ment and associates. Religious influences, proper recreation and remunerative employment should be provided. We must realize that no two persons are alike, and even though they have committed the same sort of offense, it does not follow that they can be reached in the same way. Case conferences should be held frequently to consider special problems and peculiar and difficult cases.

Some years ago a very wise probation officer remarked: "The most effective probation work that I have ever come in contact with is the result of tying up the probationer to the constructive forces of the community. If you fill his life full of constructive things he will neither have time nor opportunity for the destructive." This was another way of saying that he recognized the values of co-operation. Hans Gross tells us that only the sham knows everything; the trained man understands how comparatively little the mind of any individual can grasp and how many must co-operate in order to explain the very simplest things. The successful probation officer recognizes his limitations. He realizes that he cannot do everything. It is his bounden duty to keep in such close touch with the social agencies of the community that by simply stepping to the telephone he can command immediately their best resources and co-operation. The past ten years have taught us the necessity of getting together all the forces of the community to aid in the solution of probation problems.

Statistics and Publicity

One of the great problems of the probation officer is the checking up of violations of probation conditions. Courts and probation officers have no greater responsibility than to keep the probation system from becoming regarded by offenders and the general public as a system of sentimental leniency—of simply letting offenders off without punishment. Probation is intended to give the delinquent not only another chance, but also real oversight, practical assistance, and the assurance that in case of continued misconduct he will be returned to court and be more severely dealt with. Probation fails of its purpose unless it is very definitely and concretely a helpful disciplinary and reformatory agency.

An interesting experiment is about to be set on foot in the City Magistrates' Courts of New York City, namely, that of a probation part, or court. This court will be presided over by a special judge, who will devote ample time to the consideration of probation problems. He will review periodically the progress of probationers, will reprimand or sentence all violators of probationary conditions, and will discharge in an impressive manner probationers whose periods of probation have terminated.

Adequate probation forms and proper records and an accurate system of reports and supervision should be an essential part of the probation system. Probation has reached the stage of development when it should commence to check up scientifically the results of its efforts. A great deal of time and effort should be spent on the checking up of persons released from probation. From the successes or failures, in the long run, we determine the relative value of certain types of activities of our work as compared to others, and if results are favorable we can take increased confidence in our work. Such a study was made in Buffalo, N. Y., in 1915, with interesting and enlightening results. Of this study Mr. Homer Folks said: "This study has given me a greater degree of security, confidence and satisfaction in the ultimate results of our probation work in serious cases, than any other examination that has so far been made."

Publicity is a duty incumbent upon us and not an optional act. Publicity is a recognition by the probation officer of his stewardship to the public. By publicity we mean the kind of publicity that explains, that stimulates, that clarifies, that fights, that defends, that gives the public the knowledge it has a right to ask. How can this be done? In many ways. Let us make our annual reports not only accurate, but interesting. Let us make our literature attractive and educational. Let us accept such opportunities as come to us naturally to appear before the public and speak of our work. Let us discover what is valuable to a newspaper, and reveal to it the so-called human interest side of our profession. We must publish facts and findings and must constitute ourselves guides of the public, or we shall often find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of being compelled to defend certain fundamental principles of our work which have seemed to us personally so axiomatic as to require not even an exposition.

In the ultimate analysis, however, the value of probation to the individual probationer is due only slightly to the methods or the machinery used. Fundamentally, its value depends largely upon what the individual probation officer does for the particular persons entrusted to his care. No system without constructive, discriminating, individual work can operate well. The great surgeon is the man who has devoted himself earnestly to his profession and has brought to it right altruism, high intelligence, earnest zeal and all the powers of his personality. Probation is a difficult profession, demanding skillful service. Entrusted to the man or woman who merely looks upon it as a political job, probation is doomed to failure. No matter how swift and powerful an aeroplane may be, it will never give maximum service to an army unless directed by the skilled hand of a trained airman.

Should we not, therefore, approach our task with great humility, with a proper respect for its difficulties and with a true appreciation of its opportunities? Should we not by training, reading, and conference, endeavor to acquire all of the knowledge which will help us to do our work more effectively? Should we not endeavor to learn from all agencies and individuals the truths which they have discovered in their respective field and which we can utilize in our own. Should we not give a careful study to the relative merits of different methods of applying probation, and improve our case treatment in the light of such study? Should we not approach every individual probationer with a conscientious determination to give him the best service of which we are capable, realizing that his future is largely in our hands?

A broad vista of opportunity stretches before us. The probation officer is primarily a builder of human character, a force for the betterment of social life. As yet the community is not fully alive to our work nor does it realize clearly just what the probation officers are attempting to accomplish in their daily work. The day of this realization, however, is approaching us swiftly, and with it will come progressive rewards and recognition of the dignity of our Public service. Those who have visited the battle fronts of the Great War have come back impressed with the wonderful efficiency which our forces are showing in the struggle. More impressive, however, than the machinery which has been put into action are the splendid human qualities of loyalty, co-operation, precision, orderliness, self-sacrifice, and spiritual devotedness evinced by the officers and men—the same qualities which you and I know to be essential to effective probation work.

As we do our work from day to day and make tests of our individual output, let us make sure that back of our efforts are the courage and loyalty and conception of the greatness of the task which alone can produce the highest efficiency. Let us respect the great constructive work in which we are engaged. Let us always remember that its code of ethics is based upon the true service that we owe and wish to give humanity. A wise philosopher once said that the only wealth is life. In our fallible human way we are trying to give a more abundant life to those unfortunates of society who come under our care.

SOME PRINCIPLES FOR PAROLE FOR GIRLS

Edith N. Burleigh, Superintendent Girls Parole Department, Trustee of Massachusetts Training Schools, Boston *

Unless parole is considered in its relation to a state program for the correction of deliquency, no true estimate of its value can be made. Penology should deal with correctional systems and should recognize the various phases of treatment as parts of one whole, preserving the relations of one part to another and the interdependence of the parts.

The following paper attempts to indicate the place of parole in the care of the deliquent girl and some of its principles.

We are considering girls who have been committed to the instiution by the court because of having broken certain laws or statutes. We are not talking about dependent or neglected children, who in certain states are being put into industrial schools. We are also assuming that the institution has been established as a training school on the cottage plan, which means a certain free life as contrasted with the stricter discipline which goes with the high walls of reformatory institutions.

It is because the girl could not adjust herself, was a misfit in the community, that she was sent to the institution. Parole is the process of re-education—the specific kind of community service through which the girl is reabsorbed into free community life.

Place of Parole and Probation in the Correctional System

The difference between parole and probation is that parole is dealing with a girl who has been removed entirely from the community and subject to all the influences of institution life, while probation undertakes readjustment without this experience. No girl of average mentality could pass unchanged through a period of enforced retirement in an institution, because so many new forces have been brought to bear upon her.

It is the purpose of this paper, then, to discuss by what methods parole can best accomplish its end, establishment of the girl in free community life as a helpful force. Its conclusions are based on experience with girls only and may differ materially from the principles applicable to the parole of boys and adults. Reabsorption into the community is governed in each instance by widely differing considerations. The normal boy, for instance, has an economic value and an interest in his own economic efficiency. Such interest is secondary in importance with the girl—at least in her own mind. Earning her living presents itself to her in a form which offers none of the inducements of a career and is but a necessary tiding over of the time until she shall marry and have a home of her own—a frankly avowed ambition with a majority of these girls. This difference in mental attitude must have a great bearing in determining methods of parole and methods should be applied principles.

The fact that parole should be a part of any correctional system will undoubtedly be accepted. It is conceded by some of the most progressive instiution superintendents that parole is of importance equal to that of the institution. Their reason for this rather radical stand is that the institution, because of its restricted and practically homogeneous group, cannot hope to complete the girl's training, since it can offer no practical application of the knowledge gained in her industrial training, nor test the sincerity of her change of heart and the strength of her good resolutions when the girl is called upon to face the temptations of normal community life. The institution, then, is only the first step along the road to the complete rehabilitation of the girl.

Theories Examined

As the unrestricted return of the girl to the community is manifestly too dangerous both for society and for the girl, a second step must be provided for in the state program which shall include continued training and supervision. The return of the girl to the community under these conditions is made possible by a system of parole. There are several theories as to the best system.

Most institutions have a parole office, perhaps several officers, belonging to the staff, where possible living in the institution, and usually having some duties in the institution itself. These parole officers are under the direction of the superintendent of the institution. This system has been upheld on the ground that the girl was best known to, and therefore best handled by a person living with her in the institution.

A theory more recently advocated is that parole and probation should be co-ordinated and that when the girl is paroled from the institution she should be returned to the jurisdiction of the court which committed her, as otherwise the knowledge of her gained through the investigation for the court would not be available.

The real test for any theory of parole is how effectively it can accomplish its object—the complete restoration of the girl. A parole system established as an independent outside department, under the same board of trustees would seem to be the most effective means of solving the problem. While under certain conditions parole might be well done under the direction of the superintendent of the institution, separation from it insures a more complete identification of the girl with the community from the start. It marks for her the second step in her progress toward freedom. The possibilities of parole are so great that the work needs most careful organization and the undivided attention of its officers. They should not be hampered or distracted by the problems of the institution, since their work demands a constant study of the resources in the community which can be utilized for the development of the girl on parole. This study can be made best by people who are themselves a part of the community.

Separation from the Institution

Parole should offer the girl a chance to put behind her all the signs of her deliquency—court, probation, institution—and herein lies the strongest argument against the co-ordination of probation and parole. This separation need imply no disloyalty to the institution which has done so much for her, but it allows the girl to become more completely hitched up to the community from the beginning of her parole. She must not fly back to the institution as a refuge from the difficulties or the temptations she meets. She must learn how to fight them in the open with the resources which are available to her there.

This encouragement of independence of the institution does not preclude the return of girls to it when necessary for the protection of the girl and of the community. In certain instances girls need the discipline of the institution, sometimes they need medical treatment, or further training to make them capable of earning their living.

It is fundamentally bad for the girl to make the reformatory institution a home centre. It should be a background for future attainment instead. With every desire to give the girl a sense that she has a home, tying her to the institution unwittingly helps to prevent her from making new and more normal ties in the community. I believe this would hold true also of any plan which held the girls together in a group anywhere outside the institution, such as a home from which the girls went out to work in factories or stores. Any such group, even though in a lesser