Deficiency and Delinquency: An Interpretation of Mental Testing

by James Burt Miner

CHAPTER VI. DELINQUENTS TESTING DEFICIENT

A. At the Glen Lake Farm School for Boys, Hennepin County, Minnesota.

We are now in a position to evaluate the Binet examinations of delinquents. Let us first note our results for a group of 123 consecutive cases at the Hennepin County Detention Home.[^[14]] It is not a detention home in the sense of a place where children are held awaiting the disposition of their cases by the Juvenile Court. It is better described by its unofficial title, The Glen Lake Farm School for Boys. This county training school for delinquents is located on a splendid farm beside a small lake fourteen miles outside of Minneapolis. The boys are sent there by the juvenile court for a few months' training as an intermediate discipline between probation and sentence to the State School at Redwing.

The character of this group of 123 randomly selected delinquents is further indicated by the fact that 69 of them had already been brought into court two or more times, 54 were first offenders. Boys are sent to Glen Lake whenever the nature of their delinquency or the conditions at home, together with the personality of the boy, seem to the court to require this special training. A summary of the offenses for which the boys were brought into court does not, therefore, show the character of the boy as it is known to the court through the evidence and the efficient service of the probation officers. It shows, however, that the last offenses for which this group were being disciplined were as follows: Petit larceny 29, truancy 25, incorrigibility 25, burglary 9, grand larceny 6, disorderly conduct 4, malicious destruction of property 4, trespass 3, sweeping grain cars 3, breaking and entering 3, indecent conduct 2, miscellaneous offenses one each 8, total 123. Perhaps a more important indication of the character of the offenders in this group is that they represent about a quarter of the cases brought before the juvenile court during the period of this study, a little over a year. With the exception of a very few cases sent directly to the State Industrial School they may thus be regarded as typically the worst quarter of the delinquent boys under 17 years of age in Minneapolis.

The majority of boys were tested by myself after several year's experience with the clinic in mental development at the University of Minnesota and after examining many other delinquents. Some were tested by assistants from the university clinic, Mrs. Marie C. Nehls and Mr. Harold D. Kitson, who had been specially trained for this. Their detailed reports were carefully gone over and evaluated. The Binet 1908 series ([136]) was used, except that for tests above XII either tests XIII were used, or later these were supplemented by two other tests, which have been placed in the age XV group or adult groups, in the revisions of the Binet scale published by Goddard ([110]) or Kuhlmann ([135]). This variation was of small importance since a boy was regarded as of passable intellect if he scored X.8. We always gave the three tests of the XIII group and the boy was credited with age XIII if he passed two out of the original XIII year tests or four out of five tests given above XII. In accordance with our conservative position the rule of this 1908 scale for scoring was followed and the boy credited with the highest age for which he passed all but one test, plus one year for each five higher tests passed. This is the basis of the 1908 form of the scale as standardized by Goddard. Appendix II gives the detailed results for each boy with exact life-age and tenths of test-age on the scale, basal test-age with the tests, grade in school at the first of September when he was of this life-age and offense for which he was being disciplined. It also indicates which boys were repeaters. The results of this table are summarized in Tables VIII and IX. The life-ages at the last birthday are used rather than the nearest ages, since this accords with Goddard's standardization and with the common use of the term “age.” Moreover it seems to conform to the best practise and to be less likely to lead to mistakes. Table IX also shows the school position of each boy. Since a number of the older boys had left school, in order to tabulate their school positions in reference to their life-ages it was necessary to assume that they would have continued to progress normally from the position they held when they left. The Minnesota law requires attendance at school until sixteen years of age unless before that the child graduates from the eighth grade. In this group most of those sixteen years of age and a goodly number of those fifteen years old had left school, so that their school position had to be advanced a year in the table; a very few of the 16-year-olds had to be advanced two years in the table. In all cases the school position is given relative to the first of September when the boy was of the life-age given. Either ages six or seven are taken as satisfactory for the first grade, ages seven or eight for the second grade, and so on with the other grades.

TABLE VIII.

Test-Ages of the Glen Lake Group of Delinquent Boys

	Life-Ages at Last Birthday
Test-Ages	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	Totals
VII		1										1
VIII	1				1			1				3
IX				4	2	1		1			1	8
X				1	2	2	1	5	2	3	1	17
XI				1	2	8	6	9	6	13	3	48
XII					1	2	5	4	6	7	3	27
XIII								1	4	8	5	18
Total	1	1	0	6	8	13	12	21	18	30	13	123

TABLE IX.

Intellectual Development Relative to Life-Ages and School Position Among Consecutive Delinquents at the Glen Lake Farm School for Boys of Hennepin County, Minn.

	Life-Ages
School Position Grades	No.	6	7	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
+	1			XI
+S	17	VIII	VIII			XII	XI	XIII	XIII
				IX-3				XI	XII	XI	XII
				X			XII-2	XII
-S	21				X	XI-3			XIII-2	XI	XIII
					IX		XI	X
						X			XII-2
					XII					XIII
					XI	VII			XI
-1	28				XI	XI-3	XI	XI-3	XII	XI	XIII-2
				IX-1	VIII
					X	X	XII	XII	XI-2	XIII-4	XI
					IX					XII
-2	26					IX	XII-2	XII	(X)	XIII-3	XIII-2
						XI	XI-2	X-2	XIII	XII-2	XII
							X	XI		XI-5
-3	19						XI	(IX)	XII-2	(X)	XI-2
								XI-3	XI-2	XI-XII
								X XII
-4	7							VIII	XI	(X)	XII
								X		XI
										XII
-5	4								(X)	(X)	(IX)
											(X)
Totals	123	1	1	6	8	13	12	21	18	30	13

An Arabic numeral after a Roman numeral indicates the number of cases, when more than one case occurs at any position in the table. Parentheses indicate cases testing presumable deficient or doubtful. S is a satisfactory school grade.

The summary of the Binet scale testing of this group according to the valuation which we have adopted, shows two clear cases of tested deficiency. One boy who was 13 years of age tested VIII and was the only case sent to the State School for Feeble-Minded from this group. The other was 16 years of age and tested IX. Besides the two presumable deficients, seven other boys were uncertain according to our interpretation, as judged by the Binet tests alone. One of them was 13 and tested IX, the others were 14, 15 and 16 and tested X. This would make a total of 7% possibly socially deficient, since they were all delinquent. This seems to be the largest estimation of deficiency which would be justified on the basis of these test results. To show, however, how important is the interpretation of the results obtained with Binet examinations when treated in gross, it need only be stated that a few years ago, when this study began, it was not uncommon to count all who were retarded three or more years and testing XII or under as feeble-minded. On that absurd basis, there would be 45 such cases (37%). As we have considered at length the reasons for not counting a person as even of doubtful intellect who tests XI or above or is less than three or four years retarded, we do not need to rehearse them here.

B. Comparison of Tested Deficiency Among Typical Groups of Delinquents.

Using our conservative basis for interpreting the results of Binet examinations, let us now review the evidence of the proportion of delinquents which is intellectually deficient. We shall compare the available data on groups of tested delinquents which have not been subjectively selected, provided that the data permit of restatement on the basis of the borderlines we have adopted. The evidence of tested deficiency on over 9000 objectively selected delinquents has thus been assembled under approximately the same interpretation of the borderlines. This should help to make it clear how extensive the preparations must be for dealing with this problem of the defective delinquent and where the needs are most pressing. It should also enable us to discover when the estimates have been excessive. We shall confine ourselves to the reports of objective test examinations, so that the estimates do not depend upon the judgment of the examiner alone. A bibliography of these studies is given at the close of the book. How much more has been accomplished in this field in the United States than abroad is illustrated by the fact that repeated search has failed to discover any reports of Binet examinations on representative, randomly selected groups of delinquents in any foreign country. Binet examinations have been made of juvenile delinquents in Breslau ([34]) and in Frankfurt a. M., and in London ([56]); but only upon selected cases.

Those who wish to compare the results as to tested deficiency with the subjective opinions of various estimators should consult the reviews of this literature by Bronner ([6]) and by Gruhle ([121]). The effect of such a comparison is an increasing conviction that it affords dubious evidence of the relative amount of deficiency in different groups of delinquents. Without objective tests, there is no means of telling what amount of mental retardation the different experts would class as feeble-mindedness.

(a) Women and Girl Delinquents in State Institutions.

Women in state penitentiaries are a small group among delinquents in institutions. According to one study by Louise E. Ordahl and George Ordahl[^[15]] the frequency of tested deficiency is smaller among them than among women committed to reformatories, who in general commit less serious crimes. All except one of the 50 women prisoners enrolled were tested with the Kuhlmann 1911 revision of the Binet scale. About half were negro women. Only 6 (4 negroes) tested IX or below and were in our group of presumably deficient by the tests. Twenty others (13 negroes) tested one Binet age higher and were in the doubtful group.

If we consider the worst condition so far as intellectual deficiency is concerned, we find it in the reformatories and training schools for women. Dr. Weidensall applied the 1908 Binet scale to 200 consecutive women, 16 years to 30 years of age, as they were admitted to the New York Reformatory for Women at Bedford. Seventy-seven tested IX or under and were within our presumably deficient group. An additional 74 tested X and were in the uncertain group, although if we regard them all as deficient because of their persistent delinquency, we have a total of 75% ([59]). These results were duplicated by Dr. Fernald ([16]). She tested 100 other consecutive cases with the 1911 scale and found 41% tested below X, our presumably deficient group. She regards these as “feeble-minded with certainty.”

Dr. Katherine Bement Davis, the former superintendent at Bedford, estimated herself that among 647 prostitutes who were inmates there, 107 were “feeble-minded (distinctly so);” 26 “border-line neurotic;” 26 “weak-willed, no moral sense;” 11 “wild, truant, run-a-ways.” This makes a total of 26% of this group whom she apparently thought might possibly be classed feeble-minded or of questionable mentality because of deficient intellect or will ([11]). It is quite clear that the objective tests give a much better basis for comparison of the Bedford group with those which are to follow.

The professional prostitute confined in institutions for delinquents has been carefully studied and tested by the Massachusetts Commission for the Investigation of the White Slave Traffic, So Called ([36]). Three groups of 100 each were examined “without selection, except that all had a history of promiscuous sex intercourse for pecuniary gain.” One of the groups consisted of young girls under sentence in the State Industrial School for Girls, the House of Refuge and the Welcome House. A second group consisted of those just arrested and awaiting trial in the Suffolk House of Detention in Boston. The third was made up of women serving sentence in the State Reformatory for Women, the Suffolk County Jail and the Suffolk House of Correction. “These three groups represent the young girls who have just begun prostitution, the women plying their trade on the streets at the present time, and the women who are old offenders.”

The Binet tests were applied to 289 of the 300 women examined, and other psychological tests were applied in doubtful cases. The ages ranged from 12 up. Only 10 were under 15 and 32 were 36 years of age or over. The investigators classed no case as feeble-minded which did not test XI or under, but they did not class as feeble-minded 107 other cases which tested XI and under. The Commission's diagnosis is therefore conservative. It regarded 154 cases (51%) as feeble-minded, 46 in the detention house group and 54 in each of the others. If we ask how many tested below our standard we can not tell exactly, since the report does not state whether X.8 was classed as X or XI. It shows 81 tested IX or under (27%) and these were nearly all, therefore, within the limits of our group presumably deficient. Ninety-nine others tested X, a total of 60% testing below our borderline for presumable and doubtful deficients. Since only 2 cases were under 14 years of age, these figures could not be much disturbed by the younger girls. We can be reasonably sure, then, that at least 27% of these prostitutes should be placed under permanent custodial care, and probably 50% would be more nearly correct.

In a recent report of the Bureau of Analysis and Investigation of the New York State Board of Charities[^[16]] Dr. Jesse L. Herrick reports testing 194 inmates of the state reformatory for women known as the Western House of Refuge. The Stanford Scale was used, 25% tested IX or under with that scale and 14% tested X. In the same bulletin the report is made of Binet ages for 607 inmates of the New York Training School for Girls. Four versions of the scale were used so that the estimates are somewhat affected. Moreover, 97 girls were under 15 years of age. The table of Binet ages indicates 20% testing IX or under and 28% testing X.

Hill and Goddard ([30]) report examining a group of 56 girls who had been in a reformatory and were under probation with a certain officer. In this entire group they found only four who were not feeble-minded, “as we usually define feeble-mindedness.” Presumably this means three or more years retarded, including those who tested XII, so that it cannot be regarded as a conservative estimate. No further data is provided for interpreting the borderline.

Taking up the younger and milder girl delinquents, Dr. Haines reports the examination of an unselected group of 329 at the State Girls Industrial Home near Delaware, Ohio ([26]). They were all under 21 years of age and represent less hardened delinquents than the older groups at the reformatories for women. The Ohio group was tested with the Binet 1911 scale as well as with the Yerkes-Bridges Point Scale. Counting a result of .8 of a year as placing the case under the next mental age above, as we have in fixing the limits, we find that his results are given with such excellent detail that we may fairly compare the percentages with our standard for the Binet Scale. On this basis 70 of these delinquent girls (21%) are clearly deficient and 55 more are in the uncertain group, a total of 38%.

As a check upon results, we may compare the report of Miss Renz for 100 consecutive admissions to the same institution in 1912, tested with the Binet scale ([47]). She found 29 tested IX or under, 49 tested X or under, slightly more than was shown by the Haines tests. Miss Renz' report, however, does not show how many of the girls were under 14 years of age and might thus be excluded from the deficient groups.

In the California School for Girls, Grace M. Fernald[^[17]] examined 124 cases as they entered the school. Twenty-four tested under XI with both the Binet 1911 and Stanford revision. This is a further indication of the less frequency of feeble-mindedness in the state schools for girls than in the reformatories for women.

Dr. H. W. Crane reports the results of the Binet testing at Adrian, the Michigan Industrial School for Girls, which receives only minors and corresponds to the Ohio Industrial Home ([37]). The Binet 1911 scale was used, but this grouping in mental ages may mean that a few more cases are thus classed deficient than with our standardized borderlines which place the subject in the higher age group when he scores .8. It is to be remembered also that the borderlines for those whose life-ages are under 15 have not been as well standardized with the 1911 scale. The testing was done under the direction of a state commission appointed to investigate the extent of mental defectiveness ([37]). Dr. Crane was assisted by three other workers. The results at Adrian show, among the 386 inmates, 131 or 34% tested in our groups of presumably or uncertain intellectual deficients. Seventy-seven of these, in our uncertain group, should only class as deficient because also delinquent. The investigators give it as their opinion that 16.7% of the inmates were feeble-minded but not reached by the tests.

The entire population of the Illinois State Training School for Girls at Geneva was tested by Louise E. and George Ordahl.[^[18]] The Kuhlmann revision of the Binet Scale, supplemented by the Stanford Scale, for the older ages, was used. Among the 432 tested 13 per cent. tested below our borderline for the presumably deficient and 22 per cent. more in the doubtful group.

Dr. Otis, resident psychologist at the New Jersey State Home for Girls at Trenton, examined 172 girls between 10 and 20 years of age inclusive ([43]). Since she said it was “a preliminary testing” and “not many of the smaller girls were included,” we conclude that it was a somewhat selected group. She regarded those who stand between eleven and twelve as practically normal and those who stand below ten as without doubt defective. She then publishes three groups: “Defectives,” 45% (77 cases) high grade; “Morons,” 30% (52 cases); and “Presumably Normal,” 25% (43 cases). Since she does not give the distribution of the cases it is not possible to tell how many of her group were less than four years retarded. Her statement of the ages, however, shows that not more than 7 of the defectives could have been less than four years retarded and not more than 12 of the combined group of defectives and morons tested X or over. We may be sure, therefore, that at least 68% of these girls are of questionable intellectual ability according to the conservative standard adopted in this discussion.

Dr. Bridgman has reported the examination of 118 girls, 10 to 21 years of age, successively admitted to the State Training School for Girls at Geneva, Ill. She states that 89% (105 cases) “showed a retardation of three years or more.” The distribution of cases is not given so that it is not possible to tell how many testing X, XI, and XII were classed as feeble-minded or how many tested only three years retarded. The published estimate is undoubtedly extreme, but I have no means of making a more conservative estimate on this group. It is interesting, however, to note that only 14 of the cases were not sexually immoral. These were all cases which were either dependent or sent because uncontrollable at home and all tested as passable intellectually. She states that “according to the Binet tests, 97% of the children ([5]) sent to this institution because of sexual immorality are feeble-minded as well.” This percentage also would be decidedly discounted on a conservative test standard. In another place Dr. Bridgman makes the important statement that of 400 girls admitted to Geneva 60% were suffering from venereal disease ([4]).

Mr. Bluemel ([2]) found that 24 out of 50 girls sent from Judge Lindsay's Juvenile Court in Denver to the State Industrial School or the Florence Crittenden Home tested XI or under and four or more years retarded. This is less conservative than our standard, which would exclude those who tested XI as above even the uncertain group in intellect.

Dr. Pyle ([46]) has tested the 240 girls at the Missouri State Industrial Home for Girls with his standardized group tests. These girls are from 7 to 21 years of age and his table gives the results with each of six tests. The most significant fact for our purpose is that with the different tests from 50 to 88 per cent. fall below the averages of normal individuals who are three years younger. He says, “Our figures would indicate that about one-third of these delinquent girls are normal and about two-thirds subnormal. Most of them are probably high grade morons.” This is based apparently on 69% being the average of the results of six different tests as to the percentages three years or more retarded from their life-ages. He indicates, however, that 38%, similarly calculated, are within the average deviation of the normal groups for their life-ages. This indicates that the lowest 62% test only as low as we should expect to find the lowest 21% of random groups of corresponding ages. They should certainly not be regarded as testing feeble-minded.

(b) Women and Girl Delinquents in County And City Institutions.

When we turn to those who are cared for locally in city or county institutions, we find Sullivan ([56]) has examined 104 women and girls held temporarily at the Holloway jail in London, most of whom were between 16 and 25 years of age. Apparently the cases were especially selected for examination and therefore do not represent the general condition there. He was interested, however, in finding the relative amount of deficiency among different classes of these inmates and he gives the detailed results with the Binet 1908 scale on small groups of these different types which we may classify by our standard as follows:

Twenty non-criminal, either not guilty or guilty of unimportant offenses, who represent, he thinks, the ordinary conditions among the corresponding working class in this community, 3 presumably deficient, 5 uncertain; twenty criminal by reason of the occasion, 1 presumably deficient, 6 uncertain; twelve impulsive criminals, 1 presumably deficient, 2 uncertain; eight moral imbeciles, 2 presumably deficient, 2 uncertain; twenty-four recidivists, 2 presumably deficient, 8 uncertain; twenty prostitutes, 3 presumably deficient, 8 uncertain. Together these different types of women in jail form a motley group of 104 of whom 12 test presumably deficient, 31 uncertain, a total of 41%.

Ordinary prostitutes are about as frequently deficient as are those in reformatory institutions, if we may judge by an important study of women who were sex offenders but not in institutions for delinquents. The report is by Dr. Clinton P. McCord, health director of the Board of Education at Albany ([35]). One group consisted of fifty cases of sex offenders who were not legally delinquents at the time but were living in houses of ill-fame. Their ages ranged from 22 to 41 with an average age of 27. Nine of these (18%) tested IX or under with the Binet 1911 and 18 tested X, a total of 54% presumably and doubtfully deficient. Another 38 cases were staying at a House of Shelter where most of them had been sent by the courts. Nineteen of these tested IX or under (50%), while 13 more tested X, a total of 84%. Since their ages ranged from 12 to 40 years with an average of 18 we cannot tell how many might be above the borderline on account of an age less than 15 years, but probably very few. A third group consisted of 9 street walkers and 3 wayward girls. Among these 7 tested presumably or doubtfully deficient.

The McCord study of prostitutes not legally delinquent at the time of examination is confirmed by the Virginia State Board of Charities and Corrections in a special report to the General Assembly which gives the results of examining the prostitutes in an entire segregated district in one of the Virginia cities ([58]). Its table shows that, among 120 of these women, 43, or 36%, tested approximately under our borderline for the presumably deficient, while 67 cases, or 56%, tested below approximately our borderline for the presumably passable intellects.

These results are similar to Weidensall's[^[19]] findings among the unselected group of unmarried mothers in the Cincinnati General Hospital. While she does not give the number tested with the Yerkes-Bridges scale, she indicates that 48% tested as low-grade morons or worse, which should correspond to a test age of IX or lower. Twenty-two per cent. had intelligence coefficients of .50 or less and 32%, from .51 to .70. A Study of Fifty Feeble-Minded Prostitutes[^[20]] by Mary E. Paddon gives an admirable summary of the social history of prostitutes who tested deficient.

Dr. Bronner has made a careful study with Binet tests of a younger group of randomly selected girls at the Cook County Detention Home which is connected with the juvenile court at Chicago. The group included 133 girls 10-17 years of age inclusive, who were held awaiting a hearing or were temporarily cared for in the detention home. The Binet tests were given to all who did not show clearly that they were of passable mentality by completing the sixth grade or above without retardation, and passing school tests in long division and writing from dictation. A 14-year-old child “passing all the 10-year-old tests and some, but not all, of the 12-year-old tests,” was regarded as doubtful. She was not classed as feeble-minded without further testing and study. Dr. Bronner does not state her criterion for the borderline with the younger children, but we may judge that her borderline was more likely than ours to have classed a child in the presumably deficient group. Her summary shows only 15 girls “probably feeble-minded” (11.2%), and 2 others “possibly” so. From her description we may suppose that the “probable” group were comparable with our test standard of presumably deficient, plus perhaps a few conative cases.

Mention should also be made of the work of Dr. Bronner to which we referred under the earnings of the mentally retarded ([6]). This group of 30 randomly selected delinquent women at a local detention home in New York tested, with two or three possible exceptions, no lower than a similar group of women servants who had never been offenders. Her data do not enable us to determine how many would fall below our borderlines.

Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue ([54]) report the results with the Binet 1911 tests, under a slightly modified procedure, for 75 randomly selected dependent and 4 delinquent girls cared for by a certain county, excluding those children within the county sent to an institution for the feeble-minded. The children were from 9 to 16 years of age, with a medium age of 11 years. The line between the delinquent and dependent groups with these younger children becomes rather obscure. They state: “A child may, in the county in question, become a public charge by commitment by an officer of the poor-law on grounds of destitution, or by an officer of the courts on grounds of delinquency.... The decisive factor is often simply whether the parents are more successful in getting justices to commit their children than in getting poor-law officers to do so.” With the detailed records which they give it is possible to apply our standard even for the immature, although it is certainly less adequate for those under 15 years of age tested by the 1911 scale. I have translated their corrected Binet ages back to the original test ages, since their summary of retardation in terms of years below average ability at each age is not comparable with our borderline. Among the 79 girls who are mostly dependent, there are 5 girls, or, 6%, who fall within our presumably deficient group and 8 in the doubtful group, a total of 16%. So far as serious deficiency is concerned the situation is undoubtedly worse among delinquents than among corresponding groups of dependents. The figures of these investigators show this for their group of boys, to which we shall refer later.

Certain other groups of women and girls have been examined with the Binet or other tests, but the results are of little significance for judging the problem of deficiency objectively, since the individuals were either selected for examination because they were thought to be abnormal mentally or because there are not adequate norms for determining the borderlines with the particular tests used. At the New York State Training School for Girls in Hudson, we find that 208 selected cases who were not profiting by their training were examined with the 1911 scale. They ranged in life-age from 12 to 20. We cannot determine how many were under 14 years of age, or how much effect might have been produced by selecting dull cases; but 44 tested IX or under and 52 tested X ([158]). Dr. Spaulding ([183]) used Binet and other psychological tests on a group of 400 inmates of the Massachusetts Reformatory for Women at South Framingham; but she gives only her judgment based on the examination and history of the cases so that we have no data on this group for comparison. Her statement that 16.8% showed “marked mental defect, i. e., the moron group” and 26.8% showed “mental subnormality (slight mental defect)” is an excellent illustration of the best type of subjective judgment on consecutive cases, since she is familiar with test results. For her purpose of deciding how to care for the women it is of undoubted value, but for comparative purposes it is clear that it is impossible to tell how her subjective opinion would agree with that of an equally competent diagnostician, or what is meant by her terms “feeble-minded” or “subnormal.” For scientific purposes the Binet results for her group would be of much value, for we should like to know whether the conditions at Bedford are typical among the women's reformatories for the older offenders.

Dr. Rowland used psychological tests other than the Binet scale with a group of 35 at the Bedford Reformatory for Women, but there are no adequate norms for the comparison of her results with the general conditions ([49]). Baldwin ([1]) has shown that delinquent colored girls, 13 to 21 years of age, in the girls' division of the Pennsylvania Reformatory school at Sleighton Farm are inferior to white girls in the same institution in a learning test. As cited by Gruhle ([121]), Cramer ([10]) used an Ebbinghaus completion test, definition tests, etc. with 376 delinquent girls in Hanover, but there are no borderlines for comparison. As cited by Bronner, von Grabe gave several psychological tests to 62 prostitutes treated in the city hospital in Hamburg and compared them with a control group of 30 ([6]).

The most striking conclusion that comes out of the study of this evidence of frequent deficiency among delinquent girls and women is the close association between sex offenses and deficiency. One hundred and four out of 118 consecutive admissions at the Illinois training school were known to be sexually immoral. At Bedford 94 out of 100 consecutive cases had records of immorality, while three-fourths of the same group tested questionable in intellect by our standards ([11]). This evidence, taken with the report of the Massachusetts' Commission and the tests of sex offenders who were not at the time legally delinquents, reported by McCord, and the Virginia Commission, leaves little doubt that there is an excess of deficiency among this type of offender. Many of these deficient girls probably at first drift into the life of prostitution. They are passive rather than active agents. This distinction in the nature of the offense accounts for some of the difference between the sexes in this form of delinquency. Furthermore our public attitude in matters of social hygiene has made the isolation of the female sex more common. Part of this may be due to the greater difficulty of proof in the case of men and boys, but in part it undoubtedly means that men have not been held to as high a moral standard as women in this regard. The greater frequency of deficient sex offenders among girls, does not mean that girls are more likely than boys to be active sex offenders. They are, however, more likely to be isolated for such offenses, and also more likely to be passive offenders.

The greater amount of deficiency found among female delinquents than among corresponding groups of males is thus easily accounted for by frequent association between deficiency and sex delinquency on the part of girls and women. The combination of legal sex delinquency and deficiency is due both to a native sex difference and a difference in social attitude toward the two sexes as to this form of offense. Whichever may be the main cause of the facts found, it is clear that deficiency is, today, most serious among female offenders. It is so serious that some of our reformatories for women might even prove to be practically institutions for deficient delinquents. It is in this type of institution without doubt, that the immediate problem of the deficient delinquent is most pressing. Permanent guardianship, if not isolation, for at least a third of the inmates of an institution like Bedford which shows this amount of clear tested deficiency, under our very conservative standard, would seem to be a wise move in social hygiene. It should be undertaken at once with vigor. A more fundamental change in our social attack of this problem means state guardianship before adolescence for all girls testing presumably deficient under our standard, when their deficiency is not due to removable handicaps.

(c) Men And Boy Delinquents In State Institutions.

For the purpose of judging the importance of the question of feeble-mindedness among the most serious criminals, those committed to the state prison, we have a very important study by Rossy ([48]). Three hundred cases were taken at random with the exception of a few selected cases on which a report was requested. In this group, thirty prisoners could not be examined either because of language difficulties or because of their refusal to be tested. The Point Scale of Yerkes and Bridges was used and the results are presented in terms of mental ages on that scale. The examiner considered all those testing XI or under as feeble-minded and found 22% of the 300 in this class. This is less conservative than even our doubtful standard, but I estimate that 16% would fall within our doubtful and presumably deficient groups. This includes 11% who test X or under with the Point Scale plus 54% of those who tested XI. This estimate is made on the basis of the tables given by Haines ([26]), comparing Binet 1911 results with those of the Point Scale on the same individuals. It adds the proportion of those testing XI with Point Scale, who would test nearer X with the Binet 1911 scale.

Ordahl[^[21]] examined 51 convicts in the penitentiary at Joliet, Ill. They “were selected in a manner thought to secure fair representation of the prison population as a whole.” The Kuhlmann 1911 Binet scale was used and supplemented by tests for 13 to 18 years taken from the Stanford scale. It is possible that selection affected the results with this small group, since 25% showed test ages of IX or under and 36% tested X or under.

Haines tested with the Point Scale 87 consecutive admissions to the Ohio penitentiary ([24]). He found 18% tested below a record corresponding to X.6 on the Goddard 1911 scale, which is about the upper limit of our doubtful group.

That a smaller proportion of the state prison inmates is found intellectually deficient than is found among the inmates of the industrial schools is not surprising. This may be due to various causes. Among these may be mentioned the failure to recognize feeble-mindedness, heretofore, among the younger delinquents while the adult feeble-minded were more carefully isolated in their proper institutions. The deficient adults have also been reduced in frequency by the excessive mortality. Probably the feeble-minded are not so likely to plan or commit felony as lesser crimes and misdemeanors. Moreover the adult feeble-minded may be more stable and less inclined to delinquency than adolescents. Whatever may be the explanation, deficiency generally does not seem to be as common among the inmates of a state prison as among minor delinquents in states which are in the forefront in the care of their feeble-minded.

The state reformatories reach a class of delinquents between those of the state prisons and the state industrial schools. In Minnesota all the inmates of the reformatory except 80, who were disqualified by inability to speak English or otherwise, were tested by Dr. E. F. Green. Men are sent there only between the ages of 16 and 30, so that his table of mental and life-ages gives us the opportunity to apply our criteria accurately. Thirteen per cent. of the 370 examined tested IX or under and were presumably deficient, while 22% more were in the uncertain group testing X ([22]).

In a report of the Binet results with 996 inmates of the Iowa Reformatory, which Warden C. C. McClaughry kindly sent me, 200 tested IX or under and 146 tested X, a total of 35% including the doubtful group. The range of ages was from 16 to 49. The Warden notes that the tests were not made by an experienced psychologist. “In many cases it is suspected that the crafty criminal was endeavoring to lower his standing as to mentality in the hope of excusing or mitigating his crime in the eyes of the Board of Parole.” The results, however, agree well with what has been found in similar institutions.

Supt. Frank Moore of the New Jersey Reformatory at Rahway says, “Nearly every young man who has entered our institution in the last eighteen months has been tested by this system (Binet), and the results have shown that at least 46 per cent. were mentally subnormal” ([38]). By his discussion this seems to mean that they tested below XII which would mean that all those testing XI were less deficient than our standard for doubtful cases. These young men were from 16-25 years of age and 17.5% of them had had one year or less in school. Ten per cent. could not be examined because of unfamiliarity with English. A later report in 1912 regarding the same institution ([42]) says that 600 of the inmates have been examined with the Binet tests in two years, but does not state how these were selected. Of those examined we are told “48% are of the moron type of mental defectives, ranging in mentality from three to eight years, below the average normal adult.” Again, no further information is given so that it is impossible to allow for those testing X or XI or for the cases only three years retarded. Both of these estimates at the New Jersey Reformatory are excessive when judged by conservative borderlines.

Dr. Fernald has applied 11 objective tests to a representative group of 100 inmates at the Massachusetts Reformatory ([15]) but the norms for the tests which he used were obtained, for the most part, by testing a dozen boys so that the line which he draws for the limit of the defectives is largely a matter of his expert opinion and the estimation loses objective character. He estimates that 26% of his group whose ages run from 15 to 35 inclusive were defective. Beanblossom[^[22]] has published an account of tests on 2000 inmates of the Indiana Reformatory. Some of the Binet tests as well as other tests were used but the published results do not admit of reinterpretation.

Comparing the reports from the Minnesota, Iowa, and New Jersey reformatories with the tested deficiency found in institutions for women delinquents on the basis of the same borderline with the scale, the records indicate clearly that the percentage of feeble-mindedness is greater in the reformatories for women. At the Bedford Reformatory for women, for example, Dr. Weidensall's results show that the corresponding borderline to that used in the New Jersey men's reformatory which reported 46% deficient, would class 100% at Bedford as feeble-minded, where only one case in 200 tested as high as XII. A conservative estimate of tested deficiency in men's reformatories from the above data would be from 15 to 20%.

In the state institutions for minor delinquents, usually called industrial schools, we have several studies of representative groups with sufficient data to make objective interpretations comparable with our standard. In Ohio, Dr. Haines ([26]) reports on the examination of 671 delinquent boys 10 to 19 years of age at the Boys' Industrial School near Lancaster. Interpreted as we have indicated for the Ohio Institution for girls, we find 100, or 15%, in the group testing presumably deficient and 179 in the doubtful group, a total of 42% clear and questionable.

In the corresponding Michigan Industrial School at Lansing, Dr. Crane ([37]) shows by his table of mental and life-ages that 52 out of the 801 unselected inmates, or 6% are presumably deficient and 171 below the presumably passable, or 21%. This is only a slightly greater number than our criterion would provide, if .8 of a year were not classed in the next higher mental age by these examiners. The age of those examined ran from 10 to 17.

T. L. Kelley in his “Mental Aspects of Delinquency”[^[23]] gives the results for an extensive series of measurements and tests on about three hundred boys in the Texas State Juvenile Training School. On the basis of an analysis of his tests he estimates that 20% of the boys there should be in a school for the feeble-minded. Interpreting his original data for the 1911 Binet tests on the same basis as our own, 8% fall within the clearly deficient group and 9% in the doubtful. The latter on account of their delinquencies might also be included as feeble-minded.

The 215 inmates of the Whittier State School in California were examined by J. Harold Williams with the Stanford revision of the Binet scale ([61]). The boys were 10 to 22 years of age, median 16 years. He states that 32% were feeble-minded in the sense of having Intelligence Quotients less than .75. This is a standard which would include about 2% of those tested with the scale, so that we may consider the bulk of them as within our presumably deficient and uncertain groups combined. He also states that approximately 14% tested below X with the Stanford Revised Scale. In another paper he shows that the amount of feeble-mindedness was much different among the different races represented in the institution. With 150 cases according to his standard there were 6% feeble-minded among the whites, 48% among the colored, and 60% among the Mexican and Indian races. In this group 64% were native whites, 21% of Indian or Mexican descent and 15% colored. “While the negro population of California constitute but 0.9% of the total, yet the results of this study indicate that more than 15% of the juvenile delinquents committed to the state institution are of that race.” It is, of course, of fundamental importance in regard to all estimates of feeble-mindedness among delinquents to consider the racial conditions at the particular institution.

A New Hampshire Commission tested the children in its State Industrial School. Its table shows that among the 113 boys tested at least 37% were presumably or doubtfully deficient. To these should be added some 14 years of age and over who tested X, in order to have the total number below our borderline for the presumably passable cases. The published table does not separate these from the 13-year-olds ([40]). Hauck and Sisson report in School and Society for September, 1911, tests made at the Idaho Industrial School, which receives both boys and girls from 9 to 21 years of age, including some children who would be classed as dependents but can not be cared for elsewhere in the state. Supposing that our standard applied to the 1911 scale which was used, among 201 tested there were 5 presumably deficient and 13 doubtful.

A partially selected group of 341 inmates at the St. Charles, Ill., State School for Boys chosen in such a way that it naturally would somewhat increase the frequency of deficiency, was tested by Dr. Ordahl with Kuhlman's form of the 1911 scale supplemented by the Stanford Scale above XII. The results showed 11% in the presumably deficient group and 20% in the doubtful group ([41]).

One of the main uses of the objective scale is to demonstrate that the same conditions do not prevail in various institutions which, except for this objective evidence, might be expected to care for the same type of inmates. This is illustrated by the comparison of the above studies in Ohio and Michigan with that made at a similar state school for delinquent boys in Indiana reported by Hickman (12, 28). The Binet 1911 tests, Goddard's adaptation, were applied to 229 new boys 8 to 17 years of age inclusive, admitted to the Indiana Boys School at Plainfield. Among these, 68 boys (30%) tested below our borderline for the clearly deficient and 53 more within the doubtful region, a total of 48%. There seems little doubt that this represents a significant difference from the condition at the corresponding Ohio and Michigan schools where only 15% and 6% respectively tested clearly deficient on a corresponding standard. An interesting commentary on the necessity of reinterpreting the borderline for feeble-mindedness on the scale arises when we note that Hickman says: “One hundred and sixty-six, or about 75% of the whole number tested, tested as much as three years or more below normal, and therefore would be classed as feeble-minded to a greater or less degree.”

(d) Men And Boy Delinquents In County And City Institutions.

It seems likely that in city and county institutions deficiency is most common among repeaters in the jails or workhouses. One study has been made of a randomly selected group of repeaters who were in the jail of a Virginia city for fixed sentences of not more than a year. The examinations are summarized in the Special Report of the Virginia State Board of Charities and Corrections ([58]). In this Virginia city 50 whites of both sexes and 50 negroes of both sexes were examined. Among the whites, 18 tested IX or under and 5 more tested X. Among the negroes, 24 tested IX or under and 10 tested X. The percentages would be just twice these numbers, a total of 61% below passable capacity in this group of 100. If such is the condition in other jails in other parts of the country, it indicates one of the most serious hot beds of deficiency among delinquents. The repeaters in this city jail during three years were responsible for 60% of the commitments to jail, although only about one-fourth of the 33,306 arrests in this city during the three years resulted in commitment to jail. The feeble-mindedness among the repeaters, therefore, may be little indication of the frequency of deficiency among those arrested in the city. The repeaters represented only a third of those committed to jail during this period and this third was probably the most deficient among those committed, since recidivism goes with deficiency. Moreover, those committed to jail are probably more likely to be deficient than those who escape jail sentences. To assume, therefore, that 61% of this city's delinquents were of doubtful ability would be clearly unjustified, and yet this sort of reasoning about the frequency of deficient delinquents has been all too common.

Gilliland[^[24]] tested one hundred male inmates of the Columbus, Ohio, Workhouse (28 negroes) selected so as to attempt to represent the different offenses about in their proportions. He gives the results in point scores with the Yerkes-Bridges scale, which may be translated only roughly into Binet 1911 ages by Haines' data, as I have indicated for the study by Rossy. All were 18 years of age or over, so that I estimate 14% would fall into our presumably deficient group including only the proportion of those under 64 points who would test as Binet IX or less. The doubtful group would include 17% more, including the proportion under 66 points who would test X or under.

Among the local institutions supported by the county or city, the most serious delinquency is probably found in the group reported by Kohs at the Chicago House of Correction ([33]). He tested with the 1911 Binet scale 335 consecutive cases between 17 and 21 years of age. Among these were 72 cases (21%) who tested clearly deficient according to our standard, and 95 cases doubtful, a total of 50% at least uncertain in intellectual ability.

Through the courtesy of Catherine Mathews, who made the examinations for the psychological clinic of the University of Pittsburgh, which is under the direction of Dr. G. C. Bassett, I am able to give the records of 125 consecutive admissions to the Allegheny County Detention Home. The institution is known as the Thorn Hill School. It is situated some miles outside of Pittsburgh and provides on the cottage plan for about 300 boys. The boys are sent from the Juvenile Court for milder training than that at the state school. The school has also been found to furnish a necessary place to care for cases of feeble-minded delinquent boys who cannot be immediately admitted to the state institution on account of its crowded condition. A detention home is also provided in the city for juvenile court children awaiting trial or the disposition of their cases. These are not included in the Thorn Hill group.

Among the 125 consecutive cases at Thorn Hill, omitting two cases which are probably dementia praecox, there were 37, or 29%, who tested presumably deficient according to our standard, and a total of 68 cases, or 55%, presumably and doubtfully deficient. It is to be remembered that our standard for the immature was arranged for the 1908 scale and not the 1911 scale which was used here, although the difference would be slight.

TABLE X.

Binet 1911 Tests of Boys Consecutively Admitted to the Allegheny County Detention Home at Thorn Hill. (Mathews)

Life-Ages	Mental Ages
	IV	V	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII	Totals
18							2			2
17					1	3	3	1	2	10
16					2	5	7	7	1	22
15				1	3	8	8	8	1	29
14	1	1			3	4	6	5	2	22
13		1			3	4	3	4	3	18
12						4	4	1	1	10
11				1		1	1			3
10				1	1		2			4
9					2	1				3
8				1						1
Totals	1	2	0	4	15	30	36	26	10	124

The accompanying Table X shows the distribution, omitting the dementia praecox cases. It classes .8 as in the next higher test age and shows the last birthday for life-age. In interpreting these figures it is highly important to remember that Thorn Hill is necessarily used at present to shelter deficient boys who are dependent or delinquent and cannot be otherwise provided for. This is undoubtedly a wise temporary relief until the state takes proper care of these unfortunates. Under the cottage system which prevails at Thorn Hill the segregation can be made with little interference with the main purpose of an institution for delinquents. It is apparent that any deductions made from the large frequency of feeble-mindedness among these delinquents without considering the particular local conditions under which they are found, would be wholly unjustified. A similar local condition probably explains the high percentage of tested deficiency among the following group of boys in the Newark, N. J., detention home.

A representative group of 100 in the detention home at Newark, “chosen entirely at random,” was examined by Mrs. Gifford, and reported by herself and Dr. Goddard ([17]). In this group of 100 there were 66 between the ages of 14 and 17 who were at least four years retarded mentally. Moreover, among these 66 “none tested over eleven and only a few at that age.” Only average mental ages are published, so that we cannot tell how many tested XI or X, but the statement quoted shows that few of these 66 would test XI, and would thus be above our doubtful class. We may, perhaps, suppose that about 66% of this group in the Newark detention home tested as low as the randomly selected group at Thorn Hill, Pittsburgh.

That the explanation of the excessive amount of deficiency found at Newark lies in the inadequate provision for recognized feeble-mindedness in that community is indicated by the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Newark City Home. It states that “the lack of a state institution for defective children made it necessary to commit to the City Home many children, who, on account of physical defects and psychic disturbances, have become juvenile delinquents.” A statistical table shows that of 181 boys, 151 were either illiterate or below the fifth grade in school in spite of the fact that the average age of the boys at the school is 13 years. This shows clearly that the differences between the test results at this institution and those in Minneapolis, Chicago, and elsewhere, is not the result of different methods of giving the tests. It seems to be mainly due to inadequate state provision for recognized feeble-minded children.

Among the more serious juvenile court offenders we have a group of 1000 recidivists referred to Dr. William Healy at the Psychopathic Institute connected with the Chicago Juvenile Court. The cases are not tabulated separately for the sexes as to mentality. They were all under 21 and averaged between 15 and 16 years of age. While he used the Binet tests quite generally, as well as his own and Miss Fernald's series ([125]), Dr. Healy has not summarized his data in reference to the test standards. Nevertheless, according to his experience after the results of the test examinations were known, he classified only 89 of these cases as moron and 8 imbecile, a total of only 9.7% feeble-minded. Another group above these amounting to 7.9% was classed as of “subnormal mentality—considerable more educability than the feeble-minded” (27, p. 139).

From the same psychopathic laboratory comes the estimates of Dr. Bronner ([7]) of a group of less serious offenders, some of whom were in court for the first time, a group at the Cook County Detention Home connected with the Juvenile Court in Chicago, where cases are held for trial or until other disposition can be made of them. I have already reported her results with the Binet tests for the girls in this group. Using the same standard which was there described, she found among 337 boys 7 to 16 years of age 7% “probably feeble-minded,” and 2.4% doubtful, a total of 9.4% “possibly feeble-minded.” As nearly as I can tell from the description of the borderline which she used with the tests, a boy was perhaps slightly more likely to be regarded as testing probably deficient than by our standard for the presumably deficient. Inasmuch as Miss Bronner worked with Dr. Healy, this may throw some light on the test standard which he had in mind in connection with his more serious offenders.

By means of Bluemel's study of different classes of juvenile delinquents who passed through Judge Lindsay's Juvenile Court in Denver, we are able to compare the intellectual ability of a group which was on probation, about half of whom were first offenders, with groups sent to the Boys' and Girls' State Industrial Schools ([2]). Although the report does not so state, I should judge that the cases were objectively selected. The published data is not adequate to state the results on the basis of our conservative borderlines; but we can note the cases which tested XI or below and were four or more years retarded with the 1911 Binet Scale (Goddard's modification). This only differs from my broadest interpretation by also including those that test XI. On this basis 6 of the 100 probationers were possibly deficient; 9 of the 50 boys sent to the State Industrial School, and 24 of the 50 girls sent to the State Industrial School or Florence Crittenden Home. These are all somewhat excessive estimates of the amounts of deficiency in this group as judged by the interpretation we have been using. A more telling comparison of the mentality of these groups may be made by weighting each retarded case by the tests according to the number of years he is retarded. The amount of retardation alone averages 1.3 years for the group of probationers, 1.8 for the boys at the state school, and 3.8 years of the institutional group of girl delinquents. Fifty first offenders among the probation group average 1.1 years retarded. The girls and the more serious juvenile delinquents in these younger groups show more retardation.

The Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue study of children 9 to 16 years of age, who were county charges as delinquents or dependents in a single county, provides results for a group of 104 delinquent boys. Translating their records as I have explained for the girls in the group, we find 11 of these presumably deficient and 18 doubtful, a total of 28%. So far as their delinquency is concerned these probably correspond to the local institution groups. While there is little difference in the average mentality of the groups of delinquent and dependent children in this county shown by tests there is apparently some difference in the frequency of serious deficiency. In their corresponding group of 63 dependent boys who were county charges, 2 are in the presumably deficient group and 10 in the doubtful, a total of 19%. Miss Merrill found only 0.8% in our presumably deficient group and 1.6% uncertain in a group of 250 dependent children at the Minnesota State home ([149]).

Dr. Pintner reports the examination of 100 cases in the Columbus, Ohio, Juvenile Court who were in the detention home waiting to be disposed of or held for trial.[^[25]] He does not say whether they were selected cases among those in the home, but we may presume that they were more serious offenders than the usual juvenile court cases not in the home. Their ages ranged from 7 to 20 years. He used the Binet 1911 series and allowed double credit for any test passed in the XV or adult series. By placing his borderline so that a person testing 3.1 years retarded if he scored under XII would be regarded as feeble-minded, Dr. Pintner found 46% feeble-minded in this group. Under the same standard about 20% of the Minneapolis group would be classed as feeble-minded, instead of 2 to 7% under our more conservative borderlines.

In a preliminary report of the doctorate examination of Dr. Olga L. Bridgman ([132]) I find that she reports testing 205 delinquents and 133 dependent children sent to the psychological clinic of the University of California. She found 36% of the delinquent and 26% of the dependent cases thus especially selected for clinical examination to be “definitely feeble-minded,” but the preliminary report does not enable one to judge the standard used for her borderline ([3]).

Ordahl's study[^[26]] of 61 cases who were wards of the San Jose Juvenile Court is not comparable with other groups since both sexes, both dependents and delinquents and ages from 3 to 44 were included.

Dr. Hickson ([8]) reports concerning some 2700 cases selected especially for examination from those passing through the municipal court in Chicago, in the divisions of the Boys Court, the Morals Court and the Domestic Relations Court. His tables state only average mental ages, and he classes 728 boys who average XI.11 as morons, so that I am unable to make any comparisons with his data.

Dr. Walter S. Cornell ([92]) published in 1912 the results of Binet tests on 100 cases at the Philadelphia House of Detention among whom 64% tested three or more years below normal and 41% four years or more below normal. We are unable to tell how many of these tested X or above and were thus of questionable deficiency. He also gives the results merely with the years of retardation for a group of 73 “mildly delinquent boys of Miss Wood's special school and the Children's Bureau (mostly truants).” Of this group 46% were three years or more and 25% four or more years retarded according to the tests. Again we are unable to judge how the cases were selected or what was the mental age distribution so as to discover those that fall under our borderlines, especially under the borderline of XI for the mature.

Psychological examinations have been employed in connection with the children at the Seattle Juvenile Court. Although the results are not presented in a form which can be compared with other localities, Dr. Merrill, the physician who directs the general clinic, is of the opinion that feeble-mindedness was the cause of the delinquency of only 6% of 421 consecutive cases ([148]). Previously in the same court, Dr. Smith, the psychologist, on the basis of tests, reported among 200 consecutive cases only 11 cases as feeble-minded, 5 as mentally defective, and 8 as “moral imbeciles,” a total of 13.5% ([53]).

Frau Dosai-Révész ([13]) gave a number of tests to 40 boys, 9 to 16 years of age, selected from the boys training school of the Children's Protective League in Hungary. The cases which she classified as morally feeble-minded were found to test between the normal and the feeble-minded groups.

As yet only the preliminary announcement has appeared of a study of a thousand delinquent boys and girls with the Point Scale which has been made by Bird T. Baldwin. It is to be published as a Swarthmore College Monograph (Psychol. Bull., 1917, 14, p. 78).

The reader should also consult the series of articles by L. W. Crafts and E. A. Doll appearing in the Journal of Delinquency beginning with May, 1917, on “The Proportion of Mental Defectives among Juvenile Delinquents.” It is especially valuable as a critique of the conditions desirable for exact comparison of the results of different investigations.

A Bibliography of Feeble-Mindedness in Relation to Juvenile Delinquency, compiled by L. W. Crafts, may be found in the Journal of Delinquency, Vol. I, No. 4. In Chap. II of his Problems of Subnormality, Dr. Wallin gives an admirable review of numerous studies of tested groups.

C. Summary of Tested Deficiency Among Delinquents

In bringing together these studies in which we can make somewhat comparable estimates of tested deficiency covering over 9000 delinquents, it seems possible to analyze further the question of the deficient delinquent. Comparison of the amounts of deficiency on an objective basis is scientifically a big step in advance from a reliance upon the subjective opinion of experts who cannot possibly have the same standard of deficiency in their minds. The results of the comparable investigations, on the basis of the above reinterpretation of the borderlines, are brought together in Table XI. The frequency of tested deficiency which is found among about the lowest 0.5 and 1.5% respectively of the population generally is there shown for these different groups of delinquents. This review of the studies thus assembled enables us to correct a number of impressions that have become prevalent by the early studies, as well as to formulate the general data in regard to the deficient delinquent in a manner that places the practical control of this problem on a safer foundation. We shall summarize the data under four heads.

TABLE XI. Frequency of Tested Deficiency Among Over 9000 Delinquents.

Comparison of the frequency of tested deficiency among objectively selected groups of delinquents reinterpreted on roughly the same borderlines, which are often not those used by the original investigators. “Presumably deficient” in the table corresponds roughly to about the lowest 0.5 per cent., and the doubtful group to about the next 1.0 per cent. in the general population

		Percentages
Group and Investigator	No. of Cases	Presumably deficient	Doubtful	Both
Women and Girls
State Institutions
Penitentiaries
Illinois Penitentiary (L. E. and G. Ordahl) Negro	26	15	27	42
Illinois Penitentiary (L. E. and G. Ordahl) White	23	9	30	39
Reformatories
Bedford Reformatory, N. Y. (Weidensall)	200	38	37	75
Bedford Reformatory, N. Y. (M. R. Fernald)	100	41	24	65
Western House of Refuge, N. Y. (Herrick)	194	(25)	(14)	(39)
Training Schools
State Home for Girls, N. J. (Otis) Partially selected	172			(68)
Girls Industrial Home, Ohio (Renz)	100	(29)	(20)	(49)
State Industrial School and Florence Crittenden Home, Colo. (Bluemel)	50			(48)
N. Y. Training School for Girls (Hall)	607	(20)	(28)	(48)
Girls Industrial Home, Ohio (Haines)	329	21	17	38
Illinois State Training School for girls (L. E. and G. Ordahl)	432	13	22	35
Industrial School for Girls, Mich. (Crane)	386	14	20	34
California School for Girls (G. M. Fernald)	124			19
County and City
Sex Offenders
Sex Offenders not under arrest, Albany, N. Y. (McCord)	88	32	35	67
Unmarried mothers, Cincinnati General Hospital (Weidensall)		(48)
Professional prostitutes, Mass. (State Commission)	300	27	33	60
Prostitutes in a segregated district in a Virginia City (State Commission)	120	36	20	56
Juveniles
Cook County Juvenile Detention Home, Chicago (Bronner)	133	11
Men and Boys
State Institutions
Penitentiaries
Illinois Penitentiary (Ordahl)	51	(25)	(11)	(36)
Ohio Penitentiary (Haines)	87			18
State Prison, Mass. (Rossy)	300			16
Reformatories
State Reformatory, Minnesota (Green)	370	13	22	35
State Reformatory, Iowa (Report)	996	20	15	35
Training Schools
Indiana Boys School (Hickman)	229	30	18	48
Boys Industrial School, Ohio (Haines)	671	15	27	42
State Industrial School, Colo. (Bluemel)	50			(18)
Whittier State School, Calif. (Williams)	215	(14)	(18)	(32)
State School for Boys, Ill. (Ordahl)	341	(11)	(20)	(31)
Industrial School, Mich. (Crane)	801	6	15	21
State Industrial School, N. H. (Streeter)	147			(37+)
Texas State Juvenile Training School (Kelley)	296	8	9	17
County and City
Jails and Workhouses
Repeaters in jail in a Virginia city (State Commission) Negro	50[[27]]	48	20	68
Repeaters in jail in a Virginia city (State Commission) White	50[[27]]	36	10	46
Chicago House of Correction (Kohs)	335	21	29	50
Columbus, O., Workhouse, 28 Negroes (Gilliland)	100	(14)	(17)	(31)
Juveniles
Newark Detention Home, N. J. (Gifford and Goddard)	100			66[[28]]
Allegheny County Juveniles Detention Home, Pa. (Mathews)	125	29[[28]]	26[[28]]	55[[28]]
Boys cared for by the county (Stenquist, Thorndike and Trabue) Delinquents	104	11	17	28
Cook County Detention Home, Chicago (Bronner)	337	7
Glen Lake Farm School for Boys, Hennepin County, Minn. (Miner)	123	2	5	7
Probationers, Juvenile Court (Bluemel)	100			(6)

Parentheses indicate percentages or selection on a somewhat different basis.

1. Intellectual deficiency as a social problem is undoubtedly at present most serious among women and girls who are sex offenders. It is this fact which accounts for the excessive amount of deficiency found in the industrial schools for girls, and the reformatories for women. It is not necessary to repeat the discussion of the reasons for this which were considered at the close of the studies of women delinquents. The most closely corresponding class of male delinquents is probably the “vags,” as Aschaffenburg suggests (68, p. 162). The vagrants form a much smaller portion of the inmates of the institutions for male delinquents than do the prostitutes in the institutions for women and girls. The little evidence we have indicates, moreover, that as a class the ne'er-do-wells average higher in ability than the prostitutes. They are, probably, a more mixed group. As reported by Terman ([57]), Mr. Kollin found among 150 “hoboes” at least 20 per cent. belonged to the “moron grade of mental deficiency.” * * * “The above findings have been fully paralleled by Mr. Glen Johnson and Professor Eleanor Rowland, of Reed College, who tested 108 unemployed charity cases in Portland, Oregon” (57, p. 18). Since these investigators used the Stanford Scale, the borderline was probably set at the position where it would exclude about 1% of the ordinary population, a little more conservative than our doubtful group. We should know more about deficiency among the typical “Weary Willies,” since it is likely that courts are accustomed to assume that vagrancy is a habit which can be corrected by a term in the workhouse. There is little doubt that mental deficients fill up the recruiting stations for the prostitutes and “vags.” It is with these classes that the most intensive social work should be done in the campaign for early isolation of the unfit.

2. Institutions which care for the same type of delinquents show pronounced variation in the amount of tested deficiency. Compare the Indiana Boys' School with the Michigan Industrial School for Boys. Thirty per cent. tested presumably deficient in the former as against 6% in the latter; or 48% in the former and 21% in the latter tested below our borderline for the presumably passable intellects. This difference can hardly be explained by errors in testing. It marks a significant difference between the care of the mentally deficient in the two states. The difference in the success of states in isolating their feeble-minded is best shown by comparing the Newark and Pittsburgh institutions for boys from the juvenile courts on the one hand, and the local groups of boy delinquents from Hennepin County, Minn., and Cook County, Ill., on the other. In one case over 60% and in the other less than 10% were below the same borderline. In other words, the courts in Newark and Pittsburgh were deliberately sending mental deficients to their local institutions for delinquents because there was no better place available, not because they mistook deficiency for delinquency. The better diagnosis of deficiency by test criteria is, however, the first step in demonstrating this situation so that public sentiment for an adequate state care for the feeble-minded may be in accord with a conservative statement of the present conditions. Moreover, we have made real progress when we have demonstrated objectively that the difference in the character of the inmates of corresponding institutions is not a mere matter of opinion.

3. Unfortunately for social reform, a wholly incorrect impression seems to have spread abroad that half of the delinquents in juvenile courts are feeble-minded. Exaggeration of the condition retards rather than assists a sane public policy regarding the indefinite isolation of those demonstrably deficient by psychological tests. The mistaken impression apparently started with the study of Goddard and Gifford as to the condition found among boys at the Newark Detention Home. Two-thirds of these boys tested approximately below our borderline for clearly passable intellects. I should not be inclined seriously to question calling these two-thirds in the Newark Home feeble-minded, since I am willing to class those in our doubtful group as feeble-minded provided that they are persistent delinquents. The deductions which were drawn from this startling discovery seem, however, to have slipped into the literature of the subject without anybody noting that they were unjustified by the facts. In the first place the condition at Newark Detention Home may reflect a peculiar local situation analogous to that at Pittsburgh in which deficient boys had to be cared for in the detention home because no other institution was available for these feeble-minded. Under these recognized local conditions, it would seem that the general situation might be better represented by the conditions of deficiency found since then in Cook and Hennepin counties than by the conditions at Newark. We at least know that Newark and Pittsburgh represent special and not ordinary conditions among those in local detention homes, unless the situation is very different in the East from that in the West.

Besides regarding the condition in the Newark Detention Home as representative of the general condition in detention homes elsewhere, it was argued that the condition in the detention home represented the condition among the ordinary cases of delinquents before the juvenile courts. The groups in detention homes are undoubtedly extreme both as to the seriousness of their delinquency and as to their deficiency. Since Goddard published his paper following the Newark study considerable additional evidence has been made available. But even without this contradictory data, it was a big jump to assume that the condition in the local detention home represented the frequency of deficiency among the ordinary cases which come before the juvenile courts.

Either Dr. Goddard overlooked this distinction between serious offenders who are often repeaters and the ordinary offenders, or he took the questionable position that the difference was unimportant. On the basis of the tests of cases in the detention home in Newark, which we have quoted, he says that “by actual test 66% of the children in the Juvenile Courts of Newark are feeble-minded.” Again after quoting the results of examinations of delinquents at several institutions, he says: “Suppose we take the very lowest figure that any of these studies suggests, namely 25%, and see for a moment where it leads us. Twenty-five per cent. of the children who come before the Juvenile Court[A] are feeble-minded. The figures cannot be less than that” ([19]).

This paper was subsequently referred to by Dr. Fernald, physician at the Massachusetts Reformatory, as follows: “It has been found by the most eminent research workers in this field that probably not less than 25% of the criminals who come before our courts are feeble-minded and that a much larger percentage of the children brought before the Juvenile Court are defective” ([103]).[^[29]]

The incorrectness of the assumption that detention home cases show no more deficiency than ordinary juvenile court cases could not at the time be demonstrated. Since then, however, there have been several objective studies. In Minneapolis we found that relatively twice as large a proportion of the serious offenders sent to the county detention home were either three or four years retarded in school as we found among the ordinary juvenile offenders taken consecutively. The data will be presented later under our discussion of the school test. We also found that if we compared the results of Binet examinations at the Minnesota reformatory ([22]) with those at the county detention home, tested deficiency is about five times as common among the older and more established offenders at the reformatory. At Chicago serious deficiency was less frequent among those in the detention home than among more serious recidivists. Bluemel, as we have also noted, found that the frequency of tested retardation was decidedly greater among boys in Denver sent to the State Industrial School than among those only put on probation in that city. The investigation of Stenquist, Thorndike and Trabue shows that serious deficiency is less among dependent boys than among delinquents in the same county. Cornell found less truant boys deficient than delinquent boys, in the Philadelphia House of Detention. In Chicago, Denver and Minneapolis, moreover, less than 10% of the more serious cases in the detention homes were found deficient. This evidence all tends to contradict the assumption that a large proportion of the ordinary children brought before the juvenile court is feeble-minded.

Ernest K. Coulter, as Clerk of the Children's Court of New York County, has raised his voice in protest against charging the Juvenile Courts with dealing mainly with feeble-minded children. He says:

“The writer, who has seen at close range 80,000 children pass through the largest Children's Court in the world, has little patience with the sentimentalist who would pounce on every other juvenile delinquent as a mental defective” (94, p. 68).

Unless we are to convert valuable propaganda for isolating the feeble-minded from good kindling wood into shavings, we must remove this cloud which has been cast upon the mentality of the ordinary children who are brought before juvenile courts of the country. Travis, ([202]) years ago, may have been nearer right when he said that 95% of the children who come before the Juvenile Court are normal. Surely this agrees better with the conditions found in Chicago, Denver, and Minneapolis. Possibly these western cities, however, show unusually good conditions. The evidence as to the peculiar local situations in Newark and Pittsburgh makes one confident that their detention home conditions do not at all represent the frequency of mental deficiency among ordinary juvenile offenders in these cities. I see nothing in the present evidence from mental tests to indicate that the frequency of mental deficients who might justly be sent to institutions from among the ordinary children who come before the juvenile courts of the country, would be over 10 per cent.

4. What shall we say as to the general frequency of deficiency among delinquents of all classes? How about the impression that a large proportion of them are not responsible because of their deficiency and that the condition is worse among juveniles? Note some of the published statements: “Probably 80% of the children in the Juvenile Courts in Manhattan and Bronx are feeble-minded.” “Preliminary surveys have shown that from 60% to 70% of these adolescents [sent to the industrial schools in one state] are retarded in their mental development and are to be classed as morons.” “Forty to 50% of our juvenile delinquents are without a doubt feeble-minded.” “The best estimate and the result of the most careful studies indicate that somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of all criminals are feeble-minded.” “Nearly half of those punished for their wickedness are in reality paying the penalty for their stupidity.” “More than a quarter of the children in juvenile courts are defective.” “One-third of all delinquents are as they are because they are feeble-minded.” “It is extremely significant in the study of juvenile delinquency that practically one-third of our delinquent children are actually feeble-minded.”

Fortunately, some of these writers are already beginning to qualify and modify their views, and some of these statements misstate the idea of the investigators, but it is difficult to correct the impression that has been gathered from those who speak with authority. In the face of the fact that mental deficiency is undoubtedly the most important single factor to be considered today in the institutional care of delinquents, one hesitates to correct even the most exaggerated impressions as to its importance. On the other hand, it seems time to modify opinions which raise false hopes as to solving the problem of delinquency by caring for the feeble-minded. Above all it is important to lay a surer foundation on which a platform for the social care of these unfortunates may be securely built.

In the first place, it is necessary to recognize that after all the feeble-minded are properly cared for by society the problem of the ordinary delinquent may still remain with us in much of its present proportions. Surely the isolation of the deficient children will hardly scratch the surface of the problem of first offenders as it comes before the juvenile courts of the country. To this it should be replied that the first offenders are not, after all, the troublesome cases before our courts. If we study the different groups of delinquents which have been tested, we notice that they represent highly selected groups among the ordinary offenders whether these be adults or minor delinquents. The only parallelism which can be traced at all is between prostitutes and vagrants and some of the institutional groups. We should stop assuming that the institutional delinquents represent the ordinary offenders. The present evidence points to the conclusion that it is the repeaters, not the first offenders either in the juvenile or criminal courts, who are most likely to be deficient. Nevertheless, 68% of the boys brought before the Chicago Juvenile Court during its first ten years were first offenders ([142]), while 89% of 4143 boys in the Juvenile Court in Minneapolis were first offenders ([105]). We know almost nothing about the frequency of deficiency among the first offenders brought before our courts and yet the bulk of delinquents are undoubtedly first offenders.

On the other hand, the repeaters do account for a considerable portion of the cases before the courts, especially the municipal courts, because each offender appears time and time again. In the Virginia city cited, for example, repeaters furnished 60% of the jail commitments for three years. This is probably also an indication of the workhouse situation, which is best represented by such a study as that of Kohs. The proportions of offenses accounted for by deficiency would, therefore, be much larger than the proportion of offenders who are deficient. While the offenses of repeaters might not commonly be serious crimes, they afford a serious problem because of their bulk and because temporary restraint is of little use when the offender is mentally weak. As Aschaffenburg says: “We must not forget that it is not the murderers, not the swindlers, on a large scale, not the assassins of people in high places, and not the sexual murderers, that determine the criminal physiognomy of our day, but the thieves and pickpockets, the swindlers and abusers of children, the tramps and the prostitutes” (68, p. 181).

The best that we can do is to study Table XI, which gives us a classified list of different types of delinquents in institutions. If we should pick out in it such institutions as represent to us the typical conditions in the country we could get an idea of what we might expect from groups of offenders of each type. For example, we might say that the Massachusetts State prison is typical of such institutions, and it contained possibly 16% who were deficient. Picking the Ohio Boys Industrial School as typical of its class, it had between 15% and 42% deficient, depending on how conservative you wish to be in your diagnosis. So one might go through the list stating the expectation for each type of institutional delinquent. If these were then weighted according to the number of delinquents of each class in the country sent to them, we would have some idea of the frequency of deficiency among those who reach the institutions. Merely to average the columns in Table XI would give only a false impression. The seriousness of the situation is amply demonstrated among repeaters and the inmates of certain institutions. Each superintendent should be put upon inquiry as to his own charges.

Nothing which I have said in caution as to the importance of deficiency in solving the problem of delinquency can be taken for a moment to signify that the effort for the isolation of the deficient is misspent. Elimination of a generation of deficients will not solve the problem of delinquency, but in no other way is there open such a clear and definite method of reducing that problem. The better care and prevented procreation of even a tenth of the delinquents who would propagate deficiency, would mean the most scientific advance in attacking the problem of delinquency. A safe public policy can be formulated which would at first provide for appropriate permanent care of at least that number of delinquents in institutions who by test are presumably deficient. This perfectly obvious first step promises to tax our facilities for years.

---

[14]. During the months when these examinations were made we failed to test six boys, four of whom were sent to relatives outside of the state. One other could not be tested because of his unfamiliarity with the English language.

[15]. Louise Ordahl and George Ordahl. A Study of 49 Female Convicts. Journal of Delinquency, 1917, 2, 331-351.

[16]. Eugenics and Social Welfare Bulletin No. XI, 1917, p. 73.

[17]. Grace M. Fernald. Report of the Psychological Work at the California School for Girls. J. of Delinquency, 1916, 1, 22-32.

[18]. Ordahl, Louise E. and George. A Study of Delinquent and Dependent Girls. J. of Delinquency, 1918, III, 41-73.

[19]. Jean Weidensall. The Mentality of the Unmarried Mother. National Conference of Social Work, 1917.

[20]. J. of Deficiency, 1918, III, 1-11.

[21]. George Ordahl. A Study of Fifty-Three Male Convicts. J. of Delinquency, 1916, 1, 1-21.

[22]. M. L. Beanblossom. Mental Examination of Two Thousand Delinquent Boys and Young Men. Indiana Reformatory Print, 1916, p. 23.

[23]. Bull. No. 1713, University of Texas, 1917, p. 125.

[24]. A. R. Gilliland. The Mental Ability of One Hundred Inmates of the Columbus, (O.) Workhouse. J. of Crim. Law and Crim., 1917, 7, pp. 857-866.

[25]. R. Pintner. One Hundred Juvenile Delinquents Tested by the Binet Scale. Ped. Sem., 1914, XXI, 523-531.

[26]. George Ordahl. Mental Defectives and the Juvenile Court. J. of Delinquency, 1917, II, 1-13.

[27]. Both sexes.

[28]. Local conditions explain the excessive amount of deficiency.

[29]. Italics mine.