not directly connected with the schools. The types
of delinquency he thought should be handled by the school depart
ment included nonattendance and incorrigibility; vicious or immoral
conduct which made the child a school problem; destruction of school
property; any delinquent act committed on school premises or while
the child was under the jurisdiction of school authorities; illegal
employment; interference with the school department in the discharge
of its duties; and adults contributing to the delinquency of school
children. The attendance department endeavored to deal with these
types of cases, with the cooperation of the police when necessary,
bringing the children or adults before the proper court if the cases
could not be settled satisfactorily in some other way. During the
summer the attendance department continued in operation, the
officers alternating in three weeks’ vacation periods. Cases on which
11 This arrangement was permitted b y special act of the legislature, passed after the dosing of the Suffolk
County school.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TH E COUBT AND TH E CO M M U N ITY.
235
work had begun prior to the vacation season were continued, but work
on new cases was not usually undertaken.
The attendance department in St. Louis did not discourage school
principals from dealing with delinquency problems. The chief
attendance officer felt that they must be able to exercise discretion in
dealing with problems of school administration and that it was often
necessary for principals to refer cases direct to the police or the court
in order to secure prompt action.
In Los Angeles, where a number of “ home teachers” were employed
and the cooperation between these officers and the attendance depart
ment was very close, all cases of difficulty were reported to the
attendance department, but usually a visit to the home had first been
made by a home teacher. A conference was then held at which the
child’s teacher, the home teacher, and the attendance officer were
present. If all three agreed that the child should be transferred to a
special school, this action was taken without consulting the director of
the attendance department. If agreement was not reached, the case
was referred to the director. About 30 per cent of the cases were
reported to have been so referred. The work of the attendance
department which concerned girls was under the direction of a super
visor of girls’ interests. All cases of delinquency among schoolgirls
coming to the attention of the teachers were referred to this super
visor.
When the size of the staff permitted, attendance officers in the
cities under consideration made regular, frequent visits to the schools,
checked up attendance, and dealt with any special problems that were
reported. In Boston each attendance officer had three or four school
districts and consulted the principals of the districts every day and
the principals of the schools at least once a week. High-school cases
were assigned to the district in which the child resided. The regula
tions of the public schools of the city of Boston defined in detail the
procedure to be followed by attendance officers in securing school
attendance:42
They shall endeavor, by persuasion and argument, both with children and their
parents and guardians, and by other means than legal compulsion, to secure the
observance of the school-attendance laws, visiting children at their homes or
places of employment and looking after them in the streets for this purpose.
Failing by such means to secure the required school attendance of any child, or
if any child shall be deemed an habitual school offender, the officer concerned
shall file with the chief attendance officer a written statement giving the name,
age, and residence of the child,‘the names of the parents or guardians of such
child, the name of the school attended, and the name of the teacher, together with
a brief history of the case. Thereupon, the chief attendance officer shall report
the same to the assistant superintendent in charge of the attendance department
who shall consider the advisability of placing such child in a disciplinary school,
and may, if such action be deemed advisable, authorize the chief attendance
officer to make such transfer.
The Boston regulations further provided for the institution of
legal proceedings by the chief attendance officer, on authority of an
assistant superintendent of schools, in the case of any child violating
the rules and regulations of a disciplinary school. If the principal
and the assistant superintendent in charge of a school should decide
that it would be inadvisable to place an habitual school offender in
4a Rules of the School Committee and Regulations of the Public Schools of the C ity of Boston. Boston
Public Schools, Regulations, Ch. X I X , sec. 365— 2, p. 153. School Document N o. 5— 1919. Boston, 1919.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
236
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
the disciplinary school, the chief attendance officer might be author
ized to begin legal proceedings.
Attendance officers in Seattle visited the schools regularly and dealt
with cases of stealing and immorality as well as of attendance and
school conduct. The policy of the Seattle department was to place
upon the principals as much responsibility as possible.
Attendance officers usually had police powers and served notices
and citations. In some of the cities they dealt with problems of
children working on permits as well as those of school children.
Close cooperation was maintained between the school-attendance
departments and the juvenile courts. In Minneapolis the juvenile
court sent each week to the attendance department a list 01 all the
children dealt with by the court. Reports were also made of all chil
dren sent to or released from institutions.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H E COURT AND TH E CO M M U N ITY.
237
Conferences with the children and their parents amounted in some
cities to informal hearings. In Buffalo from two to five such hearings
were held each day in the different school buildings b y the chief
attendance officer. The presence of the mother or the father and of
the attendance officer was required, and often the teacher also was
asked to be present. It will be remembered that the Buffalo school
department had the power to send children to institutions if the
consent of the parents was obtained. In other cities conferences or
informal hearings were held to decide such questions as whether the
child should be transferred to a special class.
The chief attendance officer in San Francisco had hearings every
Friday afternoon in the offices of the juvenile court. Citations
requiring the parents to bring the children to the probation office
were signed by the chief probation officer and served by the attend
ance officers. In New Orleans informal hearings in school cases were
held by the judge of the juvenile court, the chief attendance officer
being present. All truancy cases in the District of Columbia were
first heard unofficially by the chief probation officer, the attendance
officer being present. Cases were made official only if the child was
subsequently brought to the attention of the court.42®
The Seattle attendance department had hearings at which the
parents and the children were present, and usually a number of
mterviews with the parents preceded court action. In each case
coming to the attention of the attendance department inquiry was
made of the child-study laboratory of the public schools, and if the
child had not been examined he was taken to the laboratory. If he
was found to have an intelligence quotient below 80 or to be super
normal he was placed for at least two days in the observation class
maintained in connection with the laboratory. Not more than eight
children were in this class, and their special abilities and disabilities
were c'arefully studied. Reports on home conditions were made by
the school nurses, and the parents were interviewed at the labora
tory. Case conf erences were held, and special school programs were
recommended.
In some cities— Denver, for instance— the school attendance of
children on probation to the juvenile court was supervised entirely
by probation officers and not by attendance officers. In New Orleans
school children placed on probation were supervised only by the
attendance department. The Los Angeles school department fol
lowed up the attendance of wards of the court; and the Seattle de
partment, in addition to assuming the entire responsibility for the
supervision of a few children placed on probation, did all the parole
work for the boys’ parental school. Such boys remained under super
vision for a year, and the attendance department had the right to
return them to the school without referring them to the court.
The Minneapolis attendance department had worked out an
interesting method of filing and classifying cases. Children for
whom special work was required to secure attendance were classified
as special cases. Special nistory sheets were made out, and the
tla In the case of Brown v. Sellers, Oct. 15, 1923, the United States Supreme Court denied the juvenile
court of the District of Columbia jurisdiction in truancy cases. Attendance officers have since that time
prosecuted parents in the police court for failure to send the children to school. A ll children on probation
for truancy at the time of the decision were dismissed, with the exception of those who were under suspended
sentence on other charges.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
238
JUVENILE COURTS AT W ORK.
records were filed by families. Usually a child was not classified as
a special case until the attendance department had had two or three
contacts with him. Of 7,205 pupils reported as absentees during
one year, 633 were special cases. Any social problem other than
attendance affecting the child was referred immediately to other
agencies.
The purpose and methods of special schools for truant and trouble
some children in Los Angeles are outlined in detail in a report of the
department of compulsory education and child welfare, published
in 1918.43 This report also contains studies of the causes of truancy
among boys and among girls. “ Special schools” are defined in
this report as follows : 44
The name “ special schools’ ’ is a Los Angeles term for day parental school8
provided for under the requirements of the California statute known as “ An act
to enforce the educational rights of children. * * *
« * * * Like ungraded rooms, they deal with pupils in small numbers,
without particular attention to grade classification, and aim to give to each
pupil the maximum amount of individual attention. They differ from ungraded
rooms in that they emphasize not mental progress chiefly but rather social and
moral fitness.
The purpose of the special school is stated in this report45 to be,
first, to aid in saving the boy to himself and society, and, secondly,
to relieve the stress on the regular school. “ It does not necessarily
aim to fit the boy for returning to the regular school, for the boy
may be of such a type as to render the return inadvisable.” The
classes are limited to 12 or at the most 15 pupils per teacher, who
must possess “ unusual ability to interest these boys to make up lost
time and also to seek to find and strengthen their best impulses.
The efforts must be solely on a scientific basis, as the transformation
in the pupil is a social one in which the boy has found a friend and
helper who devotes himself constantly and, in a sense, exclusively to
his great need.” Any boy excluded for any reason from the regular
grades is admitted unless a more suitable place is available.
Statistics for the 187 pupils in Los Ajigeles special schools on April
1,1917, showed 169 there for thè first time, 13 for the second time, and
5 for the third time. Pupils who had been in the special schools less
than 7 months numbered 134; those who had been enrolled from 7 to
11 months, 16; those enrolled for 12 to 23 months, 17; and those enrolled
24 months and over, 20. Of the 127 pupils who had been enrolled
in special schools and who had left between September 11, 1916, and
April 1, 1917, 50 had been returned to regular schools, 29 had gone
to work, 19 had left the city, 17 were in institutions, 5 were in private
schools, 4 were in the detention home, 2 were in the Navy, and 1 had
died:46
Among the results of special-class work for truants and other
troublesome children which are mentioned in the report is the almost
perfect attendance over a period of 11 years of children in the special
classes, the average percentage of attendance for the entire time being
more than 98.
43 Compulsory Education and Child Welfare.
Angeles, February, 1918,
44 Ibid., p. 11.
45 Ibid., p. 21.
iS Ibid., p. 33.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Los Angeles C ity Schools Publication N o . 12.
Los
T H E COXJEiT AND TH E CO M M U N ITY.
239
The reports for the past 11 years show very clearly the improvement in our
method of dealing with truancy. Before the special schools were opened all
persistent truants were arrested and taken before the juvenile court. This was a
very expensive and unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem. Nearly all
of these truants are now taken care of by the school department at no expense
beyond the cost of their education in a public school. The special schools have
demonstrated that nearly all truants can be kept in school by means at the com
mand of the educational department.47
Cases dealt with by school-attendance departments and cases referred to
the courts.
Statistics with reference to the numbers and types of cases handled
b y school-attendance departments and the dispositions made in these
cases were not available for all the cities studied, and it was usually
not possible to ascertain the number of different children dealt with
during a year, statistics being compiled on the basis of “ cases,7' so
that a child was counted each time he was dealt with. Differences
in procedure make it difficult to compare one city with another.
Children who in one city would be brought to court on truancy
charges, in another city might be charged with being stubborn or
ungovernable or if home conditions were the cause of the truancy
might be classified as neglected.
The Minneapolis statistics 48 were quite complete. In 1919-20 a
total of 9,650 cases were reported to the school-attendance depart
ment for investigation, of which 4,803 were new cases and 4,847 were
old. The number of cases received for investigation in 1915-16 was
only 5,051, and the increase from year to year was gradual. Of the
total number of cases dealt with in the later year 7,698 were received
from public schools, 1,198 from private or parochial schools, 64
through the school census, and the remainder from various other
sources. In 5,102 cases the a b sen t m a -fVvnnri +n Ka la-m^ni
4«
4,548, unlawful. The reasons f< • the unlawful absences were as
follows:
Total unlawful absences. 4, 548
Absent on transfer_____________
548
Truant________________________ 1, 477
Indifference of parents__ ._____ 2, 089
Poverty. _ __ __ ______
Illegal employment. _
Trouble in school _______
Runaway. _______
Other _ _ __ __ __
184
129
43
57
21
A total of 8,648 children returned to school, and the names of
1,002 were dropped from the register for various reasons. Cases
referred to other agencies—such as the protective society, the
associated charities, the health department, and the labor depart
m ent-num bered 166, and 134 warning notices were served. Service
of these notices was required before the juvenile court would issue
summons.
The total number of “ special cases,” or cases requiring intensive
work, in Minneapolis was 583— 361 cases of boys and 222 cases of
girls. In 63 of these cases the child attended school until the age of
16 years or completion of the eighth grade, without court action
being necessary and in 362 cases, until the close of the year, no court
action being required. Nineteen children were granted school
excuses, 48 left the city, 3 were not located, and 6 did not return to
school. A total of 82 children— 64 boys and 18 girls— were taken to
47 Ibid., p.
34.
48 From unpublished statistics of the Minneapolis School Department and from correspondence.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
240
court during the school year 1919-20. The number of such cases in
1915-16 was 80, and in 1918-19, 75. Forty-nine of the children
referred to the court in 1919-20 were committed to institutions.
The report of the juvenile court for 1919 showed 90 children referred
by the school authorities, or 10 per cent of the new cases of delin
quency dealt with by the juvenile court, and the same number dealt
with on truancy charges.
Statistics for the Seattle Department of Vocational Education,
which was organized in September, 1919, were available for the
first four months of the school year, 1920-21. During this period
the total number of cases investigated was 1,430. Truancy was given
as the cause in 367 cases, “ indiscretion” in 17, poverty and neglect
in 41, nonenrollment in 217, morals in 73, cigarette smoking in 30,
insubordination in 54, theft in 68, home conditions in 14. Other
causes included tardiness, transfer, and violations of the child labor
law. In 1,266 of these cases, or 89 per cent, agreement was reached
at home, at school, at the office, or m other ways. Reference to the
juvenile court was made in 116 cases and to other agencies in 37
cases. A total of 1,112 home visits were made, and 1,046 interviews
at schools were reported.
Juvenile-court statistics for Seattle, as given in annual reports of
the juvenile court, show, 47 children brought to the court on truancy
charges in 1915, 33 in 1916, 73 in 1917, 93 in 1918, 49 in 1919— the
year of the reorganization of the attendance department— 54 in
1920, 71 in 1921, 78 in 1922, and 88 in 1923. The percentages of
conduct cases dealt with formally or informally by the juvenile
court which were referred on account of truancy were as follows:
Per cent.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
6. 6
5. 3
13. 2
21. 1
7. 9
5. 5
7. 1
6. 9
7 .4
The Seattle parental-school commitments for the years 1915 to
1923 were as follows:
Year.
Boys.
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
______________________________________________ .92
______________________________________________
97
______________________________________________ 103
_____________ ’________________________________ 122
______________________________________________ 90
______________________________
93
______________________________________________
71
______________________________________________ 104
__________ ___________________________________ 89
Girls.
30
38
28
32
23
28
43
42
32
In Boston the total number of cases investigated by the attendance
department for the year ended June 24, 1920, was 54,877. Children
who failed in the disciplinary day school were referred to the juvenile
session of the court serving the district in which the classes were
located. Only 26 such pupfls were referred during the year, 12 being
committed to institutions. Prior to the establishment of the day
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
THE COURT AND THE COMMUNITY.
241
school truancy cases from the central district came to the Boston
juvenile court. The numbers of truants dealt with by the court
from 1906 to 1914 were as follows: 1906-7, 95; 1907-8, 64; 1908-9,
51; 1909-10, 38; 1910-11, 19; 1911-12, 11; 1912-13, 13; 191314, 27.49 In commenting on the decrease in the number of truancy
cases during the first five-year period, Judge Baker said:50
' While this decrease is due chiefly to increased efficiency of the school depart
ment, it is partly due to the close cooperation between the court and the schools.
By this cooperation poor school attendance on the part of children brought to
court on account of other forms of delinquency is promptly discovered by the
court and made an important factor in probationary oversight, so that frequent
school reports are obtained during probation, and probation is not terminated
until the reports show that the weakness in attendance is cured.
The decrease is also partly due to the fact that the court has time to consider
carefully all applications for leave to complain, and in cases which, though
appearing at first to be cases of truancy on the part of a single child, seem on
further inquiry to be cases of the neglect of a whole family of children on the
part of parents, the court sets in motion the proper agencies to have the whole
family cared for under the neglect law.
Tbe chief attendance officer in Boston was the chief justice of the
newsboys’ trial board, which dealt with all violations of the publicschool regulations governing minors licensed to engage in street
trades, the other three justices being newsboys. In the year ended
June 30, 1920, 5 of the 433 cases heard by this board concerned
truancy and 5, poor conduct and attendance at school. Three of the
433 cases were referred to the juvenile court and 5 to the municipal
court.51 Of 428 cases of violations of license regulations dealt with
by this board from September 16, 1920, to April 28, 1921, only 17
were brought to the juvenile court.52
The St. Louis attendance division dealt with 79,569 cases reported
for investigation in the school year 1920-21, of which 42,483 were
found to be cases of absence due to lawful excuses and 37,086, of
absence due to unlawful excuses. The former number included all
children receiving employment certificates, which were issued by
the attendance division. Truancy cases numbered 2,799; cases of
nonattendance with unlawful excuse, 3,372; and cases of “ juvenile
offenders,” 921. A total of 134 children were referred to the juvenile
court, and 30 children were taken to the detention home.53 In the
year 1918-19 a total of 65,225 cases were investigated, 143 children
were referred to the juvenile court, and 22 were taken to the deten
tion home.54
The St. Louis school reports included tables for truancy cases
showing age, grade, and conditions contributing to truancy. In 44
per cent of 731 truancy cases dealt with in 1920-21, one or both
parents were dead or the parents were separated or divorced.55
One hundred and nineteen cases of juvenile delinquency dealt with
by the division were analyzed, 66 per cent being cases in which the
homes were broken.58
* Harvey Humphrey Baker— Upbuilder of the Juvenile Court, pp. 22, 100.
. 60 Ibid., p. 29.
-ioonAnSUa3 Re?i?oÎ of the Superintendent, Boston Public Schools, pp. 81-82.
iy * u .
Jooston , 1920.
School Document N o . 13—
52 Information furnished b y the chief attendance officer,
63 Statistical Report of the St. Louis Public Schools: Advance Print from the Annual Report of the
Supennteirdent of Instruction, 1920-21, p. 103. Board of Education, St. Louis, October, 1921
I; Annual Report of the Superintendent of Instruction, 1918-19, p. 96. Board of Education, St Louis
* Statistical Report of the St. Louis Public Schools, 1920-21, p. 105,
018
* M d., p. 107,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
242
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T 'S
A T
W
O R K .
The numbers of cases of delinquent and of neglected children
referred to the St. Louis juvenile court b y attendance officers during
the period 1909-1920 were as follow s:57
Year.
Delinquent.
Neglected.88
1 9 0 9 _
___
2 5 4
1 9 1 0 _
___
2 1 9
7 0
1 9 1 1 .
___
1 7 8
1 5 3
1 9 1 2 _
___
6 5
7 2
4 7
2 8
1 9 1 3 _
1 9 1 4 _
___
1 9 1 5 .
1 9 1 6 _
___
1 9 1 7 .
9 9
7 6
5 1
1 9
4 4
1 4
2 5
3 2
2 0
1 9 1 8 _
___
2 2
1 8
1 9 1 9 _
___
1 6
1 3
2 0
1 4
1 9 2 0 _
In the review of the work of the St. Louis juvenile court for the
five-year period 1908—1913 special attention was called to the
steadily decreasing number of children brought to court b y attend
ance officers. This decrease was attributed to the fact that “ the
school authorities look upon truancy as essentially a school problem
to be handled within the school system itself.”
The New Orleans attendance department reported that for the
year 1918-19 there was a total of 3,160 complaints, of which 802
were of nonattendance, 2,266 of irregular attendance, and 92 of
tardiness. Of the total, 2,072 related to boys and 1,088 to girls.
The causes were listed as illness in 508 cases, parental indifference in
784, truancy in 73, poverty in 73, and other causes in 1,722. A total
of 149 cases were referred to the juvenile court. The judge placed
43 children on probation and in 106 cases “ admonished” the parents
and children.
Truancy cases referred to the New Orleans juvenile court were
handled informally by the judge, summonses being issued.59 Reports
of the court showed 445 such cases in 1916, 567 in 1917, 240 in 1918,
and 300 in 1919.
Buffalo school figures for 1915-16 showed 32,077 cases reported to
truant officers. Eighty-five children were committed to the parental
school with the consent of their parents, 33 were placed in “ probation
classes,” 97 cases were referred to the adult department of the chil
dren’s court, and 30 to the juvenile department.60 The annual reports
of the Buffalo children’s court showed 26 children charged with
truancy in 1916, 37 in 1917, 37 in 1918, 28 in 1919, and 15 in 1920.61
For the same period the numbers of adults arraigned in the adult
department of the court for violations of the compulsory education
law were as follows: 1916, 110; 1917, 119; 1918, 136; 1919, 125;
1920, 120.
In Denver in the year 1919-20, according to records of the attend
ance department,62 19 children were referred to the juvenile court
87 A Review of the W ork of the St. Louis Juvenile Court for the Five-Year Period, Apr. 3 0 ,1908-Apr. 30,
1913, pp. 5 ,6 (St. Louis, 1914). Report of the Juvenile Court and Probation Office for the years 1914 and
1915, pp. 13,14 (St. Louis, 1917). Report of the Juvenile Court and Probation Office for the years 1916
to 1920, inclusive, p . 38 (St. Louis, 1921).
88 Frequently more than one child was involved in a “ case.
88 Affidavits were used in all official cases.
88 Annual Report of the Superintendent of Education, Buffalo, 1917, pp. 141-148.
61 In 1923 only 2 children were in court for truancy from school; 91 adults were arraigned for violations of
the compulsory education law.
___ ,
« Information obtained b y representatives of the Children s Bureau.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H
E
C O U R T
A N D
T H
E
C O M
M
U N IT Y .
243
by the attendance department, and 433 school children were referred
to the^ court by other agencies. Two children were placed in the
detention-home school by the attendance department and 8 in the
detention home.
The 1917 report of the Los Angeles department of compulsory
education and child welfare showed an increase in the number of
pupils in city schools from 37,877 in 1905-6 to 110,672 in 1916-17.
The number of cases taken to the juvenile court by the school
authorities was 56 in 1905-6, the year the department was organized,
and dropped to 30 the next year and to 1 the year following. There
after the number never exceeded 8 except in 1915-16, when 10 boys
belonging to one gang were referred to the court, raising the total
so referred to 16.63 The juvenile-court jurisdiction included territory
outside the city of Los Angeles, and the number of truancy cases
reported by the court was, therefore, larger than the number reported
by the attendance department. Juvenile-court statistics for 1£16
showed 24 cases of habitual truancy; for 1917, 22; for 1918, 34*
and for 1919, 36.64 The number of cases referred by school depart^
ments was 21 in 1916, 11 in 1917, 22 in 1918, and 21 in 1919.65
The boys’ department of the San Francisco court dealt with 26
truancy cases in 1916; in 1917 the number of truancy cases was
19; m 1918, 19; and in the year ended June 30, 1920, 31. The girls’
department of this court handled 1 truancy case in 1917, 3 in 1918
and 4 in 1919-20.68
*
Comparison of the percentages of delinquency cases referred on
truancy charges to the eight courts for which such information was
available is graphically shown on page 229. Three courts— Buffalo,
the District of Columbia, and St. Louis—had less than 3 per cent of
their cases referred on truancy charges; two other courts— Los An.
geles and San Francisco—had less than 5 per cent; and three courts—
Denver, Minneapolis, and Seattle— had 7 per cent or more of their
cases so referred. In Denver, Seattle, and the District of Columbia
a large number of cases were dealt with informally, and such cases are
included in the Seattle and District of Columbia figures, but not in
those for Denver. The practice in the District of Columbia was to
make no formal charge o f truancy until after an informal hearing and
warnmg b y the chief probation officer in the presence of the child’s
parents and the attendance officer. Sixty-nine truant children were
reported to the court and heard unofficially in 1919-20; 30 of these
upon again being truant were brought formally to the attention of the
court.67
Development o f school facilities for prevention o f delinquency.
The foregoing brief and incomplete review of the equipment of the
school departments of 10 cities for dealing with problems of delin
quency and neglect and of the types of problems dealt with shows
something of the progress being made in the development of facilities
and methods. In many of the cities the number of attendance officers
and the provision of special classes for difficult children was so inade” Compulsory Education and Child Welfare. Los Angeles C ity Schools Publication N o . 12, p. 35.
« M p
® eport Los Angeles County Probation Department for the Year Ending Dec. 31,1919, p. 9.
M Data secured from annual reports, published and unpublished.
47 Manuscript report of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, 1918-1920.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
244
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
as to make it impossible to do intensive work with all the chil^uate
ren in need of attention.
Among the conditions which would make it possible for educational systems to do more effective work in the prevention of delinquency
the following have been indicated in the course of this study:
1.
A sufficient number of attendance officers and visiting teachers,
having an understanding of pedagogical problems and training in
social case work.
2.
Special day schools or classes sufficient to provide for all children
needing such individual attention, in charge of specially trained teach
ers, the classes small enough to make possible intensive individual
work.
3.
Provision for the medical and psychological study of problem
children, leading to recommendations for.treatment.
4.
A definite understanding with the other agencies of the com
munity with reference to the cases to be handled by the school depart
ment alone and the cases to be referred to other agencies.
5.
The general introduction into the school organization of flexi
bility of curriculum and methods that will make it possible to meet
the varying needs of the children, and provision for study to deter
mine these needs.
6.
Provision of the number of rooms and teachers necessary to
eliminate the half-day attendance which has been occasioned b y over
crowded conditions and which, in the opinion of some of the judges
and probation officers interviewed, has contributed to delinquency by
leaving the children too much undirected free time.
R E L A T IO N O F
TH E
CO U R T T O SO CIAL-SE RVIC E
IN S T IT U T IO N S .
AGEN CIES
AND
In describing the methods used in the study of the case, the adjust
ment of cases without formal court action, the court order, methods of
probation, and the administrative work of the court, reference has
been made constantly to the relation of the court to the other social
agencies of the community. The social-service exchange was con
sulted in the course of social investigations invariably in three
courts and less frequently in five, while another court made inquiry
of the social-service exchange whenever a child was placed on proba
tion or under supervision.68 The practice of securing information
from social agencies if it was known that they had dealt with the
child or his family arid of giving information to social agencies having
legitimate interest in particular cases was general. Investigations and
follow-up in cases of dependency and neglect were left to private
agencies by two courts, and a third court relied upon a public agency
for investigations in such cases.69
The detention service furnished to the Boston juvenile court by
the Boston Children’s Aid Society under a cooperative arrangement
has been described in detail,70 as has the relation between that court
and another private agency— the Judge Baker Foundation— which
made studies of the physical and mental condition of the children
Other courts utilized for mental examinations clinics maintained by
«8 See p. 92.
«»See p. 93.
10 Seep. 78.
11See p. 103.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H
E
C O U R T
A N D
T H
E
C O M
M
U N IT Y .
245
school departments or universities. Five of the six courts in which
the proportion of cases adjusted without the filing of a petition or
complaint was considerable sometimes referred cases of this type to
other agencies. In the three courts, however, for which detailed
information on this point was obtained the number so referred was
very small.72
*
Children were committed by the courts to child-placing agencies
and institutions, public and private,73 and such agencies sometimes
cooperated by caring for children who remained under the supervision
of the court and had not been formally committed. In probation
work in certain delinquency cases seven courts used the services of
agents of other public departments or of private societies.74 Publicrelief departments, family-welfare societies, churches, settlements,
recreational agencies of various kinds, Big Brother and Big Sister
organizations, hospitals, dispensaries, and clinics, were all used by the
probation officers of the several courts in the supervision of children
on probation. Family-welfare or child-caring agencies cooperated
closely with the courts of Minneapolis, Denver, and San Francisco in
the administration of mothers’ allowances.75
In several of the courts the judges were taking part in social-wel
fare activities,76 and most of the chief probation officers were in close
touch with settlements, Big Brother organizations, and councils of
social agencies, some of them serving on boards and committees of
various lands. University lectures on juvenile-court problems were
given b y the judge of one court and by the referee of another, and
the chief probation officer in a third court gave lectures on court
problems to university students who were assigned to the court for
observation and practice work. The work of the individual proba
tion officers is o f very great importance in the maintenance of co
operative relationships with other agencies, and some of the proba
tion officers encountered in the course of this study were contributing
greatly in their daily activities to the harmony, understanding, and
coordination of effort existing between the court and the social
agencies. Advisory boards, such as those organized under the
terpi “ probation committee” in connection with the California
juvenile courts, may furnish a means of bringing the public in closer
touch with the court. The San Francisco probation committee had
a subcommittee on relations and one on institutions.77
In six of the communities studied the feeling between the court
and the other social agencies was thoroughly cooperative, but in
four there was considerable friction. Among the complaints made
by some of the social agencies were the following: The judge was
too lenient. In neglect cases he waited too long to remove children
from their homes. He was self-seeking. He did not try to cooper
ate with other agencies or consult with reference to general policies.
He was influenced by political considerations. The court failed to
register cases with the social-service exchange. The judge did not
treat representatives of social agencies with proper consideration.
'~~MT3ee p. 119.
73 See The relation between the court and the institution, d . 150.
73 See. p. 33.
73 See p . 217.
78 See p. 21.
77 See p. 37.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
246
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
Some of these criticisms were doubtless justified, but, on the other
hand, some of the officials of social agencies who complained of the
court did not appear to be thoroughly familiar with its work, its
possibilities, and its legal limitations. The critics usually failed to
cooperate with the court; one judge in particular complained of
this. A prominent critic of one court was found never to have
attended a hearing of that court; he failed to give the judge any
credit for the constructive work he was accomplishing with individual
children.
Better understanding of the courts b y the social agencies and the
development by some of the judges of a broader social viewpoint and
a more cooperative spirit would Dring about better feeling and make
possible the greatest use of the resources of the community.
PA R TIC IPA TIO N OF JUVENILE C O U R T IN C H ILD -W E LFA R E
M OVEM ENTS.
The judges and probation officers of some of the juvenile courts
had been very much interested in securing improved child-welfare
laws and in increasing the community resources for the care of
children. Two judges had served on State commissions or commit
tees engaged in the study and revision of child-welfare legislation—
one of them as chairman of the commission— and a third judge had
aided in framing several important laws affecting children passed by
the legislature. Many of the judges and probation officers were
active members of State and National associations concerned with
the promotion of juvenile-court and probation work.
In general, because of the lack of adequate resources for the tabula
tion and interpretation of statistical material and for its publication,
the courts studied were unable to make the most effective use of the
information which came to them concerning the conditions and in
fluences contributing to the delinquency and dependency of chil
dren.78 Scientific research based on the material in the court files
and effective publicity based on such research would help in securing
wider opportunities and greater safeguards for children.
In addition to their work with individual children brought before
them the courts had made, despite various handicaps, no small con
tribution to child welfare. Among the achievements which should
be placed to the credit of one or more of the courts included in the
study may be mentioned the following:
1. Assisting in drafting and arousing interest in securing the pas
sage of child-welfare laws, including particularly juvenile-court
laws, laws relating to adults contributing to the delinquency or
dependency of children, age-of-consent laws, mothers’ aid laws,
child-labor laws, workmen’s compensation laws, and other laws re
lating to industrial conditions.
2. Securing adequate buildings and equipment for the juvenile
court and the detention home.
3. Assisting in securing child-study clinics serving not only the
court but also other agencies.
—4. Organizing and developing schools for delinquent children,
having constructive programs for character building.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T H
E
C O T JB T
A N D
T H
E
C O M
M
U N IT Y .
247
5. Focusing the attention of school departments on problems of
attendance and conduct and on possibilities of preventive work.
6. Promoting the organization of playgrounds and recreational
agencies, such as boy and girl scout troops and clubs.
7. Promoting the work of councils of social agencies and other
agencies working toward the coordination of social forces.
8. Giving lectures on juvenile-court methods and training student
volunteers.
9. Contributing to the understanding of problems of juvenilecourt administration and popularizing the juvenile-court idea through
speeches and writings.
10. Serving in State and National organizations of juvenile-court
workers and of social workers and assisting in the formulation of
standards which should govern juvenile-court and probation work.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
AP PE N D IX I.— JUVENILE-COURT STA N D A R D S.
I. TH E CO U RT.
A . Court given jurisdiction.
_1. There should be available to every community a court equipped to deal
with children’s cases.
•
2. The laws of each State and local conditions determine whether the juvenile
court should be an independent court or a branch of a court, and in what court
system it should be placed. In order that the court may serve rural as well as
urban population, it is usually desirable that the county should be the unit of
jurisdiction.
3. The juvenile court should be a court of superior jurisdiction and a court
of record. _The disposition of a child in the juvenile court, or any evidence given
in a juvenile-court proceeding, should not be lawful evidence against the child
in any civil, criminal, or other cause or proceeding in any other court.
B . Nature of proceeding.
In children’s cases the proceeding should be chancery or equity, and not
criminal, in nature. The juvenile court should, however, be vested with criminal
jurisdiction in adult cases such as contributing to delinquency and dependency
of children.
C.
Extent of jurisdiction.
1. The juvenile court should be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the
following classes of cases:
(a) Children alleged to have violated laws or ordinances of the State or of
any subdivision thereof, or children whose conduct or associations are alleged
to have rendered them in need of the care and protection of the State. The
juvenile court should not have the power to waive jurisdiction and certify cases
for trial in another court.
(b) Children whose custody is to be determined by reason of their being in
need of protection and supervision, homeless, abandoned, destitute, without
proper parental care or guardianship, neglected or cruelly treated, or in surround
ings dangerous to morals, health, or general welfare.
(c) Adoption cases.
(d) Children in need of protection or custodial care by reason of mental
defect or disorder, i
(e) Violations of school-attendance laws beyond the provisions for control by
school administration.
(/) Contributing to delinquency or dependency. A finding of delinquency or
dependency of the child should not be necessary to adjudication. Action should
not.be limited to parents or guardians in cases of delinquency.
(g) Nonsupport or desertion of minor children.
(h) The determination of paternity and the support of children born out of
wedlock.
2. The age limit under which the court may obtain jurisdiction in children’s
cases should be not lower than 18 years. Marriage of the child should not
terminate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction once obtained should continue until 21
:ears of age unless the case is sooner dismissed or passes out of the jurisdiction
of the court.
1 Report of the Committee Appointed b y the Children’s Bureau, August, 1921, to Formulate JuvenileCourt Standards. Adopted b y a conference held under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau and the
National Probation Association. Washington, D . C ., M a y 18,1923.
This report on standards is available as Publication N o . 121.
251
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
252
D.
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
The judge.
1. The judge should be chosen because of his special qualifications for juvenilecourt work. He should have legal training, acquaintance with social problems,
and understanding of child psychology.
2. The tenure of office should be sufficiently long to warrant special prepara
tory studies and the development of special interest in juvenile work, preferably
not less than six years.
3 . The judge should be able to devote such time to juvenile work as is necessary
to keep detention at a minimum, to hear each case carefully and thoroughly,
and to give general direction to the work of the court.
n. P R O C E SS
BEFORE H E A R IN G .
A . Relation between the court and the police department.
1. The jurisdiction of the court should begin as sodh as petition is filed or as
soon as a child is taken into custody or placed in charge of an officer of the court.
Whenever a child is taken into custody the parents or the person with whom the
child resides should be notified at once by the police officer or other person
holding such custody. The responsibility for such notice should rest with the
court.
2. A child taken into custody should immediately be placed in the care of an
officer of the juvenile court, and only if necessary taken to a place of detention
for juveniles.
3 . The police and peace officers should be required to work in close coopera
tion with the juvenile court in the handling of juvenile cases, and should be
given a clear understanding of the difference between the procedure in children’s
cases and that in cases of adult offenders.
4. The police should not attempt to handle unofficially cases of juvenile
delinquency after the child has been taken into custody. Police authorities
should not be empowered to place children on unofficial probation without
referring them to the court.
5. The police should not be authorized nor should they have the power to
hold children in a station house. When the child is taken to a place of detention
for juveniles, the authority of the police should cease except for giving informa
tion as to the cause of the child’s arrest and filing a formal petition or complaint.
6. From the moment a child is taken into custody he should be sheltered to
the greatest possible extent from public observation and from conditions that
tend to mark him as an offender. Transportation in a police van, escort by a
police officer in uniform, and any visible physical restraint are objectionable and
should be avoided. Transportation of girls to a place of detention or elsewhere
should be by women officers.
7. With rare exceptions no collateral, bail, or appearance bond should be
required in children’s cases.
B . Reception of complaints and adjustment o f cases.
1. The judge, or a probation officer designated by him, should examine all
complaints and after adequate investigation determine whether a petition should
be filed or other formal action should be taken. It should be the duty of the
court to bring about adjustment of all cases without such formal action when
ever feasible.
2. Supervision should be exercised in cases handled informally when it is
desirable thus to safeguard the child or keep in touch with developments.
3 . The judge should exercise general supervision over all the work of the
court, even though he is not able to give individual attention to all cases.
III. D E TE N TIO N .
A . Detention policy.
1.
The number of children detained and the length of detention should be
kept at a minimum, and so far as possible those who must be detained should''
be provided for in private boarding homes. Detention should be limited to
children for whom it is absolutely necessary, such as:
(а) Children whose home conditions make immediate removal necessary.
(б) Children who are beyond the control of their parents or guardians, run
aways, and those whose parents can not be relied upon to produce them in court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
♦
APPENDIXES.
258
(c) Children who have committed offenses so serious that their release pending
the disposition of their cases would endanger public safety.
(d ) Children who must be held as witnesses.
(e) Children whose detention is necessary for purposes of observation and
study and treatment by qualified experts.
2. Children should not be detained in jails or police stations.
3. No child should be detained without an order from the court for a longer
time than is necessary to obtain such court order, unless the parents consent to
detention or unless the parents can not be reached at once and need for detention
is indicated, and in these cases decision as to detention should rest with the judge
or some one designated by him, usually the chief probation officer.
4. Constant effort is required to keep the period of detention in each case as
short as possible. This may be accomplished through frequent hearings, prompt
investigation, sufficient court staff to expedite the movement of cases, and
adequate facilities for institutional care.
B . M ethods o f detention.
1. For temporary detention either a public detention home or boarding homes
under the supervision of the court should be provided, available to the entire
area over which the court has jurisdiction.
2. The essential features of a detention home are the following:
(a) The juvenile court, if not actually operating the detention home, should
control its policies and the admission and release of children.
( b) Provision should be made within the home for segregation of sexes and
types of children, and for adequate isolation facilities and medical care.
(c) Adequate facilities should be provided for the study of the child’s physical
and mental health, but except in rare instances, the detention home should not
be used primarily for this purpose.
(d) There should be specialized school work for the children detained, and
recreational facilities should be provided. The daily program of activities should
be full and varied in order that constructive interests may supplant morbid
tendencies and undesirable companionships. Opportunity should be given for
the exercise of the child’s religious duties.
(e) Effective supervision should be maintained at all times.
(/) The detention home should not be used as a disciplinary institution.
IV. STU D Y OF TH E CASE.
1.
Social investigation should be made in every case, and should be set in
motion at the moment of the court’s earliest knowledge of the case.
2- The minimum essentials of adequate study of a case o f delinquency are:
Study of the child himself, including a physical and a mental examination and
study of his behavior, developmental history, school career, and religious back
ground; study of his environment, including his family and home conditions;
an estimate of the essential causal factors responsible for his behavior; and in
the light of this estimate, recommendations for treatment.
• 3 - Psy chi.atric and psychological study of the child should be made at least
in all cases in which the social investigation raises a question of special need for
study and should be made before decision concerning treatment, but only by a
chmc or examiner properly qualified for such work.
4.
The clinic for study of the child should be a separate branch of the court
or a separate organization fully available. The personnel- required includes a
physician trained in psychiatry, a psychologist, and one or more social investi
gators.
5.. The physical examination should be thorough, and all the community
facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be utilized. Physical examinations
of girls should be by women.
6. For rural communities facilities for study of the child may be provided
through the development of centers in urban communities or through traveling
clinics under the auspices of State boards or commissions or institutions.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
254
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
V. H E A R IN G .
A . Children’s cases.
1. The hearing should be held as soon as proper notice to parents or custo- <
dians can be given, and within 48 hours.
,,,,
2. There should be no publicity in a juvenile-court case. The hearing should
be private, with no one present other than those directly concerned in the case.
Witnesses should not be permitted in the court room except when testifying.
Adequate provision should be made for children awaiting hearing, and they
should be protected from publicity and given necessary supervision.
3 . One or both parents or the legal guardian of the child should be required to
be present.
,, , ,
.. .
,
4. The hearing should be conducted with as little formality as possible, and
the formal adherence to the practice and rules of procedure that characterizes
the criminal court should be avoided.
.
5. The purpose of the juvenile court is to prevent the child s being tried and
treated as a criminal; therefore, all means should be taken to prevent the child
and his parents from forming the conception that the child is being tried for a
crime. In the ascertainment of facts the court should always bear in mind the
rules of evidence. This does not imply, however, that in the application of
these rules the court must conduct a formal hearing.
,
6. In all cases there should be a written report of the proceeding, not official
in the sense that affidavits and petitions are official but unofficial and private,
to be used by the court for the purpose of record and interpretation.
7. In every case the court should explain to the child and parents the nature
of the proceeding and the disposition made of the case. _
.
,
8. Under no circumstances should jury trials be permitted in- children s cases.
They are inconsistent with both the law and the theory upon which children s
codes are founded.
„
,
,
9. Children should not be present at the hearing of neglect or dependency
cases except for the time required for identification, when identification is neces
sary.
B . Cases involving adults.
In cases involving adults, such as cases in which adults are charged with con
tributing to the delinquency or dependency of children, the usual court proce
dure in criminal cases is necessary, as the defendant is entitled to all the safe
guards that the law and Constitution throw around him. In the trial of these
cases children who are involved should be protected to the extent that they
should not appear in the court room except for the purpose of testifying, and
while in the court room should be accompanied by a probation officer.
C . U se of referee.
1. It is desirable that girls’ cases should be heard by a properly qualified
wom 9iii referee.
2. Where the area of jurisdiction is so large that the judge can not attend
promptly to cases in all sections, the court should utilize properly qualified
referees.
3. In all cases heard by referees the judge should pass on findings and recom
mendations and review all dispositions. The judge should have general over
sight of policies and each part of the district should be given a fair proportion
of his time.
.
V I. D IS P O S IT IO N OF CASES.
1. Sufficient resources of various types should be available for the supervision
of children in their own homes, and for the care in family homes or in institutions
of those who can not remain with their own families, so that in disposing of each
case the court may fit the treatment to the needs of the child.
....
2. Institutional care should be utilized only when careful study that includes
a knowledge of the needs and possibilities of the individual clearly indicates
the necessity for it, or when repeated attempts to adjust the child to home life
in the community have failed.
^ 3. Fines should never be imposed in children s cases. Restitution or repara
tion should be required only in cases where they seem to have disciplinary value
or to instill respect for property rights.
,
, -t 3 *!
4. A complete copy of the social investigation and reports ot physical ana
mental examinations, and a summary of the work-done by the court on the case,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A P P E N D IX E S .
255
should accompany the order of commitment to an agency or institution. These
records should be unofficial and private.
5. Children placed under the care of private agencies or institutions should
remain under the jurisdiction of the court, and there should be close cooperation
between the court and the agency or institution. The court should have the
power to require reports concerning the progress of the child and to visit agencies
and institutions to which children are committed. All private agencies and
institutions receiving children from the court should be subject to State super
vision.
6. Administrative work such as placing dependent or neglected children in
family homes should not be undertaken by the court itself, unless suitable agencies
are not or can not be made available for this type of service.
7. The court should be authorized to order the parents of children committed
to the care of agencies or institutions to contribute to the support of the children.
8 . When its jurisdiction does not include offenses by adults against children, it
should be the responsibility of the juvenile court to see that proceedings are
initiated in other courts whenever such action is advisable. There should be
close cooperation in these cases between the juvenile court, the prosecuting
authorities, and the criminal court, and the juvenile court should use all possible
means of protecting child witnesses in other courts.
VII. PR O B A T IO N AND SU PERV ISIO N .
1. The probation staff should be appointed by the judge from an eligible list
secured by competitive examination, subject to approval by a supervising board
or commission.
2. The minimum qualifications of probation officers should be as follows:
(а) Education: Preferably graduation from college or its equivalent, or from
a school of social work.
(б) Experience: At least one year in case work under supervision.
(c) Good personality and character; tact, resourcefulness, and sympathy.
3. The compensation of probation officers should be such that the best types
of trained service can be secured. The salaries should be comparable with those
paid to workers in other fields of social service. Increases should be based on
records of service and efficiency.
4. Not more than 50 cases should be under the supervision of one probation
officer at any one time. Officers handling girls’ cases should be assigned a
smaller number.
5. If volunteer service is used, the persons performing such service, or the
executive organization of volunteers, should be directly responsible to the court.
6 . Girls’ cases should always be assigned to women officers; cases of boys
under 12 years may be assigned to women officers, but all cases of boys 12 years
of age and over should be assigned to men.
7. The district system is frequently an economical method of assignment, but
fitness of particular officers for special kinds of work must also be taken into ac
count.
8 . A definite plan for constructive work, even though it be tentative, should
be made and recorded in each case and should be checked up at least monthly
in conference with the chief probation officer or other supervisor.
9. A general minimum probation period of from six months to one year is
desirable, but exceptions should be allowed on recommendation of the supervisor
or chief probation officer. The length of probation in each case should be
determined by study of the case, needs disclosed, and progress made.
10. Reporting by a child to a probation officer at regular intervals should be
required only if it seems clearly to be for the good of the probationer, and should
never be made a substitute for more constructive methods of case work. When
rightly safeguarded, reporting gives opportunity for acquaintance with the child
and free conversation regarding his interests and surroundings and is a means
of training in habits of regularity and punctuality.
11. Regular reporting should usually be limited to delinquent boys over 12
ears of age, and they should report at a suitable place away from court and
approved by the judge or chief probation officer. Mingling of boys reporting
should be avoided through using different days in the week and fixing a certain
time for each child to report.
12. Except in rare cases, home visits at least once every two weeks are essential
to effective supervision, knowledge of the assets and liabilities of the family, and
correction of unfavorable conditions.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
256
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
13. In probation work due consideration should be given to language, racial
psychology, and religion.
14. Reconstructive work with the family should be undertaken whenever
necessary, either by the probation officer himself or in cooperation with other
social agencies. Whenever other agencies can meet particular needs their
services should be enlisted. In cases in which two or more agencies are concerned
with the same family frequent conferences are necessary for good teamwork.
15. Special detailed school reports for each child on probation are advisable.
The educational authorities should be requested to cooperate througli weekly
reports, frequent conferences, and other means; but care should be taken to
preserve harmony, faith, and good will between the teacher and pupil, the pro
bationer and probation officer.
16. The probation officer should assist and guide children of working age in
the choice of a vocation.
17. Whether or not an employer should be informed with reference to the
child’s delinquency depends on the type of employer. Tact and judgment
should be used in protecting the interests of both the employer and the child.
18. Planning for the “ spare tim e” or recreation of probationers is a very
important part of a probation officer’s functions.
19. In rural communities it is often practicable and desirable to combine
probation work with other types of social service. The form of combination
and the division of work will vary according to local conditions and needs.
The probation officer, however, should not hold other office in relation to the
court, nor an office identified with the prosecution of cases, such as clerk of the
court, police officer, or sheriff. Reporting of probationers is usually not practi
cable, and it may be necessary to use volunteer aid to a larger extent than in
urban communities. Volunteer workers should be carefully selected and should
be under the supervision of a paid officer. Emphasis should be placed on the
strict accountability to the court of all officers, paid and unpaid, doing probation
work. The officers should be provided with adequate means of transportation.
20. Supervision of the work of probation officers should be exercised by a
State commission or board, either specially created or definitely charged with this
duty, or by a State supervisory officer. The supervision should be advisory
both to the probation officers and the courts as to all features of the service
but with power to require the keeping of prescribed records and to compel periodi
cal reports to the supervisory board or officer.
VIII. R E C O R D S.
1. Every juvenile court should have a record system which provides for—
(a) The filing of the necessary legal records.
(b) The filing of social records covering the investigation of the case, the study
of the child, and the work done by the officers of the court and the probation
staff. These social records should be deemed privileged and confidential re
cords of the court and should be at all times safeguarded from indiscriminate
public inspection.
2 . The filing system should be such as to permit ready identification of cases.
3. The records of the social investigation and the study of the child should
include all the facts necessary to a constructive plan of treatment.
4. The records of supervision should show the constructive case work planned,
attempted, and accomplished, and should give a chronological history of the
supervisory work.
5. The court should compile annually statistical information which will
show the problems dealt with and the results.
6 . In order that it may be possible to compile information covering a period
of years and to compare the work of one court with that of others it is essential
that uniform terminology and methods of statistical tabulation and presentation
of fundamental items be agreed upon. By this means only can significant
social data concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency
and neglect be obtained.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIX II.— SELECTED F O R M S U SED B Y CO U RTS STU D IED .
P E T IT IO N S.
I n t h e S u p e r io r C o u r t o f t h e
F or
the
C ounty
J U V E N IL E
In re the welfare of
Jo h n
D oe.
I No. 0000.
State
of
W a s h in g t o n
K in g .
of
COURT.
Petition.
T o the honorable ju d g e o f the su p er io r cou rt:
Your petitioner, ------------------u.-------------» represents unto your honor that
John Doe, who was born on or about January 30, 1906, is a dependent child in
this that his parents, John and Mary Doe, with whom he resides at blank address,
Seattle, fail to provide him with adequate guardianship and social control and he
is in need of care and protection by the court.
Therefore your petitioner prays your honor to inquire into the condition of
John Doe and to enter such an order in the premises as shall be for his welfare.
P etitio n er.
Police Department.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of January, 1920.
C lerk.
By
D e p u ty .
Set for hearing January 16, 1920.
N. & S. to parents.
Report b y __________
[Face.]
P E T IT IO N F O E D E L IN Q U E N C Y .
J U V E N IL E C O U R T , D E N V E R .
IN TH E J U V E N IL E
COURT.
In the matter of the people in the interest of
Delinquent ch ild ._____, and the rights of
Petition.
to the further care and custody of said child. _
because of.
delinquency.
257
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
258
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
_____________________________________ _ on th is ________ day o f________ 191__,
presents this complaint and petition to the honorable juvenile court of the city
and county aforesaid, and respectfully alleges:
That__________________________ ____________________________________________
child______ sixteen years o f age or under, and_.------------ not------- inmate------ of a
State institution, and that the said child. _ _ _ , _ --------- -delinquent child----------in
this, t o - w i t :________________________________ _________________________ _______
That the names and addresses of the parents or guardian. _ of said childare as follows:
Your complainant and petitioner therefore prays that this honorable court pro
ceed to hear this cause in order to determine the delinquency of said child-___as
aJleged herein; that citation or summons be issued to the parents or guardian. _
of said child____of the filing of this petition and of the time and place of the
hearing thereof, not less than forty-eight hours prior thereto, unless such notice be
waived; and that the said child____may be dealt with according to the statutes
of the State concerning delinquent children, and that the rights of said parents
or guardian., to care for or correct said ch ild .__ or retain______ ___ — ..fu tu re
custody may also be heard and determined in the interest of said child------and
with due regard to the rights of said parents or guardian. _ and the people of the
State of Colorado.
P rob a tio n officer.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
_______day o f___ ____________ A. D. 191—
C lerk o f the J u v e n ile C ou rt.
[Indorsement.]
N o ______
IN TH E JUVENILE COURT
C ity
and
C ounty
op
D enver .
T h e p eop le o f the S ta te o f C olorado i n the
in terest o f
PET IT IO N FOR
DELINQUENCY.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
WITNESSES.
APPENDIXES.
In
the
Superior C ourt
IN
AN D
FOR TH E
op the
C IT Y AN D
State
259
op
C alifornia
C O U N T Y OP SA N FR A N C ISCO .
D ep a rtm en t N o . 2 J u v e n ile.
The people of the State of Cali
fornia on behalf o f
Petition.
Alleged ward------of the juvenile
court.
T o the above en titled honorable cou rt:
Your petitioner,------------ ------------------------------------ , respectfully represents:
th at there is now— ----- — within the city and county of San Francisco,
State of California, the following named person____, under the age o f 21 years
to-wit:
Name.
Age about.
Name.
Age about.
That said person------comes within the provisions of subdivision______
of section 1 of the juvenile court law of the State of California, approved June A
1915.
J hat petitioner is informed and believes and therefore on information and be
lief alleges that the facts bringing said person____within the provisions of such
subdivision are:
That said person----------------------------------------------------- now in the custody and
control of_____________ ________________________ ________________ _____
__
That the father of said person____is_____________________________
who resides at---------------------------------, and the mother of said person____ is_____
------------------- ------------------------------ who resides at__________________________
Wherefore, your petitioner prays that this honorable court set a time for the
hearing of this petition; that______ _________________________________
be cited to appear at said time and bring with____________ said person____ , and
to show cause, if any------------------- have, why such person____ should not be
adjudged a ward------of the juvenile court;
And that this honorable court at such time inquire into the truth of the state
ments of fact herein alleged, and in pursuance of the statute in such cases made
and provided, make such order in the premises as to this honorable court may
seem meet and proper.
State
op
C alifornia ,
P etitio n er.
\
City and county of San Francisco/ ss'
------- ;------------ , being duly sworn, deposes and says: That
-_- _he is the petitioner in the foregoing matter; that ____he has read the fore
going petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true o f ________
knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated on information or belief,
and that as to those m a tters,------he believes the same to be true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of — ------------ _, 191____, A. D.
_____________ _________________
P etitio n er.
D e p u t y c o u n ty clerk, ex-officio clerk o f
the S u p e r io r C o u rt.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Addre^S-..«-^ ’
___
260
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
[Back]
ORDER SETTING TIME AND DIRECTING CITATION TO ISSUE.
Upon the filing of the within and foregoing petition, the hearing of said petition
is hereby set for the_____________day o f . ______________ , 191____ , at___________
o ’clock, in the----------------noon of said day, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, in and for the city and county of San Francisco, Department No.
2, Juvenile, at the court room of said court, 150 Otis Street, in the city and county
of San Francisco, State o f California.
Citation shall issue requiring_______________________ __________ to be present
at said time and to bring w ith __________ said person____ _ J____________________
C o u n ty clerk a n d ex -o fficio clerk o f
the S u p e r io r C ou rt.
No-------- -
DISPOSITION OF CASE.
I n the Superior C ourt
State of C alifornia , in
the C ity and C ounty
F rancisco.
of the
and for
of S an
Department No. 2.
JUVENILE.
The people of the State of California
on behalf of
Alleged ward____of the juvenile court.
PETITION .
NOTICES AND SUM M ONS.
In
the
Superior C ourt
of the
State
of
C alifornia
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
J u v e n ile d epartm ent.
In the matter of
1
A person under the age of tw enty-[
one years.
j
Citation,
The people of the State of California.
To____ _______________ ____
. By order of this court you are hereby cited and required to appear before the
judge of this court in the court house in the county of Los Angeles, State of Cali-''
fornia, at the court room o f department No. 8, on_________
the--------- day o f--------------------------19------ , at___.__ o ’clock___________ M. of that
day, and bring with you the above named______________________________: ______
a person under the age of twenty-one years, then and there to show cause, if any
you have, why said person should not be declared to be a ward of the juvenile
court, according to the petition on file herein.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
261
APPENDIXES.
And for a failure to attend and bring said person with you, you will be deemed
guilty of a contempt of court.
Witness, Hon______ , judge of the Superior Court, sitting in separate
session in the exercise of his jurisdiction as judge of the juvenile
court at the court house, in the county of Los Angeles, and the seal
of said court, this______ day o f-------------------------_19____
Attest my hand and seal of said court, the day and year last above
written.
C lerk .
By
D e p u t y clerk.
[Back]
^ C o u n ty ^ f Los Angeles jCertificate of service of citation.
I hereby certify that I received the within citation on the____day of
______ ■_____________19____ , and personally served the same on the_________ j__
day of__________________ ___ 19___ at the said_____________________ Jcounty of
___________________________ upon the within named_______-________ —
by delivering to______________________________ _____________ personally, on the
day last aforesaid, and more than twenty-four hours before the time stated there
in for said hearing, at the said county o f_____ *.________ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —
a copy of said citation.
19.
Dated.
S h e r iff o f the C o u n ty o f L o s A n g e le s .
B y— ,—
---- --------; "
D e p u t y sheriff.
A s s t , p robation officer, L o s A n g e le s C o u n ty .
GO
Ó
¡H
ft
A-*
k
Q
O
H
®
ah
ft
0
o
N
§1
ft ^
« to
f l
PO
«
ot-t
«
o
§
ft
P
oq
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a
262
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
State
of
C olorado,
>ss.
C ity and County of Den ver J
IN TH E JUVENILE COURT.
In the matter of the people'
In the interest of_____________
Summons and notice to parents or guardian.
a child under the age of.
years.
T o_______________________ _______________________ ________________ _
the parents o f____________________ _____________ 1_______ _______ _____ ;
You are hereby notified that a_______ _____ ._._____has been filed in the juvenile
court of the city and county aforesaid, in which it is claimed arid represented to
the court that the said__________ ______ ____ ____ , your_________ _____ _
is a juvenile delinquent person in this, to w i t : ____________ ,______ _______ _
You are further notified that said cause will be heard on the________________ day
o f----------------------------- , at the hour of---------------- o’clock, before the judge of said
court.
You are therefore hereby summoned to appear and show cause on said day, or
at such time or times as said case may be continued, why you should have the
right to the custody, control or guardianship of said child, otherwise your default
will be entered and the court will proceed in said case to hear and determine
your rights to the custody, care or control of said child, in accordance with the
law and the evidence; and the court may at such time continue the case for
further hearing from time to time; or may place the said child in the temporary
custody of the detention home, or probation officer, or require it to report to the
court at stated times, or to otherwise conduct itself in a becoming and proper
manner with a view of overcoming and correcting its delinquency, if any there be,
or in order to determine your right to its care, custody or control; and the court
may at such time or at such other time as the case may be continued, enter final
judgment in said case, making a final disposition of the custody of said child,
and finally determining your right to its care, custody or control.
Parents are expected to heed this notice and summons of the court, and to be
present with the_ said child at all hearings of said case, since their right to its
care, control, custody or guardianship will be finally determined in the said case.
Under the rules of the juvenile court this summons must be served on parents
or guardians at least two days before the first hearing or trial of the case, unless
waived, and continuances of the hearing will be granted for reasonable times upon
good cause shown.
Your written or verbal promise may be taken by the officer to produce said
child in court at the time of such hearing, and upon failure to comply therewith,
you may be proceeded against as for contempt of court.
Witness— -----------------------------------------, clerk of the juvenile court of the city
and county of Denver, and the seal thereof, at Denver, in said county, this
---------------- - _day o f ----------------- --------------- , A. D. 19_____
C lerk.
By.
D e p u ty .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIXES.
263
[Back.]
State
of
C olorado,
1
. ■’ >
,...
„ :r , . [ss.
City and county of Denver,J
PROMISE OF P A R E N T OR G U A R D IAN FOR A P PE AR AN C E OF CHILD.
I , --------- ----------------------- -------- — ________----------, ------ ---------------------- of said
---------------------------- , mentioned in the within summons, hereby promise that said
-j—
---------------------------will be present at the session of the juvenile court men
tioned in the within notice, or any adjournment thereof at which the within
entitled cause is set for hearing, and hereby agree to be responsible for the presence
of the said---------------------------------at such hearing, or at any other time directed
by the court.
Witness my hand and seal this________________________ _dav of_ ______ __ _.
A. D. 19__ _
--------------------------------- --------------------------------------- [ s e a l ]
The above promise m ay be taken in lieu of bond.
State
of
C olorado,
1
[ss.
C ity and county of Denver,J
------------ m ------, a------ ----------------------- ___-------------------------in and for
said county and State, do hereby certify that I served the within summons by
leaving a copy thereof___________________ J H _______________ ________________
on t h e i » A a,:----- __^day o f _ _ i L , J f e _ ----------- , A. D. 19------- I further
certify that- _ — _ _ _----------- ______ promised________ _ _ i ¿L_______ !|_ 1_ _ i’L_ _
to be responsible for the presence of the said child mentioned in the summons or
notice, at the hearing of said case, upon the said date or at any other time to
which the same may be adjourned or continued by the court.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this__ _ _ - day of_____L.____ , A. D. 19_____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
264
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
WARRANT.
In
the
S u p e r io r
IN AN D FOR TH E
C ourt
op
CITY AN D
State
the
of
C a l if o r n ia
C O U N TY OF SA N FRANCISCO.
D ep a rtm en t N o . 2 — J u ven ile.
The people of the State of California
on behalf of
»Warrant.
Alleged ward__ of the juvenile court.
T h e p eop le o f the S tate o f C a lifo rn ia :
To any sheriff, constable, marshal, policeman or special officer in this State:
WARRANT
A verified petition having been filed in the above entitled court alleging that
_________ __________i _______ ______ ___________is a person coming within the
provisions of the juvenile court law approved June .5, 1915, and it appearing to
this court that in order to insure the attendance of said person at said court, it
is necessary that a warrant of arrest do issue on the order of said court;
Now, therefore, it is hereby o r d e r e d that a warrant do issue for the arrest of
said person, and that until said person can be brought before said court, said
person be detained in the place legally provided for the detention of persons of
the age of said person.
You are, therefore, commanded forthwith to arrest the above named person
______ _________________ _______ _______ and to bring said person before this
court, or if the court be not in session you are commanded to deliver said person
into the custody of the superintendent of the juvenile detention home of this city
and county, to be there detained until the next regular session of this court.
Done in open court this______ _____ A —day o f------__--------- ------------- , 191__.
J u d g e o f the S u p e rio r C ou rt.
State
of
C a l if o r n ia ,
>ss.
City and county of San Francisco,J
I hereby certify that I received the within warrant on t h e ------------------- day
of________ ____ ________ , 191____ , and that I executed the same by arresting
the within named person and by bringing said person into court this------------------- _
day of______________ ^_________ , 191--^.-.
Bv-~f_ 1111IIII ■
1 M
B
P p p
O O O
03
o
P £
O
p
O
Ü
m
O
P 1 fc
<!
2
O
P
1
H G3 £
H g
„
Eh D
Q
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
p
t—I
£
<
e
^
g
P
O
W
>
P
A
.-3
^
œ J
p p
a
O
g
P oPoH>
sE£B
[Indorsement.]
80306°— 25t-
ä
P
CD
No.
a SS O’00
TH E SUPERIOR COURT OF
GQ
®
TH E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ci
o
Ç-
cr0 p
Q
fQ
P
Pc+
£
3
SD§
O
CD I
<
i CD
g.!I
' »P 4
58
behalf of
p
g.TOas
§
Alleged ward ____
of the juvenile
court.
O<
&ffl
tft®
Dr4®
CD HJ
&<
h-. cd '
Waiver of service of eitation
of____________________________
p cd
______________dollars or by the deposit
P
Ö
EL,
Ob
«0 ’S
§ Ì°
1 I
◄
M
go
«>
>
w
W
O H
cr <
CD
?
p
îô
cr
*-h
O V,
s
a
o
o
O
a
^
o
^
1-3
«
oo
CO
H ◄
HH
o
a M
> O
2a
aO
a >
of___________________ dollars in coin.
J u d g e o f the S u p e rio r C ou rt, D e p t. 2 , o f
the c ity and cou n ty o f S a n F ra n cisco.
o
H
i2
h
3! a Sd
K| GO
wH
CD
------------------------------- may be admitted
o cj
03 2
H
tW
äW
2
h s
50
O >
$U\
1
Sta te
of
C a l if o r n ia ,
City and county of San Francisco.
Superior Court, Dept. 2.
A P P E N D IX E S .
is S'!
C a l if o r n ia ,
to bail, by bond, in the sum of________
te) 02
OQ
Cr oo
The people of the State of California on
02
*2 S2.
CD CD
of
The within named__________ ______
3 2
> ^
£ B
o a
CD
£5 CD
CD
COUN TY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
D e p a r t m e n t N o . 2— J u v e n il e .
St a t e
City and county of San Franciscoj88*
p Ö O ‘rt-
c+O
IN
IN A N D FOR THE C IT Y AN D
&
GQ
GQ
[Indorsement.]
This warrant may be served and
executed day or night, and the arrest,
as commanded in this warrant, is
hereby authorized and directed to be
made at any time of the day or night.
Dated th is._______ day of__________
_________________________1 91____
<r+-0
®O
4p e¥
U-&
J u d g e o f the S u p e r io r C ou rt o f the city
and co u n ty o f S a n F ra n cisco.
to
0
5
Oi
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
266
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
DETENTION ORDER.
ORDER FOR DETENTION OF JUVENILE.
State
of
C olorado,
1
C it y a n d c o u n ty o f D en v er j 6
IN T H E JUVENILE COURT.
In the matter of the people in the interest of j
lOrder for detention.
a child _ _._____________ years of age or under
It appearing to the court in the above entitled cause that it is necessary to
insure the attendance at the juvenile court'of said — -------------- ----------------------at such times as may be required, or otherwise secure its obedience to its orders,
the court has directed that the said child be held in the ________________________
__________________________________________ until further order of court.
Witness my hand and the seal of said court, th is ______ day o f ________________
A. D. 191
C lerk o f the J u v e n ile C ou rt.
By
D ep u ty.
ao
„ «
¡2§
«
P
Eh
P •
»
1
1
1
o
g
O >.
s I
P
Q
Eh
"0
<D
>
03
rO
P
Q P
O
«
o
H
pH >
& Eh
¡3 «
& P
goo
goo
XI
TO
3
o
PROM ISE TO APPEAR.
Date
State
of M is s o u r i ,
C i t y o f S t . L o u is .
I hereby agree, on my honor, that I will personally appear before the judge
of the juvenile court, at the Children’s Building, 1321 Clark Avenue, when
notified so to do.
I, the undersigned, do pledge myself to be responsible for the appearance of
before the judge of the juvenile court on the above named date.
Signed- ____________ ____ ______ ______Prin.
Address_________________ _
■
JZ
________ .
Signed________________ _____ _____ _ Security.
Address________ _____ _________________ ______
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
267
A P P E N D IX E S .
FINDINGS AND ORDERS.
N o ______
DELIN Q U EN T.
Œ
S
}
'
'
Ju v e n ile
c o u rt.
In the matter of
Findings and order.
}
The above entitled matter came on regularly for hearing at the regular term of
said court on t h e ______ X _______ day o f _____________ , 191__, before the Hon.
__________________________ ________ _______ judge of said court, upon the petition
o f _____________________________________________ ___ duly filed herein, said child
and h __ father and mother. ______ _________________________________________
being present;_________________________________ _______________________________
and it appearing to the court that all persons entitled thereto have had due and
sufficient notice of these proceedings according to the statute in such case made
and provided; and the court having heard all the evidence adduced at said hearing,
and being fully advised in the premises, makes the following
F in d in g s o f fa c t.
That the allegations of said petition are true in substance, and that said child
is a delinquent child;
That said child was born at________ ________________ — _____ , on___________
that the father of said child i s _________ ____ _________________________ , whose
residence is_ _ ^___________ _^__________________________ ______________________ ;
that the mother of said child i s _ _ _ ______ _________________________ ____ , whose
residence is__________ .___________________________ ______________ .____ _________
I t is therefore ordered, that said child be and __he is hereby declared, adjudged
and determined to be a delinquent child; that said child be and __he is hereby
committed to the care of the Minnesota______ ___ ________________ School for
Boys, Girls, located a t ___________ ____________ _____ ______ __________county
o f ________________________ _____________ and State of Minnesota, and that said
child shall remain there until __he shall attain the age of 21 years unless sooner
discharged by due course of la w _____________- - - - _____________________________
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
By the court,
J u d g e.
Dated Minneapolis, Minn.,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
191__ _
268
J U
<
H*
0 S
i l
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
H
P3
P
O
O
W
h5
i—
t
fc
H
>
P
*-s
«
1 I
¡Z H
hB
Pu
BË
2 O
Hü
W
O R K .
¡3
O'
•fla
ss
OQ
OQ
rh
I n
the
S u p e r io r
C ourt
op
the
State
op
C a l if o r n ia
IN A N D FO R T H E C IT Y A N D C O U N T Y OP S A N FR ANC ISCO .
D e p a rtm en t N o . 2 — J u v en ile.
The people of the State of California
on behalf of
Commitment to private institution.
Ward___of the juvenile court.
The above named person__ , _________ ___ _______________ _________________ ,
having been regularly brought before the above entitled court on the
______
day of________________________, 19____ , upon the verified petition o f_______
_______________________________, the_________________ — ----------- of said person
due and legal notice having been given to all parties entitled thereto, and
It duly appearing to the said court that said person__ come____within the
terms of Subdivision__________ of section 1 of the juvenile court law, approved
June 5, 1915, t h a t ___he__ _ should be adjudged _____ - ward___ o f the juvenile
court, and that said court should make such further order as may be necessary
for the care of said ward__ ;
Now, therefore, it is hereby expressly found that all statements of fact contained
in said petition are true, and
It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that s a id ________________________
_____________________—
______________ ___ ______ _ ward___of the juvenile
court; t h a t __ he
be and h e r e b y ___________committed to the care o f_____
__________________ _____ .1 .______________ , a corporation embracing
within its objects the purposes of caring for or obtaining homes for such persons
and willing and able to receive and care for said ward, until said person--..
attain__ the age of 21 years; and
This court, finding that________ _______ _____ _____________ ____ ______ _____ ,
t h e ____________________________ of said person___ i s ____ able to pay toward the
cost of the support and maintenance of said person__ _ the sum of_______________
______ ____ ____ dollars per month,
It is hereby further ordered that said__:__ _________________________________ _
do pay monthly, in advance, for the expense of the support and maintenance of
said ward__ to the probation officer of the city and county of San Francisco, the
sum of___________________________________ dollars per month, beginning on the
---------------------- day of _________________________________________ , 19____ , and
continuing so long as said person__ shall remain under such care, or until the
further order of this court; and further that said probation officer do pay any
sums collected from said parent__ for the support and maintenance of said
person__ to the city and county of San Francisco; and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
269
A P P E N D IX E S .
It is hereby further ordered that the sum of______ _______________ __
dollars be paid monthly, in advance, from the county treasury" of the city and
county of San Francisco t o ______;
beginning on the
------------ day o f -----------------" I " " " , " " l 9 _ V _ '_ 7 a n d con
tinuing for a period of six months from said date.
Done in open court th is __________ day o f ___________________________ 19
J u d g e o f the S u p e r io r C ou rt
•S
'3
fH
o
S33
u
05 o
o=3
<m
+
>>
co
g2
05 ©
rCj
-(J w
W
. TJl
43 fl
<1-1 o
PnSO n
O
ft
o
ft
M
il
w,a<!g
In
the
05
S u p e r io r
C ourt op the
State
op
C a l if o r n ia
IN AN D FO R TH E C IT Y A N D C O U N T Y OF SA N FR A N C ISCO .
.
D e p a rtm en t N o . 2 — J u v e n ile.
The people of the State of California 1
on behalf of
\ ~
________________________________ _
1 Commitment to State school.
Ward of the juvenile court.
The above named person_____
having been regularly brought before the above entitled court on the__________ *
day of___----------------- -----------------------, 191— , upon the verified petition of
t h e ________________________ _
W
§
”
’
of said person^ haying been cited to appear at said hearing by service of citation
(or naymg waived service of citation), due and legal notice having been given to
all parties entitled thereto, and
It duly appearing to the said court that said person comes within the terms of
- - - - - - — - ^ section 1 of the juvenile court law, approved June 5,
iy i5 , that
he should be adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, and that said
court should make such further order as may be necessary for the care, custody
and control of said ward;'
Now, therefore, it is hereby expressly found that all the statements of fact con
tained in said petition are true and that the welfare of said person requires that
h - - - - - - custody and control be taken from h_____
_
__
___• an(j
It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that s a i d " ”
____
---------------------------------is a ward of the juvenile court; that h_________________ I
---------- ----------------------------be and hereby is (are) wholly deprived of the cust&dy
and control of said person and that — he be and hereby is committed to the care,
custody? and control of the_________________________ ____ ____________ _
’
until said person attains the age of twenty-one years on t h e __________ day of
--------------------------- ---------------------------------------- > 191— , unless sooner legally dis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
270
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
charged, provided that said person, if a boy, may, upon the agreement of the
superintendents of the Preston School of Industry and the Whittier State School,
be transferred from one institution to the other without the further order of this
court; and
This court, finding that___________ .________________________________________ }
t h e ------- .------------- ------ -------------------------------------- of said person is able to pay
toward the cost of the support and maintenance of said person the sum of ___
------------------------------------ ^__---------------dollars per month,
It is hereby further ordered that said_______________________________________
---------------------------------do pay monthly, in advance, for the expense of the sup
port and maintenance of said ward to the probation officer of the city and county
of San Francisco, the sum o f _________________ _______________ dollars per month,
beginning on t h e _________ _ day o f ____ ________________ ____________ , 191___,
and continuing so long as said person shall remain in such custody and control, or
until the further order of this court;
And this court further finding that said________ „_ _ ________ ________ ____ ___
— v--------------.----- ------------ _is unable to pay the whole expense of the support and
maintenance of said ward, it is hereby further ordered that the sum o f _________ _
— _-------------dollars be paid monthly from the county treasury of the city and
county of San Francisco to _________ ;__ ^_________ __________ _________________ ,
beginning on t h e __________ day o f _______________________________ __, 191___,
and continuing for a period of six months from said date;
And it is hereby further ordered that the sheriff of the city and county of San
Francisco do forthwith take into custody s a id _________________________ _____
--------------------- -----------and deliver said person to the superintendent of the said
State school, together with this commitment, and this is to authorize the said
State school to receive, safely keep, support and maintain said person in its
custody and control u n til__ he attains the age of twenty-one years, unless sooner
legally discharged.
Done in open court t h is __________ day o f ___________________ _____ , 191___
J u d g e o f the S u p e r io r C ou rt.
(N. B.: The original commitment must be filed with the county clerk.
certified copy should be delivered, with the person committed, to the sheriff.)
A
[Back.]
Najme________________________________________________ _______________________
Date of birth _________________________________________________________________
Place of b irth ____________________________________________________,___________
If foreign born, state country, and number of years he has been in the United States.
Parents— Divorced?___________________ ,______ Living apart?___________________
F a t h e r : N a m e___________________________________
Living?________________
Address ________ ______________________________ _____________ ____________
Place of birth— United S tates?__________ F oreign ?____________________ 1_
If foreign bom, state country, and number of years he has been in the United States.
O ccupation______ ____ m_______________________ __________________________
Character— Intem perate______ ____ In jail or p rison ?____________________
M o t h e r : N a m e___________________________________ Living?.
_______________
Address, if divorced, remarried, or living apart from husband______________
Place of birth— United States?__________ F oreign ?_________________
If foreign born, state country, and number of years she has been in the United States.
Character— Intemperate?___ :______ In jail or prison?______________
If parents are dead, or lost, name and address of guardian or near relatives.
Defendant’s character— Use t o b a c c o ? _______ _
Cigarettes?
Intem perate?________ _______ ___ ______________ ;_ ____________
Former convictions___________________ i _____________________
Witness my hand this
day of.
., 191___
J u d g e.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
271
A P P E N D IX E S .
-ô
8
H
ó
£
5z¡
H
S
ft
H
hH O
§
S
O
8
SQ
...a
U*l
’Ö
<a>r-4
o3
U
OQW
Ci)
CO
-f=> -4^> RH
g tí O
a)
0
Oü^
INDEXES.
[Probation office index— Seattle.]
Family name
Given name
File N o.
Phone
Date
Source and nature of complaint
Birth date
Address
Disposition
[Back.]
Father
(Dead,
Divorced,
Separated,
School
Home condition
Physical condition
M ental condition
Prognosis or remarks
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
form al.) | M other
Grade
(Dead, Divorced, Separated, Normal.)
Employment
Income
272
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
[Probation-office index— Denver.
Name__________________________________
Date
Address_________________________________________ Age
Complaint
Officer
Disposition
Page
[Index— Buffalo.]
in d e x juv e nile
couET— Nam e
N ic k n a m e
{if im portant )
Case N o.
Original Entry
b y ..............................
...........................19
Sex
Age— birthday— year Color
father
Com
plexion Eyes
Hair
School
mother
Child
father
Occupation
mother i n U .S .
Religion
father
Family
—
name
—
Length of
residence
Country of birth
Race
here
Lives with
mother
occupation — remarks Home conditions
father.
R e m a rk s
mother.
others in family
JUVENILE COURT AND INSTITUTIONAL RECORD.
D ate
arraigned
Residence
,1 9
,19
,19
,19
,19
,19
,19
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Docket
N o.
Complaint
Investi
gation
D isp osition Remarks
Entry
by
273
A P P E N D IX E S .
[Court cases— Index card of Massachusetts Pr obation Commission.]
Age
Name
Address
1
4
Birthpl.
H t.
W t.
Occupa.
L
in e
Comp.
H . or W .
Parents
D
O ffen se
ate
C t.
D
is p o s it io n
POLICE REPORTS AND COMPLAINTS.
B u f f a l o , N. Y . , ______ ______ 1920.
State of New York,]
County of Erie,
Us.
City of Buffalo.
J
J------- - O— — , being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am captain of the
Buffalo city police force, commanding t h e ____th Police Precinct; that at 8.05
p. m. to-day I arrested F _------- W _______ , 14 years old, of No. __ W ________
Street; charge juvenile delinquency, Viol. Sec. 1897 penal law, upon complaint of
C ------- - H --------- , of No. — I A ----------Street, who alleges, that the defendant
broke window, caused by a bullet from 22-caliber rifle, fired by defendant.
He was turned over to his parents, who were directed to produce the boy in
juvenile court No. 44 Breckenridge Street at 3 p. m. Wednesday, March 10, 1920.
Signed_______ ____ __________________ _
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 6th
day of March, 1920.
C o m m is s io n e r o f D e ed s i n and f o r the c ity o f B u ffa lo , N . Y .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
274
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE D E P A R T M E N T .
Police District No. ____ ---------
j u v e n il e
report
.
Station_____________________________ _
---------------------------------------191._
T o ---------------------------------------------- c a p ta in o f p o lic e :
I respectfully submit the following report regarding
Name--------------------------------------------------
Age— —
Address
P o lic e officer.
T o the prob a tio n officer, ju v e n ile cou rt:
Sir: The above report is forwarded for your information and action. The
above named minor and his parents have been directed to report at your office
at 10 o ’clock a. m. on_________________________________ the________________ ___
day of ____________________191__
C a p ta in o f police.
(Please set these hearings tor M onday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Saturday and have reports filed with
the chief of police at least 48 hours before the date of hearing.)
JUVENILE COURT OF THE D IST R IC T OF COLUM BIA.
R EPOR T OP POLICE FOR PR O BATIO N OFFICE.
________ ______ _ —
Name
Address
Name father
Name mother
When and where arrested
Date and place offense occurred
Name of officer and precinct
Disposition after arrest
Charge
Address
Address
Complainant
Witnesses
Address
Address
Age
192____
Birth date
Others involved
Complaint No.
Complainant notified
by
Docket No. . . .
Information filed____
by.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
275
A P P E N D IX E S .
JUVENILE COU RT OF TH E D IST R IC T OF COLUM BIA.
C O M P L A IN T
OP
Name__ ______________
Address______
__^
C H IE F
ATTENDAN CE
Date
Color _
. _ -Age
.
Father’s name __ __
Mother’s name
Guardian or cu stod ian __
O F F IC E R .
__
_ Birth date _
-Address _ __ _ _
__ Address
_ Address
- ______
_______
__ _______
School. _.__________________Grade. _
______ Teacher- - _______
School record:
Date of illegal absences_____________ ______ ________________
Dates actually truant__________ ____________________________
Number school days to date_________ _-Number days tardy
Conduct-______________ ___________ _______________________
Scholarship__________________________________________ ____v_
Number of times reported to Attendance Officer__________
Attempted adjustment before complaint being made____ ____
Remarks
__ _
Signed
__
_ _
__
"
C h ie f attendance officer.
JUVENILE COURT OF TH E D IS T R IC T OF COLUM BIA.
C O M P L A IN T .
Complainant __
__ _
Says: That on or about
_____- ______ - - - _____ — 192
__ Address __ __
_ _
______ _____
l l
i (
did___________ _______________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
___________-192-__
276
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
and he asks that this court deal with the above offender according to law or in
such other manner as it may deem advisable.
Witnesses:
------------------------------------- ---------------- Address___________________________________
(i
Signed__ *_______________ _______
h tei-
INVESTIGATIONS.
[Copy of current case.
Reports are brief and dictated in this story form for reading b y Judge at time of
hearing.]
SU PERIOR COURT OF TH E STATE OF W ASHINGTON
F or
the
THE
In re the welfare of
Joh n
D oe
C ounty
J U V E N IL E
op
K in g .
COURT.
File No. 0000
Report of investigation
By — ----For January 16, 1920.
C o n d u ct .— John was arrested by the police at 2 a. m. January fourth while
prowling in an alley adjacent to the Westlake Market. A police interview
revealed his association with two other boys in a theft of, food from one of the
stalls the same night.
His behavior during the last six months has been increasingly unsatisfactory.
Loitering out nights until ten or eleven o ’clock was the first irregularity noted by
his parents. Some truancy followed and twice he was away from home all
night. The present investigation revealed the fact that he sold papers until
midnight on two occasions and slept in a downtown hotel with a newsboy com
panion. Several petty thefts have been committed by him during the last three
months, each time in company with other boys older than he.
F a m i ly .
He was born i n ----- -— and lived in a mining section of that State
until two years ago when the family including father, mother, a brother, Clarence,
16, John, 13, and a sister, Mary, 7, moved to Seattle. The father and Clarence
secured work at once in the shipyards and have been continuously employed
until the present.
Promptly' upon their arrival John enrolled in t h e ------ — ■School and made an
uneventful record until about six months ago when his scholarship slumped.
He was then doing sixth-grade work and since has failed of promotion.
Although the parents are morally stable, industrious and devoted to the
child’s interests, the home has provided but little of special interest. The
family occupy a four-room apartment on the second floor of a three-story tene
ment building in t h e ---------- district where the social conditions are generally
unfavorable.
P e rso n a l co n d itio n .— About six months ago John’s mental interests became
altered because of ( 1) active pubescent development and ( 2) precocious social
interests growing out of relations with a group of boy companions in his neighbor
hood, several of whom are newsboys of vagrant inclination.
His mental ability is normal. The recent failure in school is attributable to
the social influence mentioned.
R e c o m m e n d a tio n — If he is kept under intelligent and sympathetic restraint
with his family until he shall have become familiar with his new physical inter
ests and responsibilities, I believe there will be no further misconduct on his part.
This can be accomplished by the removal of the family to a more wholesome
neighborhood and a few months’ supervision.
■
—■
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
277
A P P E N D IX E S .
[Back— M atter in roman in the printed blank; matter in italics is filled in ]
Child
John D oe
Resides with
Age 1 3 years on
Address
P a ren ts
Telephone E l l 6 4 3
Father J o h n D o e
Religion
P rotesta n t
Nationality
Address
Step-father
Address
Occupation E m p l o y e e ---------- sh ip y a rd
Mother M a r y
Address
Step-mother
Address
J a n u a r y SO, 1 9 1 9
A m e r ic a n
Monthly income
•Occupation
Monthly income
Other members of household
Type of living quarters
A p a r tm e n t
School work began when
6
Number of rooms 4
Now enrolled in the
years old.
6
Monthly rental
grade a t ------school
Attendance
Industry
Deportment
Scholarship
Occupation
Monthly income
by Dr.
Physical condition as reported
J a n . 1 6 , 1-920
G en era l d evelopm en t sa tisfa cto ry.
P u b es c en t d u rin g last s ix m on th s a n d s o m e
w hat n eu rotic because o f h y g ien ic f a u lts .
S o m e dental caries
Mental condition as reported
by D r .----------
Jan. 16, 1920,
N o r m a l a b ility
J U V E N IL E C O U R T , D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A
PROBATION
OFFICE
File N o . .
INVESTIGATION
N
am e
.
A
ddress.
Nickname
Lives with
Came from
A lias.
Sex
A g e..............................
Birth date_______. . . .
Is birth
recorded?
Color
Nationality
N ativity
Father Mother Father M other
Length residence
In U . S.
Here
Verified?
Birth place__________
Charge........... ..............
Com plaint_________________
Officer and precinct.
Date of arrest— Spoken to .
Others in volved.___
Disposition others_________
F
a m il y —
Name
.................................................................. ............. ...............
Relation
Birth
date
Fr.
M o.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation
Is
F
ath er a
W eekly
wages
C it iz e n ? .
Health
Religion
Other address—
Remarks
278
J U
O th er P
L
erson s
iv in g in
H
ome
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
o m e _________________________
Age
R
W O R K ,
o o m e r s ? ---------------------
B
Occupation
o a r d e r s ?.
Remarks
e l a t iv e s .
and
N
Religion
Occupation
Relation
Nam e
H
E N
Relation
Nam e
O th er R
V
Address
e ig h b o r h o o d .
Occupying room with ch ild..
Num ber of rooms occupied b y
family.
Moral condition___________ _
R em arks.....................................
F
Source
a m il y
S o c ia l A
I ncom e
W eekly
amount
Remarks
g e n c ie s
A
c q u a in t e d w it h
Date
Nam e
F
a m il y
Remarks
Registered confi
dential exchange.
[Page 2 of report.
Sc h o o l R
ecord.
Nam e
Teacher
Grade
D ays
D ays
present absent
W as child attending regularly at time of arrest?
Comment from teacher or p r in c ip a l..,.................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Con
duct
Scholar
Term
from
to
ship
Remarks
279
A P P E N D IX E S .
EM PIO YM ENT R
e COBD.
Employer
Address
Has child p e rm it?...................................
G hubch
and
Period em
ployment
from
to
W eekly
wages
Hours of
Reasons for 1ear
work
ing
W as child working at time of arrest? . . . .
O t h e b O e g ANIZATIONS
Nam e
A
Occupation
of child
Pastor or leader
s s o c ia t e s ________ _
Address
Remarks
1 L . ................................ ..
Associates and (if a boy) gang__________ ______ ________
Give File N o . associates having court record------------------------- ---------
Are any on probation?_____. . . .
SOUECES OF INFOEMATION______ __________________
Investigated b y --------------------------------------Couet R
D até------------
Revised b y _____________ ________ _
Date
e c o b d ..............
Date of hearing
Judge
Docket N o.
Complaint
Disposition
[Page 3 of report] •
SUMMABY AND GENEEAE INFOEMATION.
IN VE STIG ATIO N — OUTLINE FOR S U M M A R Y .1
C harge :
F amily H istory :
Juvenile C ourt, W ashington , D. C.
a n d h ered ity.
National or racial characteristics. Previous
residence of parents. (Urban or rural life.)
E n v ir o n m e n t.
Location of home; type of neighborhood; school facilities*
play space.
’
H o m e c o n d itio n s.
Type of dwelling; sanitation; space; furnishings; employ
ment of mother, either m or away from home.
F a m i l y g r o u p .— :Members; relationship between parents and children,
brothers anchsisters; especially cases of preference for one child; influence
ot one member of the family upon another; leadership in family.
ram ily s attitude toward life: Hopes, fears, and plans.
Unusual personalities in home.
Degree of supervision and control in home.
Relatives: In the same community; in other places.
Recreational opportunities and advantages.
Name and location of nearest playground.
Use of leisure tim e: Where spent; companions.
Any of the family or relatives having court or institution records.
B a ck g ro u n d
-
1 Prepared b y Jeannette Ezekiels, chief probation officer.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
280
J U
H ealth :
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
________ Name of family physician.
physical condition, neurological, venereal, gland dis
turbance; personal habits; play habits and activities.
1.
P h y sic a l — General
2.
M e n ta l —2
a. Psychiatric:
N
ote—
M e d i c a l h i s t o r y f r o m b i r t h t o p r e s e n t t im e ; a n y a ffe c t io n o f o r g a n is m ; in ju r ie s .
T o disclose presence or absence of mental disease; to
outline personality; the make-up and any character defects.
b. Psychological: To estimate intellectual development; vocational
aptitude.
N o t e — M e n t a l d e v e l o p m e n t ; e x c e p t i o n a l t e n d e n c ie s a n d t r a it s ; a p t it u d e s a n d in te r e s ts ;
p e r s o n a li t y d e f e c t s ; a n d c h a r a c t e r m a la d ju s t m e n t s as c a u s a t iv e fa c t o r s r e s p o n s i b le fo r t h e
c h ild ’s b e h a v io r.
E ducation :
Intellectual atmosphere of home— schooling of parents.
School status of minor children attending school.
Schooling of wage earners in family (children).
School record, shortcomings in the various studies.
Progress in school; development of exceptional tendencies and traits; apti
tudes and interests.
Playground facilities.
Activities on playground— evidences of leadership and initiative.
Relationship between teacher and child.
Cooperation between parents and teacher.
C hurch :
1. Church affiliation.
2. Religious and iporal atmosphere of the home.
C haracter :
Habits.
Interests.
Tendencies.
Abilities.
Shortcomings.
Associates and previous record, if any.
E mployment
and
F amily I ncome :
Occupation, wages, hours, length of service, past and prospective advance
ment.
B udget :
1. Considered from standpoint of standards.
2. Considered in relation to child’s employment.
а. Whether or not earnings are needed to supplement the family
income.
б. Whether or not earnings are applied to child’s needs.
c. Whether or not the purpose is to encourage industry and thrift.
d. Proportion of earnings given to home; kept for spending money.
B oy ’ s (or G irl ’ s) Story : Docket No.
Sources
of
I nformation :
Child’s story.
Family.
Doctors and health agencies.
Schools.
Employers, past— present, if possi
ble.
Confidential exchange.
Court records.
Other social agencies.
2 Personality-analysis suggestions.— Aggressive andactive, domineering, practical, inactive, lacking initia
tive, easily led, suggestible, fearful and tim id, a dreamer, easily discouraged, worrier, resentful, jealous,
cruel, kind, affectionate, hate reactions, straightforward, underhand.
Tantrums? I f so, caused b y what, how severe an outbreak, and attitude toward it afterward.
Blames others for difficulties?
If sociable, what type of friends? Is he liked or disliked? Does he lead, or is he lead b y them? Is
he laughed at? Is he solitary?
Conduct disorders, such as lying, stealing, sex delinquency. Exact description of act committed. How
done, w hy, and with whom. Attitude toward it.
Interest and ambitions.
Aptitudes.
Odd or compensatory behavior.
Present trouble.— Description of the particular episode or situation which causes the visit to the clinic.
If because of mental illness, give description of symptoms and the time of onset and duration.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
281
A P P E N D IX E S .
[School report.]
JUVENILE COURT OF TH E D IST R IC T OF COLUM BIA, W ASHINGTON.
-■
}
Chief probation officer.
To
From
S.
MT
PT
M.
HW
D S D A A l.
First
—
Second
—
Third
Fourth
—
Fifth
Sixth
—
—
—
Promoted to
Year
—
—
Grade
Name and opinion of former teacher.
Name and opinion of present teacher
Tendencies, traits, and interests.
Defects of personality
Evidence of leadership and initiative
V
Any known physical defect, or un usual health condition or appearance
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
W ord analysis
Health habits
Algebra
Cooking
Sewing
Shop work hand
work
W.
Phys. training
R.
Selections memor-
Ar.
C . Gr. Ge. H & Sp.
N.
C.
u
<
________ ized
Writing
History, Civics
| Geography
1 Grammar
| Composition
Effort
j Deportment
D . Eff.
is u
+3 <X>
<D
a
| Reading
Ab. T.
à
§
| Spelling
J?
19
I D ays absent
19
1 Num ber of times
tardy
School
year
j D ays present
Subject
W
A, HH
282
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
Recommendation of school physician or nurse.
out?
W
O R K .
Was recommendation carried
If so, when__-------------------- ----------------------------------- - — ------------ --------
Cooperation of parents.
Signature of supervising principal.
[Page 1.]
Docket Number
Name of child
D ependency R ecord of Seattle
Juvenile C ourt
Address
Investigation and report by
Date of birth
Name of father
Name of mother
Name of petitioner
Address of petitioner
Date of petition
R eport
of I nvestigator and
typ ew ritten )
Summary
of
[Page 2 is blank.]
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C ase H istory
(R e p o rt
to
be
A P P E N D IX E S ,
283
[Page 3.]
Surname
M an ’s first
| W om an’s first
Previous application
Claims pending
Industrial insurance
M oney in bank
Residence N o .
Street
D ate
of
birth
First names
Rent
Birth
place
Flat or
residence
Occu
pation
or
school
with
grade
Wages
Rooms
Date of application
Social state
How long
Left
school
at age
of—
A m t.
of
ins.
K in
ship
To
Prem.
Carline
Cause
of
death
D ate
of
death
Phone
Mental
or
physi
cal de
fects
and
illiter
acy
M an
1
W om an’s
N am e
M aiden
2
Children
3
Other members in
family
10
Union
Lodge
6
B «“ ? 4
society
Other sources of income
W eekly
benefits
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contributes to
family
D ebts to—
A m t.
For—
284
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
Marriage
Length of time in—
Race
County
Man
State
U. S.
Date
Previous
marriage
Do you own any?
Place
What, if any, did
your husband leave?
B y whom
Woman
Relatives, references
Address
Kinship
Occupation
Wages
How long
Property
Agencies and persons interested
Relief given
Church or Sunday School
Man
Woman
Children
[Page 4.]
S t a t e o f W a s h i n g t o n ,'!
C o u n t y of K in g .
/
Being first duly sworn, on oath doth depose and say that the written
statements under the various printed headings on the preceding page of this
application were voluntarily made by this affiant and written thereon by di
rection of this affiant, and that the statements therein, both written and printed,
are true in substance and in fact.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
A. D . 191
day of
C lerk .
By
Date of
hearing.
Court orders and subsequent history:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D e p u ty.
APPENDIXES.
285
R E P O R T S O F PH Y SIC AL AN D M E N TA L E X A M IN A T IO N S.
[Minneapolis.!
P h y s ic a l
R ecord.
-------------- Age ------- Color ___.___.Sex ____
Date
Nationality.
Father______________________________
Mother___________ ______
Brothers and sisters________________ _ ~______ 1111 ~~- Tii^ Kn
Relations_______ -____ ;
____________
Prenatal history_________ j __ ,___ _______
Birth history____________ ______________
In fa n cy .,_______ ____ •
______________:
Childhood________________
Anatomical. _ _ _ _ _ _ H r i g h t V Z . Z W ^ L V ^ V . V . V p i i b e r t y
f ead. Circumference'------------ Ant. post________Lateral___
Index"
Anemia _ ___Malnutrition--------- Glands----------Tonsils______ Adenoids
Nasal obstruction--------- Orthopedic defect______ Vision__
Hearing
i e®th- ................... H eart..................... Lungs------------------Foreskin____
Balance. .............___ Nervous---------------- Epilepsy, _______ _ Reflexes
[Back.]
H eredity.------------------------ Alcohol______ ___________Epilepsy
Insanity___________________ _________x ____
Mentally defective type________ ;_ _ _______ ~~~
Operation and treatment__ ____ ____________ _
Results_______________
~~
[Minneapolis.]
S o c io l o g ic a l
R ecord.
Name........... ...................... Age__________________
D a te ...
Father. Nationality.:-------------------------------Occupation_____ __ . . . ¡ l
Religion------------------- Steady work--------------------Use of liquor. _ _ _ I _
t o b a c c o - --- ------------ Home evenings--------------------Literature read_____:
Native ability_ --------------------------Attitude toward children__________
Mother. Religion------------------------------------ N ationality___________
Outside work----------Use of liqu or.---------------- Clubs or societies
Leisure time
.N ative ability------------- Attitude toward children ■
Children. Number_______________ Living_______ ______ Dead
Mother’s opinion of their intellect______________________
Spare time spent how------------------------------------ Out evenings_____
Social friends---------------------------------------Moving pictures_________ _ _
Money allowance------------------Dances---------------- Church attendance
Literature read________________ _________
_
_
Playground facilities_______ ZIIIIIIZII~ZZZIHZIZZIZZ
Home. No. of rooms used--------- No. in sleeping room______ VentilationNo. of meals ------------------------------- Character of same____________ ___
Ceneral sanitation and hygiene______________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
286
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
[Minneapolis.]
P e d a g o g ic a l R
ec o r d .
.Date.
Name___________________ Age------ ----------------Address_________________ _____________School________________________
Years in school_________ Kindergarten---- ----------Grade------------- Others.
Age on entering________ ________ Years in each grade. ----------------------Absent for sickness__ __________________________________________
Native a bility .. . . _________________ Application---------------- ----------------Especially proficient in____________________________________— — j-----Especially deficient in_________________________________ 1------- — - — - Norm al.__________ . . .
[Bright---------------Insolent_______ _ _____
Mentality IRestless______ _ _
(
Forward__________ Sluggish.................................................
Shy------------------- . . . . .
I
Responsive______ ________ — -----------------Indifferent------------------------- ---------------- !
(
[Back.;
General estimate by teacher. Sullen------- -------------- --------- ------------------Subsequent history.
[Card index kept by nurse—Minneapolis.]
Name____________ _________________________
Address
;
Court No.
_________ Case_____
Father
_______________________ Mother
Phys. Exam.
__________________________
Operations
■
______________ _________•
Treatments
_________ _____________ ________
Dental work___________________
Psychological
Chron. age
[Back.]
Visits and remarks
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Mental age
287
APPENDIXES.
[Record of Physical Examination—Judge Baker Foundation, Boston.]
Name
Age
Date
Plain
P. A .
Headache
Ep.
Vertigo
Habits
Deformity
Pers. Cl.
Exam :
Attitude
Expression
Speech
Stigmata
Nose
Thyroid
Throat
Tonsils
Adenoids
R.
Vision
Fields
0 . D.
L.
Pup. form
Reactions
Movements
Ptosis
Strab
Nyst
Diplop.
R.
Hearing
•Otorrhea
L.
U.
R e fle x e s :
Conj.
Palat phar.
Arm
Abd.
L.
K. J.
Achilles
Clonus
Sensation
Low. extr.
Strength up. extr.
M oto r:
Coord, low. extr.
Coord, up extr.
Tremor
Gait
T r o p h ic :
Bones
Adenopathy
Muse.
Thorax
Lungs
Heart
Temp
Pulse
Blood
Appet.
Bowels
Rect. tone
Ur.
Phimosis
T eeth :
Crowded
Ft.
Weight
Height
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Carious
In.
Chest
Hutch.
Circ.
Insp.
Exp.
Head Length
Breadth
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK,
288
D e v e lo p :
Mens,
Bre.
Pub.
Nutrition
Geni, devel.
Compì.
Physiog.
[Statistical Card—Judge Baker Foundation, Boston.]
Age
wt
Ht
Home St
Shop St
Petty St
Auto St
B &E
Pk Pt
Forg
Loaf
Vag
Gam
Lyg
Sx
Ab Sx
Try
Rny
Out N
Bkg
A&B
Dev
Nutr
Sx
F
Vis
Ears
Tth
Ante
Nerv
Ep
Gm
M
Gf
Gm
Illeg.
Ale
Pov
Hyg
M wkg
Crowd
Quar
Negl
Cont
Sbs
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D
Div
Sep
Rem
Tons
Nas
Nat
Gf
*
Born
F
M
Inf
Gon
Was
Ills
Grade
Sm
Tc
M
Ale
M EN T .
Sup
Good
Irreg
Poor
Sub
F M
Sp A
Sp Dis
Psych:✓
Psy Per
Con I
APPENDIXES.
p a r e n t ’s c o n s e n t
The M
DEPARTM EN T
to t r e a t m e n t .
J
in n e a p o l is
289
u v e n il e
OF
C o urt.
RESEARCH .
---------------------------------------------- ------191____
I consent to my
child
receiving_____________ ____
medical .
,
surgical treatme n t------------------------------------------------------------- -----------P a ren t.
G u a rd ia n.
D E T E N T IO N -H O M E F O R M S .
[Seattle.]
K
No.
Date
re
ceived.
C o unty J
in g
Name.
Age.
u v e n il e
Address.
D e t e n t io n H
o m e.
for detain
Received Reasons
ing child and in
from—
structions.
Date
re
leased.
Disposi
tion.
[Form for requests by police for detention.]
SAN FRANCISCO JUVENILE COURT.
D a te.------------------------------- - 191-----Time of arrest________ ■____M.
Superintendent Juvenile Detention Home:
Please receive into custody:
N am e_____________________________________________________ ^ge
Address---------------------------------- --------------------------------P h on e_______________
C harge________________________________
Arresting officer________ ______________________________
Desk sergeant -----------------------------------------------------------Station _______
Have parents been notified? ____________________ ■______________________
Remarks___________________
[Back.]
TO
BE
F IL L E D
IN
B Y
SUPT.
OF
D E T E N T IO N
HOM E.
Case num ber______________________________________________
^ge
Entrance d a te ------------------- time __________ M . Boy ________
Girl
Release date — -----------------------Days in Detention H o m e ________
Where s e n t____ __________________________ _______
Condition on entrance, clean or otherwise___________________________
Well nourished or n o t ________________________________ ______
Condition of cloth in g___________________________________
Data secured by
Signature.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
290
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
[Record kept by Denver Detention Home.]
D e t e n t io n
H ome
S chool, D e n v e r .
----------, Supt.
N am e____
Address__
Age --------S ch ool___
Complaint
Officer____
Nam e_____
Father j
Occupation
Nam e_____
Mother 1
Occupation
Boys___—
Family j Nationality
Religion__
Date____
Remarks.
Grade.
Girls
[Form of report to court b y detention home, Los Angeles.]
J u v e n il e
Name
Date admitted
Repeater
H all
R eport.
Age
Medical examination by Dr.
Laboratory report
Weight on entrance
Dept.
Length of stay
Date
On leaving
Date
Recommendation
Illness in hall
Mental examination by Dr.
Age
Mental age
Diagnosis
Institution record: Officer in charge
Kind of work
Reading
Interest
Temperament
Discipline
Date
Retarded
Accelerated
Quality
School report
Summary
For complete report see
Juvenile Hall files
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Respectfully submitted
Superintendent
Date
291
A P P E N D IX E S ,
RECORDS OF SUPERVISION.
Docket Number
Name of child
SEATTLE
J U V E N IL E
COURT
Address (with date)
H is t o r y o f S u p e r v is io n
Supervision began
Supervision ended
Date of birth
Name of father
School
Name of mother
Grade
Probation officer
Court order
Part I. Digest of supervision
Dates ward was seen
Dates communi-
M onth
A t home
A t office
Elsewhere
probationer
otherwise
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
i■
16
17
1
18
j
19
: 1
20
1
21
22
23
-24
1
1
1
1
1
(F o r f u l l chronological h isto ry , see n ex t pa ge.)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Progress and remarks
292
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
[Page 2.]
Part II.
Dates
F u ll chronological h isto ry.
Detailed account in diary or journal form of what occurs during probation, and
remarks— (Including conduct and surroundings of probationer; things said, done
and learned b y probation officer; things done b y others; instructions; actions by
court, etc. Entries to be made in ink.)
19
[Pages 3 and 4, chronological history continued.]
[Los Angeles.]
III.
P h y s ic a l a n d M e n t a l R e p o r t
:
p h y s ic a l c o n d it io n
Weight
lbs. Height
Growth and nourishment
Naso-pharynx
Vision
Heart
Nervous system
feet
in
Age at puberal onset
years
Teeth
Audition
Lungs
Genitalia
M E N T A L C O N D IT IO N :
School work began when
years old. Now enrolled in
school.
Remarks on pathology of mind or significant traits
grade at
Statement of habits or other influences unfavorable to child’s development
Treatment recommended:
Date of examination
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Signed
M. D.
E x a m in e r ,
293
A P P E N D IX E S .
[Probation record.]
Probation
officer
J U V E N IL E C O U R T , D IS T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A
Nam e
Sex
File N o .
Address
Age
Color
Is birth
recorded?
Birth date
Length residence
N ativity
Father Mother Father Mother
Birth place
Fam ily: N am e
Nationality
Verified?
Relation
Birth
date
I n U . S.
Here
Citizen?
Occupation
W eekly
wages
Health
Religion
Other addressRemarks
Fr.
M o.
Relatives: N am e
School: Nam e
Employment:
Employer
Church: Nam e
Record: Date
of hearing
Relation
Teacher
Qrade
Occupation
Days
Days
present absent
Occupation
of child
Address
Pastor or leader
Judge
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Docket
N o.
Religion
Con
duct
Period
employment
from— to
Scholar
ship
W eekly
wages
Address
Term
from— to
Hours of
work
Remarks
Reasons for
leaving
Address
Remarks
Complaint
Disposition"
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W O R K ,
[Back.]
Record
D ate
Record
D ate
Ì______________
1
Recommendations
S o c ia l facts
------- -------------------------- —-------------- :-------------- -
[Probation officer’s notebook.]
Ju v e n il e C o u r t , D
is t r i c t o f
C o l u m b ia , F ie l d R
ecord.
Color
Birth date
_______________ __________________ ;_____________ ____________________
N am e
A
d
d
r e
s s ______________ ___________________;_______
Parents: Fr.
Relatives
——
School
______ _______________^ ° '
_______________
_______ _________________
______ ■
_______ _____________ _________ ____
—
r
Grade
__________ ___________ __________________
________________________
E m p l o y e r ____________________ ___________________________ _______ ______________
Church
_______________________________________— :--------------
Prob’n
began
_______'
p n
__________________ _ _ ___________ ‘
Special facts
Year
Jan.
Feb.
M ar.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
Aug.
.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Visited home
School visits
Other visits
Service
Reported
295
A P P E N D IX E S .
[ N o t i c e t o p r o b a t i o n o f fic e r o f c h i l d p la c e d o n p r o b a t io n — D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a . ]
Name---------------------------------------- -------------------------- -
File N o . ___
Probation officer_____________________________ _ _____________________
Date placed on probation______ _ _ _ ________ _____ L __________ _____
Date probation officer notified________ I _______ _______________ ______
Date first home visit________
Date parent interviewed____
Date probationer interviewed.
This report, properly filled out, is to be returned to the chief probation officer
not later than the third day after probation officer is notified.
OTHER PROBATION FORM S.
[D is t r ic t o f C o lu m b ia Ju v e n ile C o u r t.]
PROBATION H ISTORY— OUTLINE SPECIAL REPORT.
P r o b a t io n
O f f ic e r s :
State facts only.
Omit opinions and conclusions.
Omit recommendations.
I. Read the investigation and bring it up to date.
II. Make a short statement regarding the following:
1. (a) Reasons for bringing boy or girl into court, (b) If on com
plaint of other person, get child’s story.
2. (a) Explanation of previous charges and dispositions.1 (b)
When boy or girl was placed on probation and eharge.
3. Date when child and parents were last seen; also, number of
visits and number of reports.
4. School: Grade; record of attendance; conduct and scholarship.
(Name, location, and teacher to be inserted in investigation.)
5. Work: Nature of employment. (If possible, employer’s opin
ion and prospect of advancement.) (Employer’s name, loca
tion, and wages to be inserted in investigation.)
6. Church: Attendance (regular or irregular). If irregular, what
attempts have been made to connect family with church?
7. Leisure time: How and where spent.
8 . Physical defects: Have they been corrected? If not, why?
9. General remarks: What has been done for the child? What has
the attitude of the probationer been? The response of the
parents? Improvement in home conditions?
1 N o te .— Y our attention is called to revision of 2(a).
C h ie f P ro b a tio n Officer.
J u v e n il e
C ourt
of
the
D is t r ic t
of
C o l u m b ia ,
W a s h in g t o n .
C h ie f P rob a tio n Officer.
You are placed on probation in order that the court may help you in your
efforts to do better and you will be under the supervision of Probation Offieer
— ------------------- - — -------------.— ---------------- If you do well, you will be
dismissed from probation; if not, you will again be brought before the court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
296
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
You must follow these instructions:
( 1) Go to school regularly; keep steadily at work and hold present job until
a better one is secured and probation officer consulted.
(2) Report as directed by the probation officer, and if unable to report, write
or telephone your excuse promptly.
(3) Secure probation officer’s permission before leaving the District of Colum
bia.
(4) Notify probation officer at once if you change your address.
(5) The probation officer represents the court, and you are expected to obey
all directions of the probation officer.
R e ta in these in stru ctio n s f o r fu tu r e reference.
[Boys’ conditions of probation blank.]
T he
Ju v e n il e
C ourt,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
----------, Judge.
Department N o . 8, H all of Records.
Chief Probation Officer.
1st Assistant Probation Officer.
Los Angeles, Calif., ______________________
To the parents or guardian of -------------- ------------------------------------:
In an action before the juvenile department of the Superior Court, heard and
determined on t h e __________________________ o f ---------------------------------- , 191-_,
___________________________________________________ was declared to be a ward
of the court, and placed under the probationary care and supervision of
___________________ ___________________, as his probation officer, who will visit
_______ _____________from time to time i n ___________ home, and will exercise
such supervision o v e r __________ as may seem necessary to prevent a repetition
o f similar actions in future. The term of probation is ----------------- --------- - — ,
and the conditions of the probation are as fo llo w s :---------------------------------------will be required to report at probation office on the — ------------------------ of each
month between the hours o f -------------- _ and * — --------- M. ,---------------------------No excuse except illness will be accepted for failure to report. (In case of
illness send word to the probation officer either by mail or telephone.)
All reports must be made in person except as otherwise ordered.
That the best interests of the child may be conserved, you are expected to
cooperate with the court and the probation officer, and see to it that their instruc
tions in regard to reporting, school attendance, etc., are strictly complied with.
All communications by telephone, correspondence, or otherwise, must be ad
dressed to the probation officer direct.
Your earnest cooperation in carrying out the above instructions will be appre
ciated.
Very truly yours,
C h ie f P r o b a tio n Officer.
NOTIFY THE PROBATION
OFFICE AT ONCE IF YOU
CHANGE YOUR RESIDENCE.
Phones
M a in ------ -----T he
Ju v e n il e
C o u r t , C it y
and
C ounty
of
D en v e r , C olo.
To parents or guardian:
Your s o n --------- ------ --------------------------------- -------- ------------- -----------r - recently"
got into trouble. We are giving him a chance to do better by placing him on
probation. This means that so long as he obeys his parents, guardian and
teachers, does right and keeps out of trouble, brings good reports from school,
home and neighborhood, and keeps his word with the Juvenile Court he will
not be committed. Otherwise he will be»
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
297
A P P E N D IX E S .
You, as parents or guardian, are expected to see that he fully understands all
this, and to let the court know immediately if he fails to do what is expected of
him. You are also expected to see that he goes to his teacher before school
closes for his report slip and brings it to the court at 9.30 a. m. on report days
as designated on the other side of this card. This is to help and not hurt your
son, and we earnestly ask your cooperation.
------- -------------------------- Judge.
D o not d estro y this card.
[Back.]
J u v e n ile court report d a y s f o r y e a r 1 9 1 6 - 1 9 1 7 .
September
September
October
October
November
November
16
30
14
28
December
December
January.
January
February
February
11
25
9
23
13
27
March
March
April
April
May
May
June
10
24
10
24
14
28
12
26
9
[Parent’s report— St. Louis.]
Parents
are
R equested
to
A nsw er
in
A
TRUTHFU L
REPORT
A ID S
THE
the
F o l l o w in g
Q u e s t io n s , W r it in g
Ink.
COURT
IN
H E L P IN G
YO U R
BOY.
Behavior at home i s ________________________ __________ _____________ _
What time does he get home at night?______
Where does he spend his time in the evening?
Where did he go last Sunday?_______ +______
How many days has he been absent from school or work since last report?
Why has he been absent?_________ ^____ _
Date _______________
Parent’s signature
[St. Louis.]
SCHOOL REPORT.
Name — _________________________ S c h o o l______ ________ ____________
Attendance________ ___________________________________________
Conduct_______ ____ ________ ;________ ________________ ______ _
Scholarship____________________ _____ t______ _____________________
Remarks___________________ _____________ ______________ _______
D a t e _________________________ Principal or Teacher _________________
A n y additional in fo rm a tio n m a y he w ritten o n the hack o f this card
80306°— 25t— —20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
298
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
PROBATION OFFICE.
C h il d r e n ’s
B l d g .,
S t .
L o u is .
You did not report as directed on_________ __________________
I want you to come and see me on _____________________________
at_ ___________________ o’clock without fail.
Very truly yours,
P r o b a t io n O f f ic e ,
C h il d r e n ’s B u il d in g ,
F ou rteen th S treet and C lark A v en u e .
M inneapolis,_____________19 __
This certifies t h a t --------------------------------------- .---------------------------------------------residing a t _______________________________________ has been this day honorably
discharged from probation in the juvenile court of Hennepin County for con
tinued good conduct.
J udge.
Recommended by
P rob a tio n Officer.
[St. Louis.]
A p p l ic a t io n
for
D is c h a r g e
F rom
S u p e r v is io n .
Application o f ___________ ______________ '__________________ probation officer
for the discharge o f _____________________ living w ith ------------------------------------a t ________________________ who has been in my c a r e ________________ months.
S c h o o l or em p lo y m e n t record.
Name of school or place of employment.
Time.
Remarks—Regularity, wages, etc.
RECORD OF SUPERVISION;
No. visits to home_________________________________
No. visits to school or employer____________________
No. visits to relatives or interested parties__________
No. reports to probation officer-____________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
299
A P P E N D IX E S .
I believe that the child’s hearing resulted fr o m .____________________________
I feel that there is no further need of supervision because______________________
(D ate)----------- i------(Signed)___________________________ _____________ ________
C IT Y OF BUFFALO— C H IL D R E N ’S COURT— PRO BATION BUREAU.
REPORT ON VIOLATION OP PROBATION.
Docket No.
Name of child__
Date of birth
- - -
_
--
Date__
-------------- _ _
Parent’s address
__ .Placed on probation__
_
______ __ __ _
_____ By justice___
Previous record _
REPORT.
Respectfully submitted,
P rob a tio n Officer.
To Hon.
J u s tic e , C h ild ren ’s Court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
300
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O R K .
REPORT ON APPLICATION FOR CUSTODY OF CHILD.
In
thè
S u p r e m e C o u r t o p t h è S t a t e o p W a sh in g t o n
F o R THE CoUNTY O P KlNG.
JUVENILE COURT.
In re the welfare of
On the
1
>
J
No.
Report on competency of
applicant for child
day of
191
I visited the home of
who resides at
and after careful investigation I recommend the said applicant as a suitable
custodian for the said child on the basis of the following information regarding
the applicant, which I have verified:
Relation of applicant to child
Age
years. Nationality
Education
Monthly income $
Type of dwelling
Does applicant own this property?
Sanitary condition
Evidence of thrift
School child will attend
Other members of household
What work will be assigned to child?
Health
Religion
Source
Size of ground
Number of rooms
Distance from home
What charge will applicant make for board of child?
Character endorsements
$
nionthly.
In v estig a to r.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of
191
-,
By
» H
MW
Em Em
Pm *5
o P
Pm
Em ¡g
«O
Oo
Ü 'A
Hü
g
PM
g g °
® °Ih
H
Pm
Pi
0
O
o
o
m
hP
h-i
m
>
0
►
"5
<
gsw
a
h S
H
H
«
P
m o
g h
o
u
O
A
Hg A
M% P
«4
ggO
PM
'A
1—l
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
o
H
Pi
C lerk.
, D ep u ty.
301
A P P E N D IX E S .
MONTHLY AND DAILY REPORTS.
P r o b a t io n O f f ic e r ’s R e p o r t .
F o r m on th o f
192—
LO S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y
Total
Grand
total
Boys
Girls
I.
Num ber continued under m y probationary oversight from preceding
m onth .___________ ■_______________________
H i Num ber added during the month:
Boys
Girls
1. N ew c a s e s . . . . . . . ____________________________
2. Received b y transfer______ _________________
3. Returned from State schools______________ _
Total added___________________________
III. Total handled during the month____ ____________
IV . Number passed from m y oversight:
1. Dismissed_________________ _________________
2. Transferred to other probation officers_____
3. Transferred to other counties..... ............... ..
4. Committed to State schools: Whittier
(
) , Preston (
) , Ventura (
)
5. Committed to home finding societies______
Boys
Girls
6........ ......................— — — .................
Total disposed of__________________________
V . Num ber on m y list at close of month____________
V I . Office work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 T o
tal
1. Cases in court_____
2. Reports by proba
tioners___________
3. Office interviews
4. Telephone inter
views................ .....
5. Dictation (letters,
notices, reports).
V I I . Outside work.
1. Calls on proba
tioners___________
2. Calls on investiga
tions_____ _______
3. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,
other
jurisdic
tions.......................
4. Positions secured..
5. Homes found______
6. Papers served.........
7. Children escorted
to an d f r o m
homes___________
V I I I . Preventive
work.
1. Cases adjudicated
without filing___
2. Calls of investiga
tion.........................
3. Num ber on volun
tary probation...
!
Signed.
A s s is ta n t P rob a tio n er Officer.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
302
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK,
P r o b a t io n
O f f ic e r ’s
R eport.
ST. LOUIS JUVENILE COURT.
M onth of
Boys
Girls
Total
W hite
Col.
W hite
Col.
I. Additions—
I I . Removals—
II I. Total under supervision—
I V . Volum e of work—
P r o b a t io n Officer.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
303
A P P E N D IX E S .
[For notebook.]
J U V E N IL E C O U R T , D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A
D A I L Y R E P O R T O F P R O B A T I O N O F F IC E R
-, 192..
P ro b a tio n O ffic er.
Nam e
Home
Sch.
Other
Serv.
Rep.
Remarks
.
Totals
Visits
Office:
Field:
From
To
From
To
From
To
From
To
Total:
Reports
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Hours
Total:
M in .
Hours
M in .
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK,
304
Ju v e n il e
C o u r t , D is t r ic t
of
C o l u m b ia .
M o n t h l y rep o rt— p rob atio n d epa rtm en t.
>
>
03
§
June.
j March.
PR
| April.
1 December.
J January.
03
e
■8
;
October.
November.
| September.
.
1 August.
o f f ic e r
| July.
P r o b a t io n
Total number of cases not requiring full supervi-
(a )
ty pe s of cases.
Total............................................. ......... ......... ..............
=
(b )
rem ovals.
(c) FIELD WORK.
Number absconding probationers brought back to
jurisdiction..................... ............................. £ ----------------(d )
o f f ic e w o r k
.
Num ber hours attending court, in clerical work
Num ber special r e p o r ts ...------------------------ -------------- (e )
c a se s n o t r e q u ir in g f u l l s u p e r v is io n .
Num ber probationers temp, committed to B . C . G .
Num ber probationers attending private boarding
Num ber probationers under supervision of other
(f )
■
v io l a t io n o f p r o b a t i o n .
■■
R
em arks.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
305
A P P E N D IX E S ,
[St. Louis.] '
STATE BOARD OF CH AR ITIE S A N D CORRECTIONS.
Report of the juvenile court o f __ ________________________________ County
for the month en d in g_____________________ 191 _
Boys.
Girls.
Total.
W hite.
Colored.
W hite.
Colored.
I. Disposition of court cases:
1. Total number children before cou rt...
2. Delinquent children..
a. Placed on probation______
b. Committed to institutions____
c. Fined or costs assessed________
d. Discharged or dismissed..........
e. A ll other dispositions____
3. Neglected children..............
a. Placed under supervision of proba
tion office_____
b. Committed to institutions .
c. Committed to individuals..
d. Dism issed-.........
II. Probation office:
1. Additions during month___
2. Removals during m onth.
a. B y court discharge or removal from
supervision...................
b. B y commitment to institutions___
3. Total number under supervision
a. Delinquent__________
b . Neglected_____________
c. Whereabouts unknown___
4. Volume of w ork ..
a. Reports recorded__________
b. Visits recorded.................
.
e. Special investigations___________
III. Institutions:
1. Total number of children in institutions
at end of m onth___
a. Delinquent______. . .
(1) State institutions. . .
(2) Local institutions___ ___
b. Neglected........... ...............
(1) Public institutions_______
(2) Private institutions___
I hereby certify this report to be correct.
C h ie f P ro b a tio n Officer.
Quarters end January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1.
the end of each quarter.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Report promptly at
306
J U
V
E N
I L E
C O U R T S
A T
W O R K ,
[St. Louis.]
HOUSE OF DETEN TION .
R e p o rt f o r m onth en din g
[St. Louis.]
HOUSE OF D E TEN TIO N .
R ep o rt f o r the m onth en din g
Girls.
Boys.
Total.
W h.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Col.
W h.
Col.
APPENDIX HI.
-O UTLINE USED BY CH ILD R EN ’ S
JUVENILE-COURT INQ U IRY.
BUREAU IN
U . S, D e pa r t m e n t o f L a b o r ,
C h il d r e n ’ s - B u r e a u ,
Washington.
OUTLINE.
Official name of court:
City:
State:
District:
Court system:
A.
Dates of inquiry:
County :
O rganization o f court.
1 . J u r isd ic tio n :
(a) Criminal or chancery:
(b) Exclusive or concurrent:
(c) Territory served:
0d) Kinds of cases:
delinquent children:
neglected children :
destitute children:
truants:
x ______
adoption
cases:
child labor:
nonsupport or desertion:
contributing to neglect or delinquency:
Mother’s pensions:
divorce and alimony:
other :
(«) Age limits :
T h e ju d g e :
(a) Special, whole-time:
If part time, in what other court does
Proportion of time devoted
he serve?
to children’s work:
( 6) Method of appointment:
Qualifications:
Term:
(c) Use of referees or other officials than judge to pass upon cases:
0d) Woman referee in girls’ cases:
Qualifications, method of appointment, duties, etc.:
<«) Previous experience and interests:
8.
T h e 'probation sta ff :
(a) Full-time, paid probation officers- -men :
Women :
By whom appointed:
Qualifications required:
Is there any examination?
B y whom given:
Form:
Subjects covered and percentages allowed:
Term of office:
Method of removal :
Salary or compensation :
(&) Part-time, paid probation officers— men:
Women :
Other affiliations:
Amount of time given to court:
Work:
Method of appointment:
Qualifications:
Term of office:
Compensation:
(c) Volunteers giving whole time— men:
Women:
(d) Agents of societies giving whole time:
Part time:
(e) School-attendance officers :
( f) Police officers:
(</) Others doing investigation or supervision:
(A) Hours of work :
(i) Organization of probation staff (give details in regard to supervision;
division of work according to sex, race, religion, age, territory, type
of offense; division of work according to receiving of complaints,
investigation, supervision, etc.; work done by full-time officers;
part-time officers; volunteers; agents of societies; school-attendance
officers; police officers.)
3 0 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
308
JU
V
E N
IL E
C O U R T S
A T
W
O
R K .
(j ) Provision for vacations, leave of absence, expense of conferences, mem
bership in professional bodies, professional library.
(Jc) Training and personality of present staff of probation officers:
Attitude toward work:
4 . O ther officers o f the cou rt:
The clerk— method of appointment:
Qualifications:
Term:
Attitude toward work :
(б) Physicians and mental specialists (describe method of appointment,
qualifications, duties, etc.) :
(c) Superintendent, matron, and employees in detention home (describe
method of appointment, qualifications, duties, personality, etc.) :
(d ) Other employees of the court:
(а)
5 . A d v i s o r y boa rd :
(a)
Personnel:
Method of appointment:
Qualifications:
Term :
(&) Duties:
Compensation :
6 . C hart o f org an iza tion and sta ff o f cou rt:
B.
T h e court ro o m or bu ild in g.
1 . P h y sic a l fe a tu r e s :
(a) Plan of room or building:
(b) Description of room or building:
2 . S p e c ia l arrangem en ts f o r p riv a cy o f h earin g s:
C.
P ro cess before hearing.
1 . R e c ep tio n o f c o m p la in ts:
(a) Persons receiving complaints:
(b) Amount, of information obtained at time complaint is taken:
2 .
In v estig a tio n m ad e p r io r to issu a n ce o f p etitio n , s u m m o n s , or w a rra n t:
(а) By whom made:
(б) Informants :
(c) Amount of investigation:
3 . U s e o f p etition , s u m m o n s , an d w arrant, and b y w h o m served :
4 ' W h e r e are children w ho are arrested taken after a rrest ?
5 . R elea se:
(a) On bond:
(b) On written promise :
(c) On oral promise:
6 . P r o p o r tio n o f cases d isp o sed o f before h earing, b y t y p e o f ca se:
7 . S o c ia l w ork d o n e i n c o m p la in t cases n o t brought to cou rt:
(Reference of other agencies, interviews with parents and others for purpose
of assisting in improving situation, informal supervision, etc.)
D.
H e a r in g .
1 . S ep a ra te h ea rin g s:
(а) Are children’s
cases heard entirely separate from adult cases?
(б) Are delinquent, neglected, and destitute cases heard separately?
Plan of separation:
2.
3.
P r iv a c y o f h ea rin g s:
(а) Are the hearings
open to the public?
If not, what are the restrictions imposed?
(б) Are any hearings in chambers? In what types of cases?
(c) Is any effort made to secure as much privacy as possible in hearings in
open court?
F req u e n c y o f h ea rin g s:
_
(a) How often are children’s sessions held?
4. P r o v is io n f o r children a w a itin g h ea rin g :
5 . E v id en c e a n d w itn es se s:
(a)
Is the child always asked to tell
his story?
Are different policies pursued in this respect with reference to desti
tute, neglected, and delinquent children?
Under what conditions do children testify in cases involving adults?
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A P P E N
D
IX E S .
309
(6) Are the parents or guardians always required to be present and to state
the facts of the case?
(c) Under what conditions do witnesses testify?
(d) Does the judge have before him in every case the facts gained from
investigation and mental and physical examinations? If not, what
policy is pursued?
(e) Are women present in girl’s cases? If so, how much protection do they
afford the girls?
6 . U s e o f referen ces:
7 . L eg a l fo r m a litie s observed:
(a) What legal forms are observed?
( b) Are the children ever represented by attorneys?
8 . J u r y tria ls:
9 . D e sc r ip tio n o f hearing.
E.
M eth o d o f in vestigation.
1 . In vestig a tio n fo r c e :
(a)
Who assigns and directs investigations?
Amount of supervision:
(&) Are investigations made by paid probation officers designated to act
exclusively as investigators?
If not, what paid probation officers make investigations?
Proportion o f time spent in investigation:
Are part-time or volunteer probation officers used?
In what types of cases?
Are outside agencies used?
For what cases?
(c) Reports of police to court or probation officers in regard to children
taken into custody— when made?
Information contained?
In delinquent child cases, must the specific offense be recorded?
2 . F req u e n c y o f in vestig a tio n s:
(а) Are investigations made in all cases?
(б) If not, what types of cases are not investigated?
8.
S c o p e o f in vestig a tio n s:
(а) Interviews with child (amount and kind of information obtained; under
what circumstances is child interviewed?):
(б) Interviews with parents (in the probation office or at home; amount of
information obtained, etc.):
(c) Interviews with other relatives or friends (under what circumstances,
and for what purposes):
(d) Information obtained from school:
(e) Information obtained from employers:
(f) Is the confidential exchange used?
Is information secured from and given to social agencies?
4- R ecord s o f in vestig a tio n s:
(а) Are investigations prepared according to a uniform plan?
(б) Are all investigations recorded in written form?
(Specify.)
5. Physical examinations:
(a) Provision made for physical examinations.
( b) What children are examined, and who determines whether examinations
are to be made?
(c) Under what conditions are the examinations given?
(d) Care of venereally diseased children:
6. Mental examinations:
—7.
(a) Provisions made for mental examinations:
(b) What children are examined and who determines whether examinations
are to be made?
(c) Under what conditions are the examinations given?
(d) Method of examination:
(«) What consideration is given to the physical examination and social his
tory in making the diagnosis of mentality?
S u m m a r y o f results o f in vestig a tion s, a n d p r o g n o s is:
(а) Are the results of the investigations and physical
and mental examina
tions assembled and summarized, or are separate reports made?
( б) Who summarizes the cases and advises as to disposition?
(c) Are case conferences held?
(d) Are persons making the investigations present at the hearings?
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
310
JU
V
E N
IL E
F.
1.
C O U R T S
A T
W
O
R K .
M e th o d s o f detention.
_
_
(а) In what types of cases are children detained in the detention home?
( б) Purpose of detention in detention home?
Average length of stay in detention home?
(c) Are any children detained in boarding homes?
Under what conditions?
How are the homes selected?
How supervised?
Average length of stay :
(d) Are any children detained in jail or lock-up?
Under what circumstances?
What provision is made for separation from adults?
Average length of stay:
(e) Other places of detention (specify types and when used) :
T y p e s o f detention u sed :
2 . M a n a g e m e n t a n d eq u ip m en t o f detention h o m e:
(a) How is the home supported?
( b) How is it managed?
(c) Staff (how appointed, qualifications, attitude toward wofk, etc.) :
\d) Equipment of home (give detailed description of building, sleeping pro
visions, dietary, educational and recreational facilities) :
G.
1.
F in e s or c osts:
2
R ß stxt'ü txo Ti/•
(a) Is restitution
D is p o s itio n o f cases.
,
(a) Are fines or costs assessed against children? In what proportion of
cases, and for what types of offenses?
( h) May fines or costs be paid in installments?
(c) Are parents expected to pay fines or costs for the children?
for damages or reparation for injury ordered by the court?
In what cases?
3.
C o m m itm en t to in stitu tio n s:
(a) Institutions to which
children are committed, and types of children
committed:
.
Proportion of cases of various types in which commitments to institu
(b)
tions were made during the last fiscal year:
(c) In what cases are children committed to institutions without a period of
trial on probation?
(d) Are commitments to institutions indeterminate?
If not, what are the usual periods specified?
(e) Does the court retain control of child, and consent to release, m case of
commitment to institutions for delinquents?
For neglected children?
For destitute or dependent children?
For truant children?
What records are sent to the institution by the court?
#
.
(f)
(sO Does the court receive reports of the progress of the child m the institu
tion?
,
(h) Does the court do any parole work for institutions?
A. P ro b a tio n or s u p er v isio n :
(a) Proportion of cases
of various types placed on probation or under
supervision:
( b) Length of probation period:
. .
u tb ..
, M.U
(c) Are cases released from probation or supervision without the child s
appearance before the judge?
. .
What formalities accompany release from probation or supervision?
W h a t d is p o sitio n s are m ad e i n cases o f tru a n c y ?
5.
6 . C a ses discharged u p o n h earin g :
(a) Proportion during last fiscal year:
(b) Types of cases discharged, and reason for discharge:
7 . A r e the p a ren ts a n d child a lw a y s i n f o rm ed b y the ju d g e a s to h is d ec isio n ?
8 . A d e q u a c y or in a d eq u a cy o f fa c ilitie s f o r d is p o sitio n o f va riou s t y p e s :
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIXES.
311
H . M eth o d s o f p robation .
1 . V o lu m e o f w o rk :
(a) Number of children of various types on probation during last fiscal
year:
( 6) Average number any one time:
Average number of children on probation to one paid officer at any one
time (classified according to ty p e ):
Largest number:
Smallest number:
(c) D o probation officers engaged in supervision have other duties?
Proportionate amount of time devoted to supervision:
C o n d itio n s o f p rob a tio n :
8
(a) Does the judge, in placing on probation, define the conditions of pro
bation? If so, what conditions are usually specified?
(b) Does the probation officer, immediately after the child is placed on pro
bation, explain to the child and his parents the conditions of probation?
What requirements are usually specified in cases of various types?
(c) How much discretion is vested in the probation officer with reference
to decisions as to the requirements and failure to live up to them?
What are the functions of the chief probation officer in this matter?
Of the judge?
R e p o rtin g :
(o) In what types of cases are reports to probation officers required?
(o) How often are reports required?
(c) Where and when are reports made?
(d) How many children report at a time?
(«) How much time is spent with each child that reports?
i f) What is expected to be gained from the reports?
is) What safeguards are provided against undesirable mingling of children
waiting to report?
Ch) Opinion of probation officers in regard to value of reporting:
4-. H o m e v is its :
5.
(а) How often do officers make visits to homes of probationers?
( б) At what times of day are visits made?
(c) With whom does the probation officer talk?
id) What purposes are accomplished through home visits?
Checking up the information obtained through reporting?
Obtaining further information in regard to the ch ild’s conduct and
needs?
Obtaining information in regard to home conditions?
Maintaining a personal and helpful relationship with the child and his
family?
(e) What is required of the family in case of bad neighborhood or home
conditions?
( f) Opinion of probation officers in regard to the value of home visits,
desirable frequency, etc. :
T h e relation o f the prob ation officer to the sch o o l:
(а) Reports required from teachers:
(б) Visits made to school:
6 . T h e relation o f the p robation officer to the c h ild ’s e m p lo y e r :
(a) Reports required from employer:
(&) Visits made to place of employment:
(c) Efforts made to guide choice of occupation and encourage vocational
/y mi.
7tr.aimnS (through cooperation with other agencies or otherwise):
*• 1 h e relation o f the p rob atio n officer to the c h ild ’ s recrea tion :
(a) Efforts made to direct the child’s recreation:
(b) Cooperation with recreational agencies.
8.
T h e term in a tio n o f p ro b a tio n :
(а) WTiat determines the length of the probation period and release from
probation?
(б) Are there any efforts made to secure after care from private agencies,
where such follow-up seems to be needed?
9.
10.
T h e relation o f the ju d g e to p rob atio n w o r k :
S u p e rv is io n o f w o rk b y c h ie f p robation officer:
(Details as to amount of supervision, case conferences, etc.)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE COURTS AT WORK.
312
1 1 . P rob a tio n or su p er v isio n b y private so cieties:
(а) How many children of various types are assigned for probation or
supervision to private societies during the year?
(б) What determines such disposition of cases?
(c) How much supervision over the work of the societies is exercised by
the court?
12
R esu lts o f p ro b a tio n :
IS
P a r o le:
(a) What proportion of delinquent children placed on probation are later
committed to institutions?
(b) What proportion o f delinquent children released from probation are
brought before the court for a new offense?
(c) What proportion of delinquent children have their probation terminated
for purpose of commitment to institutions?
(d) Probation officers’ and judge’s estimate of success:
(а) Do probation officers supervise children on parole from institutions?
How many each year?
(б) Are children assigned to the same officers supervising them before com
mitment?
1 4 . I n fo r m a l s u p er v isio n :
(а) Do probation officers exercise informal supervision over any children
who have not come to court, but have been dealt with informally?
How many such children are supervised each year?
(б) Do probation officers act as neighborhood police, settling quarrels
among children, neighborhood rowdyism, and the like?
I.
R ecord s and reports.
1 . In d iv id u a l records and rep o rts:
(a) Is a written record made of each investigation?
In what form?
. .
(b) Are later visits to the child or reports from him recorded in writing?
In what form?
(c) Does every probation officer make regular reports on each child?
How often?
What do such reports contain?
id) Are social records filed with legal records or filed separately?
(0) What provisions are made for the confidential use of the information?
(/) Filing system:
2 . M o n t h l y rep o rts:
8.
(a) Does the court make a monthly summary of all cases before it and the
probation office?
What does this summary contain?
Is it in the nature of a report?
A n n u a l rep o rts:
. , .
(a) Does the court compile an annual report with full record of its business?
Analysis of statistics?
Complete statistical tables?
(b ) Is the report printed?
4 . M e th o d o f c o m p u tin g sta tistics:
5 . Sta tistics f o r last fiscal y e a r :
_
_
(Number of cases of various types, results of physical and mental exami
nations, and any other information available.)
J.
T h e a dm in istra tive w ork o f the court.
1 . P la cin g children i n fa m i l y h o m e s:
(а) Does the court place out children in family homes other than their own
for purposes other than temporary detention?
What types of children are so placed, and under what circumstances?
( б) Number of children of various types placed out during last fiscal year?
(c) How are such homes secured? (By court; other public agency; private
agency.)
(d) What standards govern the selection of homes?
,
(e) Is any compensation paid; and, if so, how much and under what cir
cumstances?
(f) How much supervision is given, and by whom?
(o) Proportionate amount of time devoted to this work:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
APPENDIXES.
2.
313
A d m in is tr a tio n o f a id to m oth ers:
(Give detailed description.)
3 . I n s t i t u t io n s :
K.
R e la tio n o f court to h a n d lin g o f adult c rim in a l ca ses.
1 . M e th o d o f h a n d lin g adult ca ses:
(«) Proportion of work, if any, devoted to adult cases:
(6) Numbers of adult cases of various types handled in last fiscal year*
(c) Detailed description of methods:
2 . C oo p era tio n w ith cou rts h a ndling adult ca ses:
(Describe interchange of information and plans of cooperation.)
L.
C o o p era tio n w ith p olice.
1 . F u n c tio n s o f p o lice i n a p p reh en sio n o f ch ild ren :
2 . U s e o f p o lice i n preventive w o rk :
3 . S p e c ia l m ethods o f coop era tion w ith p o lic e:
M .
1.
2.
R ela tio n o f the court to the c o m m u n ity .
T h rou gh a d v iso ry hoard:
(Describe functions and work of advisory board.)
G eneral coop era tion w ith other org an iza tion s, in clu d in g p a rticip a tion i n general
m ov em en ts f o r c o m m u n ity betterm ent.
N .
1.
2.
3.
If..
5.
S tate s u p er v isio n and a ssista n ce.
T y p e o f S ta te s u p e r v isio n :
R e la tio n to the a p p o in tm e n t o f court officers:
A m o u n t and k in d o f s u p er v isio n a n d court w o rk :
A m o u n t a n d k in d o f other a ssista n ce g iv e n :
R e p o r ts req u ired :
80306°— 25f------21
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
IND EX.
Adequacy of the court’s resources, 159-160.
Adjustment of cases without formal court action,
109-122.
Comparison of formal and informal cases, 115118.
Definition of “ informal adjustment,” 109.
Disposition, 118-119.
Extent, 114-115.
Methods, by cities, 109-114.
Policy for delinquency problems, 109.
Success of, 119-122.
Adm inistrative work of court:
Management of institutions, 220.
Mothers’ allowances, 12-13. 37, 93,216-218.
Placement of children in fam ily homes, 219-220.
Adoptions, 13.
Investigations, 93.
Adult cases:
Investigations, 93.
Jurisdiction of juvenile court over adult cases
involving children, 14, 221-224.
Contributing to delinquency or depend
ency, 13-14, 221-224.
Nonsupport and desertion,14-15,221,222,223.
Offenses against children, 14, 221, 222, 223.
Other cases, 15, 221.
Violations of child-labor laws, 14.
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision of
employment of children on probation,
186-188.
Advisory boards of courts, 37-38.
Age lim itation of court jurisdiction, 10-12.
Delinquency cases, 10-12.
Dependency and neglect cases, 12.
Agencies (public and private):
Cases referred by, 40.
Child-placing—Delinquency cases, 143-144.
Commitment in dependency and neglect cases,
155-156.
County aid to, 150, 154,157.
Investigations by, 90, 162-163,165.
See also Investigations, social.
Probation work by, 31-33.
Relation to court with reference to orders in
cases of dependency and neglect; 157.
Social-service, relation to court, 244-246.
Supervision of children in their own homes, 155,
162-163.
Vocational guidance for children on probation.
186-188.
Appeals, 134-136.
Appointment:
Judge, 19, 21.
Probation officers, 23-27.
Area served, 6-8.
Arrests, 40.
Baker (Judge) Foundation of Boston. See Judge
Baker Foundation of Boston.
Boston juvenile court:
Adequacy ofresources, 160.
Adjustment of cases without formal action, 109.
Adm inistrative work, 220.
Adult cases, 13.
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision
of employment of children on probation,
A g e lim it a t io n o f ju r is d ic t io n , 1 2 .
Agencies cooperating with. See Organiza
tions—Boston.
Appeals, 134-136.
Appointment of staff of court, 19,24,34.
Area served, 7,8.
Arrests, 40.
Boston juvenile court—Continued.
Cases—
Adjustment without formal action, 109.
Classes under jurisdiction of court, 9-10,12.
Numberunder supervision ofoneofficer,171.
Study of, 88, 90, 92-93, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102,
103-108.
Child-placing agencies, placing delinquents
under care of, 143-144.
Commitments—
Delinquency cases, 143-144, 146, 147, 148,
149, 152-153.
Dependency and neglect cases, 155, 156.
Community and the court, 228,231,232,233-234,
235-236, 240-241, 244.
Complaints, reception of, 41.
Complaints and arrests, 40, 51.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 44, 143-144, 146, 147, 148-149, 151,
155, 156, 158.
Police department, 43-44.
Court room and probation offices, 16,17.
Crim inal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 13.
Crim inal jurisdiction over children, 8-9.
Delinquency. See subject beading.
Dependency and neglect, 12, 130,155,156, 158.
See also subject heading.
Detention, 55, 56, 57-58, 59, 60-61, 62, 63.
Boston plan, 78-87.
C a r e o f c h ild r e n d u r in g , 63, 80 -8 1 , 83-84.
D is m is s a l o f d e lin q u e n c y c a s e s , 138, 139.
D is p o s it io n s , 143-144, 147, 148, 149, 152-153, 155,
156, 158.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 140.
Hearings, 124,127,128,130,134-136.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109.
Investigations, social, 50, 88, 90, 92-93, 162-163.
Jails and police stations, detention in, 63.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19.
Judge Baker Foundation of Boston, 78, 90, 96,
97, 99, 101, 102, 103-108, 144, 175, 195, 206,
211-212, 228.
Jurisdiction, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,12,13.
Mental examinations, 97, 99,101.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Orders, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143-144, 146, 147,
148,149,151,155,156,158.
Organizations cooperating with or receiving
children from. See Organizations-Boston.
Physical examinations, 96, 97,101.
Placement of delinquents, 143-144, 146, 147,
148, 152.
Police, relation to, 43-44.
Probation, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28-30, 33, 142,
162-163, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 182, 183,
185, 186, 188, 191, 192, 193, 195-196.
Psychological examinations, 97, 99,101.
Quasi-criminal procedure in delinquency cases,
127, 128.
Reports (monthly and annual), 211-212.
School and the court, 228, 231, 232, 233-234, 235236, 240-241.
Staff, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28-30, 33, 34, 36.
Study of the case, 88, 90, 92-93, 96, 97, 99, 101,
102, 103-108.
Supervision—
Boarding homes giving detention care, 82.
Dependent children in their own homes,
155, 162-163.
Probation cases, 171,188.
Vocational guidance for children on probation,
315
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INDEX,
316
Buffalo juvenile court:
Adult cases, 14, 222-223.
Age lim itation of jurisdiction, 12.
Agencies cooperating with. S ee
tions—Buffalo.
Appointments, 19, 24.
Area served, 7,8.
Arrests, 40.
Organiza
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 10,
12,14.
Number of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 94r-95,97, 98,100,101.
Child-labor laws, violations of, jurisdiction
over, 14.
Child-placing agencies, commitment of delin
quents, 144.
Commitments by courts—
Delinquency cases, 144, 149, 150,153,154
Dependency and neglect cases, 156.
Community and the court, 231, 233, 234, 237,
242, 243.
Complaints, reception of, 41.
Complaints and arrests, 40.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 144,149,157.
Police department, 43 (footnote 11), 49-50.
Court room and probation offices, 16,17.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 14, 222-223.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8.
Delinquency. S ee su bject h eading.
Dependency and neglect, 12,155, 156,157, 158.
S ee a lso su b ject h eading.
Detention, 36, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 68, 73.
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138,139.
Dispositions, 144, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156,
157, 158.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 140.
Hearings, 127-128,129,132.
Investigations, social, 50.
Judge, 19.
Jurisdiction, 6, 7, 8,10,12,14.
Ju ry trials, 132.
Legal processes prior to hearing, 51.
Mental examinations, 34, 97, 98,100.
M entally defective children, 158.
Neglect. S ee Dependency and neglect.
Offenses against children, 14.
S ee a lso Adult cases.
„
Orders, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 149, 150, 153
154, 155, 156, 157, 158.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from. S ee Organizations—Buf
falo.
Physical examinations, 34, 94r-95, 97.
Pofice, relation to, 43 (footnote 11), 49-50.
Probation, 16, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28-30, 31, 33, 142.
162, 171, 176, 177, 181, 184-185, 191, 192,
193, 196-197.
Psychological examinations, 34,97, 98,100.
Quasi-criminal procedure in delinquency cases.
127-128.
Reports, monthly, 211.
_____
School and the court, 233, 234, 237, 242, 243.
Staff of the court, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28-30, 31, 33, 36,
Study of the case, 94-95, 97, 98, 100,101.
Supervision—
.• ,
,
Dependent children m them own homes
155.
Probation cases, 171.
Records of, 208.
Support of children, 157.
S ee a lso Nonsupport and desertion.
CaSAdjustment without formal court action
109-122.
Comparison of formal and informal cases
115-118.
Dispositions, 118-119.
Extent, 114—
115.
Methods, by cities, 109-114.
Policy for delinquency problems, 109.
Success of, 119-122.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Cases—Continued.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of courts, 9-15.
Adoptions, 13.
Contributing to delinquency or depend
ency, 13.
Delinquency, 9-12.
Dependency and neglect, 12-13.
Mentally-defective children, 13.
Nonsupport and desertion, 14-15.
Offenses against children, 14.
Other, 15.
Violations of child-labor laws, 14.
Number of cases under supervision of one offi
cer, 171.
Study of, 88-108.
Children studied by Judge Baker Founda
tion of Boston, 103-108.
Correlation of physical, mental, and social
findings, 100-101.
Importance of adequate study, 88.
Recommendations as to treatment and
follow-ui) work, 101-102.
Social investigation, 88-93.
Adoption cases, 93.
Adult cases, 93.
Delinquency cases, 89-93.
Dependency and neglect cases, 93.
Types of cases investigated, 88-89.
Study of the child, 94-100.
Need of scientific study, 94.
Number of children studied, 99-100.
Physical examinations, 94-97.
Study of child’s mental capacities and
mental life, 97-99.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 8,126,127.
Child-labor laws, violations of, jurisdiction over, 14.
Child-placing agencies, commitment of delin
quents, 143-144.
Child-welfare movements, participation of juvenile
court in, 246-247.
Classification of children in detention homes, 70-72.
Commitments:
Delinquency cases—
Child-placing agencies, 143-144.
Institutions—
,
Court’s relation to children committed,
150-152.
Policy governing commitments, 147-148.
Private, 148-150, 151-152, 154.
Proportion of children committed,
152-155.
Public, 144-148,154.
Dependency and neglect cases—
Agencies, child-placing (public or private),
155-156.
Institutions (public and private), 156.
Community and the court:
Participation of juvenile court in child-welfare
fnovements, 246-247.
Relation of court to social-service agencies and
institutions, 244-246.
School and the court, 226-244.
Cases dealt with by school-attendance
departments and cases referred to courts,
239-243.
Development of school facilities for preven
tion of delinquency, 243-244.
Equipment of school departments for
prevention of delinquency, 230-234.
Methods of dealing with problem children,
234_ 239.
Opportunity of school in prevention of
delinquency, 226-230.
Complaints and arrests, 40,41-42.
Continuances, 141,142.
Cooperation of juvenile court with—
Agencies—
Delinquency cases, 143-152.
Dependency and neglect cases, 156-157.
Other courts, 224.
Police, b y cities, 42-50.
Correlation of physical, mental, and social findings^
100- 101.
County aid to—
Mothers, 13, 93, 132,216, 217, 218.
Private institutions, 150, 154, 157.
Public institutions, 154.
in d e x .
Court room and probation offices, 16-18.
Arrangement of court room, 17-18.
Arrangement of probation offices, 18.
Location, 16-17.
Criminal cases of adults involving children, juris
diction over, 13-16, 221-224.
Criminal or quasi-criminal procedure in juvenile
cases, 8-9, 127-129.
Delinquency:
Adjustment of cases without formal court
action, 109-122.
Comparison of formal and informal cases
Dispositions, 118-119.
Extent, 114-116.
M ethods, b y cities, 109-114.
Policy of, 109.
Success of, 119-122.
Contributing to, 13-14, 221-224.
Hearings, 126-130.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 8,126-127.
Criminal or quasi-criminal procedure, 8-9,
127-129.
See also Hearings.
Informal treatment of cases. See Adjustment
of cases without formal court action.
Investigations, scope of, 89-93.
Jurisdiction of court according to—
Age limitation, 10-12.
Nature of offense, 9-10.
Orders of court, 137-165.
C o m m it m e n t s —
Child-placing agencies, 143-144.
Policy governing, 147-148.
Private institutions, 148-150.
Proportion of total orders, 152-155.
Public institutions, 144-148.
Continuances, 141-142.
Dismissal, 137-139.
Fines and costs, 139-140.
Probation, 142-143.
Restitution and reparation, 141.
Variations between courts, 137.
School in relation to prevention—
Cases dealt with b y school-attendance de
partments and cases referred to courts,
239~243.
Development of school facilities, 243-244.
Equipm ent of special departments, 2 3 0 -2 3 4
Local institutions, 233-234.
Special day schools and special classes,
232-233.
W ork of school-attendance depart
ments, 230-232.
M ethods of dealing with problem children,
Opportunity of, 226-230.
See also subject headings.
Denver juvenile court:
Adjustment of cases without formal court aetion, 109,110,114,115,116,117,118,119-121
Administrative work of the court, 217 (see also
footnote 17).
Adoptions, 13.
Adult cases, 13, 14, 15, 223-224.
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 11,12.
Agencies, cooperation with. See Organiza
tions— Denver.
Appeals, 134.
Appointments, 19, 27.
Area served, 8.
Cases—
A d ju s t m e n t
w it h o u t
fo r m a l c o u r t
a c t io n ,
DO, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119-121.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,11,
12-13,14,15.
N um ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 93, 97 (footnote 47a), 101.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 126-127.
Child labor laws, violations of, jurisdiction
over, 14.
C o m m it m e n t s —
Delinquency cases, 148, 152, 153, 1 5 4 .
Dependency and neglect cases, .1 5 7 .
Com m unity and the court, 231, 232, 237. 242243,245.
’
Complaints, reception of, 41.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
317
Denver juvenile court— Continued.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 148,157.
Other courts, 224.
Police department, 43, 48.
Court room and probation offices, 16-17.
Criminal cases of adults involving children
jurisdiction over, 13, 14-15, 223-224.
'
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12-13, 93, 130,132,157,
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 36, 55, 56, 59, 63, 68, 73.
Dismissal ^of delinquency cases b y court order,
Dispositions,'ll8, 119,148,152, 153, 1 54 , 1 57 , 1 5 8 .
|ines and costs in delinquency cases, 139
Hearings, 124, 126-127, 130, 132, 133, 134
Informal adjustment of cases, 109,110, 1 15 . 116
117,118,119-121.
’
’
Investigations, social, 50, 93.
Jails and police stations, detention in, 63.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19, 21.
Jurisdiction of court, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 - 1 3 , 1 4 is
Jury trial, 133.
’
'
M ental examinations, 34, 97 (footnote 47a).
M others’ allowances, 217.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 14-15.
See also Ad ult cases.
N o t ic e a n d s u m m o n s , 2 0 1 .
Offenses against children, 14.
See also Ad ult cases.
Orders, 137-138, 139, 142, 143, 148, 152, 153, 1 5 4 ,
157,158.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children
from. See Organizations—
Denver.
Police, relation to, 43, 48.
Probation, 16-17, 23, 27, 31, 142, 143, 165, 168
171, 176-177, 181, 184, 185, 191, 192.
Psychological examinations, 34,97(footnote47a).
Referees, use of, b y judge, 21.
School and the court, 231, 237, 242-243.
Staff, 19, 21, 23, 27, 31, 36.
Study of the case, 93, 97 (footnote 47a), 101
Summons and notice, 201.
S u p e r v is io n —
Probation cases, 171.
Records of, 208.
Dependency and neglect:
C o n t r ib u t in g t o , 13.
Hearings, 130-132.
In v e s t ig a t io n s , 93.
Jurisdiction of courts, 12-13.
Orders of court in cases of, 155-158.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention:
Boston plan, 78-87.
Advantages and disadvantages, 86-87.
Expense, 84-86.
History, and extent of service, 78-79.
Homes, boarding—
D e s c r ip t io n , 82-83.
Discharge records, 84.
N um ber and financial arrangements,
N um ber and type of children cared for
and length of stay, 80-81.
Physical care of children, 83-84.
Selection, 81-82.
. S u p e r v is io n , 8 2 .
Facilities, extent to which used, 56-62
Homes—
E q u ip m e n t a n d m a n a g e m e n t , 67-78.
C la s s if ic a t io n o f c h ild r e n , 70-72.
D aily programs, 75-78.
Physical equipment, 67-70.
S t a f f ——
Appointment, 36-37.
Personnel, 72-74.
S u p e r v is io n o f c h ild r e n , 7 4 .
See also under individual courts.
62-6? *)0^ ce s c i o n s , detention of children,
Methods of detention in courts studied, 55.
Prmeiples governing detention in children’s
cases, 52-54.
INDEX,
318
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 137-139.
Dispositions:
Adjustments without formal court action, 118119.
Orders of court—
Commitments in delinquency cases—
Child-placing agencies, 143-144.
Policy governing, 147-148.
Private institutions, 148-150.
Proportion of total orders, 152-155.
Public institutions, 144-148.
Commitments in dependency and neglect
cases, 155-158.
Private institutions, 156.
Public institutions, 156.
Public or private agencies, 155-156.
Supervision of children in own homes,
155.
Support of children in institutions, 157.
Summary of dispositions in cases of depend
ency and neglect, 157-158.
District of Columbia juvenile court:
Adequacy of court’s resources, 160.
Adjustment of cases without formal court
action, 109,112-113, 114,115,116, 117, 118,
119, 121.
Adult cases, 13,14-15, 223.
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision
of employment of children on probation,
187.
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 12.
Agencies, cooperation with. See Organiza
tions— District of Columbia.
Appointments, 19.
Area served, 7, 8.
Cases—
Adjustment without formal court action,
109,112-113,114,115,116,117,118,119,121.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 10,
12, 13, 14, 15.
Num ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 88, 90, 91, 92 (footnote), 94, 96-97,
99-100, 101.
Child-labor laws, violations of, jurisdiction
over, 14.
Child-placing agencies, commitment of delin
quents, 143.
Commitments b y court—
Delinquency cases, 143,144,148,152,153,154.
Dependency and neglect cases, 156.
Community and the court, 231, 232-233, 243.
Complaints, reception of, 41.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 143, 144, 148, 156.
Police department, 42, 46.
Court room and probation offices, 16,17.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 13,14-15, 223.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8.
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12,13,130,131,155, 156,
157, 158.
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 68, 73.
Dismissal of delinquency cases b y court order,
138
Dispositions, 119, 143, 144,148,152, 153, 154,155,
156, 157, 158.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 139.
Hearings, 123 (footnote 14), 124 (footnote 16),
125-126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109,112-113, 114,
115,116,117,118,119,121.
Investigations, social, 50,88,90,91,92 (footnote),
163,164.
Judge, 19, 21.
Jurisdiction, 6, 7, 8 ,1 0 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 4 ,1 5 .
Jury trials, 133.
Legal processes prior- to hearing, 51.
M ental examinations, 34, 97, 99-100,101.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 14.
Offenses against children, 14.
Orders, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 148, 152,
153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from. See Organizations— D is
trict of Columbia.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
District of Colum bia juvenile court— Continued.
Physical examinations, 94,96,101.
Police, relation to, 42, 46.
Probation, 16, 17, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 142, 143,
163, 164-165,171, 174, 175,176,181-182,183184, 185, 187, 192,193,197-198.
Psychological examinations, 34, 97, 99-100, 101.
Quasi-criminal procedure in delinquency cases,
127, 129.
Referees, use of, b y judge, 21.
Reports—
Annual, 212, 213.
M onthly, 210-211.
School and tne court, 231, 232-233, 237, 243.
Staff, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33.
Study of the case, 88, 90, 91, 92 (footnote), 94,
96-97, 99-100, 101.
Supervision—
«
Dependent children in their own homes,
155
Probation cases, 163,164-165,171,187,190-191.
Records of, 207-208.
Supervision and investigation, separation in
organization of probation staff, 163,
164-165.
E q u ity procedure.
See Chancery procedure.
Feeble-minded children. See M entally defective
children.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 139-140.
Forms used b y courts studied, 257-306.
General law, prosecution under, 9 ,1 0 .
H e a r in g s :
Appeals, 134-136.
Delinquency, 126-129.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 8,126-127.
Criminal or quasi-criminal procedure, 8-9,
127—129.
Dependency, 130-132.
Frequency, 123-124.
Girls’ cases, 129-130.
Jury trials, 132-133,
Privacy, 124-125.
Provision for children awaiting hearing, 125-126.
Socialization of procedure, 123.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109-122.
Intelligence tests. See Mental examinations.
Investigation, social:
Adoption cases, 93.
Adult cases, 93.
Delinquency cases, 89-93, 163, 164.
Essentials of investigation and sources of
information, 89.
Information from child, 89-90.
Information from parents and home visits,
90-91.
Information from social-service exchange
and social agencies, 92-93.
School history, 91-92.
Working history, 92.
Dependency and neglect, 93, 162, 163, 165.
Prior to filing of petition or complaint, 50.
Separation from supervision in probation de
partment, 163-165.
Types of cases, 88-89.
Jails, detention in, b y cities, 62-67.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19-22.
Appointment and term, 19-21.
Previous experience and interests, 21.
Referees, use of, 21-22.
Tim e devoted to juvenile work, 19.
Judge Baker Foundation:
Children referred for study b y Boston juvenile
court, 97,103-108,195-196.
Information secured concerning child’s his
tory, 90.
M ental examination, 99,101.
Physical examination, 96,101.
Recommendations, 102, 105-108, 144, 175.
Records, 206.
Juvenile court’s work (first and second five
years), published b y , 78, 195-196, 211-212,
228.
4
INDEX.
Jurisdiction of courts, 6-15.
Area served, 6-8.
Classes of cases, 9-15.
Adoptions, 13.
Contributing to delinquency or depend
ency, 13.
Delinquency, 9-12.
Age limitation, 10-12.
Nature of offense, 9-10.
Dependency and neglect, 12-13.
M entally defective children, 13.
Nonsupport and desertion, 14-15.
Offenses against children, 14.
Other cases, 15.
Violations of child-labor laws, 14.
C o u r t s y s te m , 6 .
T y pe of jurisdiction, 8-9.
Jury trials, 132-133.
Juvenile-court movement, progress of, 1- 3 .
Juvenile-court standards adopted b y United States
Children’s Bureau and National Proba
tion Association, 251-256.
J u v e n ile c o u r t s s t u d ie d , 4 .
Iiegal processes prior to hearing, 50-51.
Los Angeles juvenile court:
Adequacy of court’s resources, 159 (footnote 62)
160.
Adjustment of cases without formal court
action, 109, 113,114, 118 (footnote).
Administrative work of court, 218, 219, 220.
Adoptions, 13.
Adult cases, 15,221,224. •
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision
of employment of children on probation,
187.
Advisory board of court, 37,38.
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 10,12.
Agencies, cooperation with. See Organiza
tions— Los Angeles.
Appointments, 23,24.
Arrests, 40.
Cases—
Adjustment without formal court action,
109,113,114,118 (footnote).
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,10,
12,13,15.
’
Num ber under supervision of one officer,
171.
Study of, 88, 90, 95, 97, 98,102.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 127.
Child-placing agencies, commitment of delin
quents, 144.
Classification of children in detention home.
71,72.
Commitments b y court—
Delinquency cases, 144, 147, 149, 151-152,
154.
Dependency and neglect cases, 154,155.
Com m unity and the court, 230-231, 232, 233,
235, 237, 238, 243.
’
’
Complaints and arrests, 40,41.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 144, 146-147, 149,151-152, 157.
Police department, 42-43,47.
Other courts, 224.
Schools, 150-151.
Court room and probation offices, 16-17, 18.
Cnmrnal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 15,221,224.
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12,13,130,154,155,157.
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 36, 37, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 65-67, 68, 71,
.72,73,76-78,95,98,146-147,220.
■
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138.
Dispositions, 118 (footnote), 144, 147, 149-150.
155, 157.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 139-140.
Hearings, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 132.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109,113,114,118
(footnote).
Investigations, social, 50,90, 163.
Jails and police stations, detention in, 65, 67.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19,21.
Jurisdiction of courts (juvenile and other), 6 ,8 ,
9 ,1 0 (see also footnote 16), 1 2 ,13,15.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
319
Los Angeles juvenile court— Continued.
Jury trials, 132.
Legal processes prior to hearing, 51.
M ental examinations, 34, 97, 98.
M entally defective children, provision made by
court, 158-159.
Mothers’ allowances, 218.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 15.
Notice and summons, 201.
Offenses against children, 15,221.
Orders, 137, 138, 139-140, 143, 144, 145, 146-147
149, 150-152, 154, 155, 157,160.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from. See Organizations— Los
Angeles.
Physical examinations. 56,95.
Police, relation to, 42-43, 47
Probation, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 32, 33, 143, 163,
165,167,171,176,183,185,187,191,192,193,
Psychological examinations, 97, 98.
Referees, use of, b y judge, 21-22.
Reports—
Annual, 212.
M onthly, 211.
Scbool^and the court, 230, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238Staff, 19, 21-22, 23, 24, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38.
Study of the case, 88, 90, 92, 95, 97, 98,102.
Summons and notice, 201.
Supervision—
Probation cases, 163,167,171, 187 189
Records of, 207, 208.
Supervision and investigation, separation in
organization of probation staff, 163.
Support of children—
In institutions, 157.
See also Nonsupport and desertion.
1 8 7 °nal *=m ^ ance f°r children on probation,
M en tal examinations, 34,97-101.
Clinics, 34, 97-99.
Correlation of mental, physical, and social find
ings, 100-101.
M ental specialists, 34.
Provision for, 34, 97-99.
Psychiatric tests, 34, 97, 99.
Psychological study, 34, 97-100.
Psychopathic cases, 98,160.
M entally defective children, provision made by
C?urt, 13,98,107,142,155,158-159, 160, 216.
Minneapolis juvenile court:
Adjustment of cases without formal court
action, 109.
Administrative work, 217, 219,220.
Adult cases, 15, 224.
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision
ofem ploym ent of children on probation,
187.
’
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 10-11,12
Agencies, cooperation with. See Organiza
tions— Minneapolis.
Appointments, 19,23 (footnote), 27.
Area served, 8.
Arrests, 40.
Cases—
Adjustment without formal court action,
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,
N um ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 93, 95-96, 97-98,100, 101,102.
Chancery (or equity;) procedure, 127.
Child-placing agencies, commitment of delin
quents, 143.
Commitments—
Delinquency cases, 143,145,148,152,153,154.
Dependency and neglect cases, 154, 155-156.
com m u n ity and the court, 231-232, 233, 236
237-238, 239-240, 243, 245.
Complaints and arrests, 40,41.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 143,145,148, 150-151, 157.
Other courts, 224.
Police, 45-46.
320
INDEX,
Minneapolis juvenile court— Continued.
Court room and probation offices, 16-17,18.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 15,224.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8 ,9 .
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12, 93, 130-131, 132,
155, 156, 157,158.
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63-65.
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138.
Dispositions, 143, 145, 148, 152, 153,154,155,156,
157,158.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 139.
Hearings, 123, 127,129,130-131, 132, 133.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109.
Investigations, social, 37,50,93, 163.
Jails, detention in, 63-65.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19 (see also footnote 3).
Jurisdiction, 6, 8 ,9 ,1 0 -1 1 ,1 2 ,1 5 .
Jury trials, 133.
M ental examinations, 97-98, 100-101.
Mothers’ allowances, 12, 37, 93, 132, 217.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 15.
See also Adult cases.
Orders, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 150151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from. See Organizations—M in
neapolis.
Physical examinations, 95-96, 97, 100-101.
Police, relation to, 45-46.
Probation, 16, 22, 23 (footnote), 27, 28, 33, 142,
163, 171, 176, 177, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187,
191,194.
Psychological examinations, 34, 97-98, 100-101.
Reports, annual, 213.
School and the court, 231-232, 233, 236, 237-238,
239-240,243.
Staff, 19 (see also footnote 3), 22, 23 (see also
footnote), 25, 27, 28, 36, 37.
Study of the case, 95-96,97,98, 100, 101, 102.
Supervision—
Aid-to-mothers cases, 12,37,93.
Dependent children in their own homes,
155
Probation cases, 171, 187, 189.
Records of, 207, 208.
Vocational guidance for children on probation,
187. •
Mothers’ allowances, b y city, 12-13, 37,93, 216-218.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
N ew Orleans juvenile court:
Adequacy of resources, 160.
Adjustm ent of cases without formal court
action, 109.
Ad ult cases, 14, 15, 222, 223.
Age limitation of court jurisdiction, 12.
Appeals, 134.
Appointments, 19.
Area served, 8.
Cases—
Adjustm ent without formal court action,
109.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,
12,14.
N um ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 88-89, 97.
Child labor laws, violations of, jurisdiction
over, 14.
Commitments—
Delinquency cases, 145, 148, 149, 152, 153,
154.
Com m unity and the court, 230, 237,242.
Complaints, reception of, 41 (footnote 7), 42.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 145, 146, 148,149.
Police, 43,45.
Court room and probation offices, 16,18.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 14,222, 223.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8.
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12,130,157, 158.
See also subject heading.
See Nonsupport and
Desertion.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
desertion.
N ew Orleans juvenile court— Continued.
Detention, 55, 56,5 7 ,5 8 , 59,60.
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138,139.
Dispositions, 145,148,149,152,153,154,157,158.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109.
Investigations, social, 50,88-89.
Judge, 19.
Jurisdiction, 6, 8, 9 ,1 2 ,1 4 .
Legal processes prior to hearing, 14-51.
Mental examinations, 34, 97.
M entally defective children, provision made b y
court, 158.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 14-15.
See also Adult cases.
Offenses against children, 14.
Orders, 138, 139, 145, 146,148, 149, 152, 153, 154,
157, 158, 160.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from. See Organizations— New
Orleans.
Police, relation to, 43,45.
Probation, 16, 18, 23, 27, 31, 162, 171, 176, 177,
183, 184,185,192.
Psychological examinations, 34,97.
Reports, annual, 212.
School and the court, 230,237, 242.
Staff, 19,23, 27, 31.
Study of the case, 88-89,97.
Supervision of probation cases, 171.
Nonsupport and desertion:
Jurisdiction of courts, 14-15.
See also A dult cases.
Notice and summons, 201.
Offenses against children:
Jurisdiction of juvenile court, 14.
See also Ad ult cases.
Orders of courts:
Adequacy of courts’ resources, 159-160.
Delinquency cases, 137-155.
Commitments—
Child-placing agencies, 143-144.
Institutions—
Court’s relation to children com
mitted, 150-152.
Policy governing commitments,
147-148.
Private, 148-150.
Proportion of children committed,
152-155.
Public, 144-148.
Continuances, 141-142.
Dismissal, 137-139.
Fines and costs, 139-140.
Probation, 142-143.
Procedure in, variations among courts, 137.
Restitution and reparation, 141.
Dependency and neglect cases, 155-158.
Commitments—
Private institutions, 156.
Public institutions, 156.
Public or private agencies, 155-156.
Dispositions (summary), 157-158.
Relation between court and agencies or
institutions, 157.
Supervision of children in their own homes,
155.
Support of children in institutions, 157.
M entally defective children, 158-159.
Records of orders, 202.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from, courts:
B o sto n Children’s A id S o c ie ty Detention in boarding homes, 59, 79,
80-81,244.
Placements, 33, 44,78,144.
Supervision b y, 81, 82, 84-86.
Confidential Exchange, 92-93.
Council of Jewish W om en, investigations
b y ? 33.
Disciplinary day school, 232.
House of the Good Shepherd, 148.
Institutions Department of Boston, 155.
Judge Baker Foundation of Boston, 78, 90,
96, 97, 99-100, 101, 102, 103-108, 144, 175,
195, 206, 211-212, 228.
Massachusetts Department of Public W el. fare, b y, 57-58, 59, 79, 130, 134-135, 143,
155.
IN
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from, courts— Continued.
Boston— Continued.
Massachusetts Society for Prevention of
Cruelty to Children—
Detention, 44, 58, 59, 79, 155, 156.
Investigations in neglect cases, 33, 162.
Physical examinations, 96.
Presentation of neglect cases, 130.
Parental School, abolition of, 228, 233.
School-attendance department, 231,235-236,
240-241.
Suffolk C ounty Training School for Delin
quent Boys, abolition of, 233-234.
Buffalo—
Big Brother organization, probationary
supervision b y, 33.
Catholic boys’ institution, 149.
Children’s aid society, 144.
House of the Good Shepherd, 149.
Parental school, abolition of, 233, 234.
School-attendance department, 231, 234,
237, 242.
Denver—
Bureau of charities of city, and county
department of health and charities,
investigation and supervision b y, 12-13,
House of the Good Shepherd, commitments
to, 148.
School-attendance department, 231, 232,
237, 242-243.
University of Colorado, physical and
mental tests, 34.
District of Columbia—
American Red Cross, investigations by, 33.
Board of Children’s Guardians—
Commitments, 143, 148, 155, 160,
183-184, 197, 201.
Investigations in dependency and
neglect cases, 33,131, 165.
Supervision, 55, 59.
National training schools, commitments
to, 143, 144, 156, 184, 198.
School-attendance department, 231,232-233,
237, 243.
United States Public Health Service—
M ental tests by, 99-100.
Venereal disease treated b y, 183, 184.
W om en’s bureau of police department, 129.
Los Angeles—
California George Junior Republic, 149.
E l Retiro (school for girls), 38, 146-147, 151,
154, 160, 167, 220, 233.
House of the Good Shepherd, 149.
Juvenile bureau of police department, 42-43.
Parent-Teacher Association, follow-up work
on informal cases, 113.
School-attendance department, 230-231,
235, 237, 238, 243.
Special schools, 238-239.
Minneapolis—
Children’s Protective Society of M inneap
olis, investigations and supervision m
dependency and neglect cases b y, 33, 46,
130, 155, 156.
’
County home schools (Hennepin County)—
Administration, 220.
Detention in, 59.
House of the Good Shepherd, commit
ments, 148.
Minnesota State Board of Control, 143,
148, 155.
Opportunity School, 233.
School-attendance department, 231, 232,
233, 236, 237-238, 239-240.
N ew Orleans—
C ity school for boys, detention in, 55, 59.
House of the Good Shepherd, detention in,
45, 59, 149.
Louisiana Society for Prevention of Cruelty
to Children, investigations made by, 14,
33.
Louisiana State training institute, commit
ments, 145.
School-attendance department, 230, 237,
242.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D
E X .
321
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from, courts— Continued.
St. Louis—
Bellefontaine Farms, commitments. 1 4 5 146.
Brother and Big Sister organizations,
Board of Children’s Guardians—
Detention care, 59.
Supervision, 55.
House of the Good Shepherd, commitments,
Missouri School of Social Econom y, statisti
cal work for court, 209.
School-attendance department, 230,234-235,
241-242.
’
San Francisco—
Ethan Allan School, 233.
School-attendance department, 230, 2 3 3 ,
237, 243.
,
, m,
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Chil
dren, 166.
University of California, clinic maintained
by, 95,98.
W idow s’ pension bureau, 13,217-218.
Seattle—
Department of vocational education, 240.
House of the Good Shepherd, Commit
ments, 148.
Parental schools of Seattle, 145, 151, 156.
233,240.
’
School-attendance department, 33,231,232,
236, 237,240.
’
'
University of Washington, 31, 33.
Gatzert Foundation, 98.
W om en’s Industrial H om e and Clinic, 145.
Physical examinations, 34,94-97.
Correlation of physical, mental, and social find
ings, 100-101.
Police, relation to juvenile court, b y city, 42-50.
Police stations, detention in, b y cities, 62-67.
See also Detention.
Privacy of hearings, 124-125.
Probation:
Advising in choice of occupation and supervis
ing employment of children on probation.
186-188,
Conditions, 172-174.
Health of children on probation, safeguarding
of, 182-184.
Hom e visits, 179-182.
Individual treatment, planning of, 175.
Length of probation periods and termination of
probation, 191-194.
Num ber of cases under supervision of one officer,
171.
Offices, location and arrangement, 16-18.
Orders of courts in delinquency cases, 142-143.
Relation of probation officer to school, 184-185.
Relation of probation to recreation, 186.
Reports b y probationers, 175-179.
Results, 194-198.
Staff of court, 22-33.
Hours of work and provision for vacations,
28-30.
Length of service, 31.
M ethod of selection, 23-27.
Number, 22-23.
Organization, 161-171.
Plan of organization, b y city, 161-163.
Relative advantages of various types,
. 168-171.
Police officers, volunteers, and public and
private agencies, use of, 31-33.
Salaries, 27-28.
Training and experience, 30-31.
Supervision of case work, 188-191.
Psychological examinations:
Clinics, 34, 97-99.
Correlation of mental, physical, and social find
ings, 100-101.
M ental specialists, 34.
Provision for, 34,97-99.
Psychiatric tests, 34,97,99.
Psychopathic cases, 98.
Quasi-criminal, or criminal, procedure in juvenile
cases, 8-9,127-129.
INDEX,
322
Referees, use of, b y judge, 21-22.
Reports:
Annual, 211-213.
M onthly, 210-211.
S t . Louis juvenile court:
Adjustment of cases without formal action, 109,
113-114.
Adoptions, 13.
Adult cases, 13,15, 221 (footnote 25), 224.
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 11,12.
Agencies cooperating with. See Organiza
tions— St. Louis.
Appeals, 134.
Appointments, 19-21, 23-24.
Area served, 7 ,8 .
Arrests, 40.
Cases—
Adjustment without formal court action,
109,113-114.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,11,
12.13.15.
Num ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 88, 94-95, 97.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 127.
Commitments, 145, 148, 151, 153, 154, 156.
Com m unity and the court, 230, 232, 233, 234235, 241-242, 243.
Complaints, reception of, 42.
Complaints and arrests, 40, 42.
Cooperation—
Agencies. 145,146, 148, 151, 153, 154,156.
Other courts, 224.
Police, 49.
Court room and probation offices, 16, 17, 18.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 13, 221 (footnote 25),
224.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8,11.
Delinquency. See subject beading.
Dependency and neglect, 12, 130, 156, 157, 158.
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 36, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 68, 73.
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138, 139.
Dispositions, 145, 148, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 140.
Hearings, 127,130,133,134.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109,113-114.
Investigations, social, 50, 163-164.
Jails, detention in, 63.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19, 21.
Jurisdiction, 6 (see also footnote 2), 7, 8, 9, 11,
12.13.15.
Jury trials, 133.
Legal processes prior to hearing, 51.
Mental examinations, 34,97.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 15.
See also Adult cases.
Notice and summons, 201.
Orders, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 145, 148, 151, 153,
154, 156, 157,158.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children from. See Organizations— St.
Louis.
Physical examinations, 34, 94-95, 97.
Police, relation to, 49.
Probation, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 33, 142, 163-164,
171, 176,183,184, 191,192,193,197.
Psychological examinations, 34, 97.
Referees, use of, b y judge, 21.
Reports, monthly, 211.
School and the court, 230, 232, 233, 234-235, 241242, 243.
Staff, 19-21, 23, 24, 27, 33, 36.
Study of the case, 88, 94-95, 97.
Summons and notice, 201.
Supervision of probation cases, 163-164,171, 189.
Supervision and investigation, separation in
organization of probation staff, 163-164.
San Francisco juvenile court:
Adjustm ent of cases without formal action, 109,
112, 114,115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.
Administrative work, 217-218,219-220.
A d u lt cases, 13, 15, 93, 221-222.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
San Francisco juvenile court—Continued.
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision
of employment of children on probation,
187.
Advisory board, 37.
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 10 (footnote 16),
12.
Agencies, cooperation with. See Organiza
tions— San Francisco.
Appointments, 24, 27.
Cases—
Adjustm ent without formal court action,
114,115,116, 117,118,119, 120, 121.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,10,
12,13,15.
N um ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 90, 93, 95, 97, 98,100,101, 102.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 127.
Classification of children in detention homes,
71, 72.
Commitments, 144, 145, 147-148, 149-150, 151,
153 154 155 156.
Com m unity and the court, 230, 232, 233, 237,
243, 245.
Complaints, reception of, 42.
Continuances— Court order in delinquency
cases, 142.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 145, 147-148, 149-150, 151, 157.
Police, 49.
County aid, 13, 93, 132 (footnote 21), 217-218.
Court room and probation offices, 16,17.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 13, 15, 221-222.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8 ,9 .
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12,13,93, 131-132,155,
156, 157,158.
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 36-37, 55, 56-57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68, 70,
71, 72, 73.
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138.
Dispositions, 118, 119, 145, 147-148, 149-150, 153,
154, 155, 156, 157, 158.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 139.
Hearings, 127, 129-130, 131-132.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109,112,114,115,
116,117, 118,119, 120,121.
Investigations, social, 50, 90,93.
Jails, detention in, 65.
See also Detention.
Judge, 19,21.
Jurisdiction, 6, 8, 10 (footnote 16), 12,13, 15.
Jury trials, 132-133.
Legal processes prior to hearing, 50.
M ental examinations, 3 4 ,97,98,100, 101.
M entally defective children, provision made by
court, 98,158.
Mothers’ allowances, 13, 93, 132 (footnote 21),
217-218.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 15.
Notice and summons, 201.
Orders, 137,138, 139, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148, 149,
150, 151,153,154.
Organizations cooperating w ith, or receiving
children from, court. See Organizations—
San Francisco.
Physical examinations, 56,95, 101.
Police, relation to, 49.
Probation, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 142, 143,
165-167,171,175,176,182,183, 185,187,191,
192,193,194, 197.
Psychological examinations, 34,97,98,100, 101.
Referees, use of, b y judge, 21.
Reports, annual, 212.
School and the court, 230, 232, 233, 237, 243.
Staff, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 34-36, 37.
Study of the case, 90,93, 95, 97,98,100,101,102.
Summons and notice, 201.
Supervision, records of, 207.
Supervision of probation cases, 171,187, 189-190.
Support of children, 157. •
See also Nonsupport and desertion.
Vocational guidance for children on probation,
187.
INDEX,
Schools and the court, 226-244.
Cases dealt with by school-attendance depart
ments, and cases referred to courts, 239243.
Development of school facilities for prevention
of delinquency, 243-244.
Equipment of school departments for preven
tion of delinquency, 230-234.
Local institutions, 233-234.
School-attendance departments, 230-232.
Special day schools and special classes, 232233.
Methods of dealing w ith problem children, 234239.
Opportunity of school in prevention of delin
quency, 226-230.
Seattle juvenile court:
Adjustment of cases without formal court ac
tion, 109, 111-112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 121.
Administrative work of court, 216,219.
Adoptions, 13.
Adult cases, 15.
Advice in choice of occupation and supervision
of employment of children on probation,
187.
Age limitation of jurisdiction, 10,11,12.
Agencies, cooperation with. See Organiza
tions— Seattle.
Arrests, 40.
Cases—
Adjustment without formal court action,
109,111-112,114, 115,116, 117,118, 119, 120,
121.
Classes of, under jurisdiction of court, 9,10,
1 1 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 4 ,1 5 .
Num ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Study of, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102.
Chancery (or equity) procedure, 127.
Child-placing agencies, commitment of delin
quents, 144.
Commitments, 144,145,148,150,154-155.
Com m unity and the court, 231, 232, 233, 236,
; 237, 240, 243.
Complaints, reception of, 42.
Complaints and arrests, 40, 42.
Cooperation with—
Agencies, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151, 157.
Police, 42, 48.
Court room and probation offices, 16,17, 18.
Criminal cases of adults involving children,
jurisdiction over, 13.
Criminal jurisdiction over children, 8, 9.
Delinquency. See subject heading.
Dependency and neglect, 12,13,93,130,132, 155,
157.
See also subject heading.
Desertion. See Nonsupport and desertion.
Detention, 36, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 68,
69-70, 73.
Dismissal of delinquency cases, 138.
Dispositions, 118, 119, 144, 145, 148, 150, 154-155,
157.
Fines and costs in delinquency cases, 139.
Hearings, 127, 129, 130, 132.
Informal adjustment of cases, 109, 111-112,114,
115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.
Investigations, social, 50, 90, 93,163, 164.
Jails and police stations, detention in, 65.
See also Detention.
o
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
323
Seattle juvenile court— Continued.
Judge, 19.
Jurisdiction, 6, 8, 9 ,1 0 -1 1 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 4 ,1 5 .
Legal processes prior to hearing, 50-51.
Mental examinations, 97, 98, 101.
M entally defective children, provision made by
court, 158.
Mothers’ allowances, 216.
Neglect. See Dependency and neglect.
Nonsupport and desertion, 15.
See also Adult cases.
Orders, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142-143, 144, 145, 146,
148, 150, 151, 154-155, 157.
Organizations cooperating with, or receiving
children
from. See
OrganizationsSeattle.
Physical examinations, 95,101.
Police, relation to juvenile court, 42,43, 48.
Probation, 16, 17, 18, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33.
Psychological examinations, 97, 98,101.
Reports, annual, 212.
School and the court, 231, 232, 233, 236, 237, 240,
243.
Staff, 19, 23 , 27, 30, 31.
Study of the case, 88,90,93,95,97,98-99,101,102.
Supervision—
Probation cases, 163, 164, 171, 187.
Records of, 207, 208.
Supervision and investigation, separation in
organization of probation staff, 163,164.
Support of children, 157.
See also Nonsupport and desertion.
. Vocational guidance for children on probation,
i87.
Social investigation. See Investigation, social.
Societies. See Organizations.
Staff of courts:
Advisory boards, 37-38.
Clerical staff, 34r-36.
Detention-home staff, 36-37.
Judge, 19-22.
Probation staff, 22-33.
Standards, juvenile-court, adopted b y conference
held under auspices of U . S. Children’s
Bureau and National Probation Associa
tion, 251-256.
Study of the case, 88-108.
Importance of, 88. _
Social investigation, 88-93.
Study of the child, 94-100.
Summons and notice, 201.
Supervision:
Case work, 188-191.
Dependent children in their own homes, 155.
Detention homes, 82.
Probation cases—
Em ploym ent, 186-188.
Investigation separated from supervision,
b y city, 163-165.
Num ber of cases under supervision of one
officer, 171.
Records of, 207-208.
Supervision and investigation, separation in organi
zation o f probation staff, 163-165.
Support of children:
In institutions, 157.
See also Nonsupport and desertion.
Vocational guidance for children on probation,
186-188.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER