The Review, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1911

by Various

The last few years, and especially the past decade, have witnessed the development, side by side, but quite independently of each other of two similar reformatory agencies, known respectively as the probation and the parole systems. The characteristic feature of these systems is that they are non-institutional: they deal with offenders not behind walls or in institutions, but in the open and in the offenders’ own homes. The principal difference between probation and parole is that probation is the oversight and reformatory treatment of offenders, conditionally released on good behavior, before and without commitment to an institution; while parole is a similar oversight and treatment applied after commitment.

Each of these systems involves two kinds of functions: first, the placing of the offenders on probation or parole; second, the supervising and aiding of the offenders while on probation or parole. The first function, which is judicial, is discharged, in cases of probation, by the trial court or judge; and in cases of parole, either by the committing court or more commonly by the institutional authorities or a special body known as a board of parole. This paper does not discuss the first function, that is to say, the placing of persons on probation or parole. It confines itself to the second function—the supervising and aiding of offenders after they are put on probation or parole. The judge, the institutional authorities, or the parole board writes the prescription, but the long period of nursing and helping the patient to convalesce is borne by the probation or parole officer. This latter work is carried on, in cases of probation, by the probation officer, and in cases of parole by the parole officer. Theirs is the duty of watching over those on probation or parole, and of befriending, counselling, admonishing, and otherwise aiding them to become orderly, useful citizens.

The purposes of probationary and parole oversight, as well as the duties of probation and parole officers, as has already been intimated, are substantially alike. Whether a person is on probation from a court, or on parole from an institution, the same kind of inquiries must be made from his relatives, friends, neighbors and employer in order to ascertain whether his conduct is satisfactory; and the same sort of moral influences and constructive measures must be brought into play to overcome his evil habits and to inculcate ambition, right motives and proper conduct. Both probation and parole officers should maintain the same sort of friendly, helpful attitude toward those under their care, and should use similar case methods.

When we pause to consider the resemblances of these two systems, and that practically the same things are being done by these two sets of officers, does it not suggest the possibility and desirability of a closer relationship between the two systems? The query naturally arises—Why not use the same officers for both duties? This brings us to the principal question which this paper will discuss: Should the relationship between probation and parole officers be one of entirely separate and independent action, or one of co-operation; or should both probationary and parole oversight be carried on by the same set of officers?

This question has not received the attention it deserves. Persons interested in the extension and improvement of probation, and those interested in the development of parole, have been so much occupied in establishing and strengthening the one system or the other, that they have not taken time to be sufficiently concerned about the desirable relationship between the two systems. The probation system in most places has developed, under permissive legislation, more or less sporadically, as a local experiment or expedient. The probation officer, or officers, in any one court have usually had no legal or organic relation to the probation work in other parts of the state. Like Topsy, the probation system has just “growed.” State-wide uniformity and co-ordination have been an after-thought. As for the parole system, its growth has been equally uneven, sporadic and for the most part without any comprehensive, well-articulated plan. One institution and then another has gradually adopted parole methods and employed parole officers, but without much, if any, regard for other parole systems or for the probation system. Year by year these two systems have grown up side by side, and the numbers of probation officers and of parole officers have increased. There are now nearly 1,000 paid probation officers in the United States, and the number of parole officers is probably in the hundreds and still multiplying. It is undoubtedly only a question of time before both of these systems will come into general use throughout the country. Is it not pertinent, therefore, for probation and parole workers to take account of stock and compare notes, and to inquire whether these two systems should not develop a closer relationship.

Before discussing the relationship that should exist between probation officers and parole officers, it will be well to consider how each set of officers should be organized to secure the best results. Suppose we consider first, the probation system. That organization of probation officers is best which best promotes (a) the supervising of the actions of persons on probation; (b) the improving of their conduct and condition; and (c) the informing of the court as to whether those on probation observe its conditions and are entitled to remain at liberty. In the time at my disposal I can only state rather dogmatically some of the essentials which in my judgment the probation system should possess in order to fulfil these purposes.

First, those who act as probation officers should possess the right personal qualifications. They should be intelligent, devoted, firm, sympathetic, tactful, discreet, observant, energetic and resourceful. This is demanding a great deal, but it is the price of success.

Second, the probation officer should sustain the right time relations to those on probation. Long probationary periods with frequent interviews are necessary. Perfunctory reports by probationers to the probation officer are insufficient. The officer must visit the homes and environments of his probationers often, and labor with them long enough and earnestly enough to produce real effects. A paid probation officer as a rule should not be expected to look after more than about fifty new cases during a year, or at any one time. Volunteers should have no more cases than their free time permits them to attend to adequately, which is usually not more than one or two. The overloading of probation officers with more cases than they have time to attend to, is disastrous to efficiency.

Third, each probation officer should have the right space relations to those on probation. He should be on the spot to discover personally what his probationers are doing, and to attend to their needs. Therefore he should limit his work to a relatively small territory. In most places the service of each probation officer is wisely confined to a single court, or to a single city or county. In Ohio, Indiana, and certain other states, however, the adult probation law provides for itinerant probation officers, attached to state penal or reformatory institutions, and required to travel considerable distances in order to visit those on probation scattered in different parts of the State. Such traveling officers are probably compelled to rely largely on written reports and “absentee treatment,” and their work must be correspondingly unsatisfactory. Effectiveness in probation work requires that the area covered by each probation officer shall be small, and that the officer shall live in the community where he works.

Fourth, probation officers in different courts, so far as possible, should avoid overlapping each other’s territory. New Jersey, New York and certain other states have organized the probation service in rural districts with the county as the unit area, and with one or more paid probation officers available to serve in all courts throughout the county. Were each court of a town, village or small city to have its own probation officer, the officers as a rule would be without enough cases to occupy their time, and they would be underpaid and inexperienced. In all probability some would be paid on a fee basis, which is objectionable. Through the use of county probation officers the workers are more expert, and the quality of the work is uniform throughout the county.