\\V 
 
 ■^■4 
 
 'OKwrnii"^ 
 
 % 
 
 ^ -7^/, 
 
 \V 
 
 >> 
 
 Y^ 
 
 % 
 
 ^IJDNVSOl^ 
 
 .^WE•UNIVER5•/A 
 
 <. 
 
 fa 
 
 =3 Lf y o 
 
 ^lOSANCElfx>. 
 
 vj^lOSANCELfX;^ 
 
 <r7iiONV^m^ %«iAi\'n iWN: 
 
 
 
 Tpr/: 
 
 ■"% 
 
 > 
 
 so 
 
 -< 
 
 I •?> 
 
 ^IIIBRARYQ^ 
 
 '^<!/0JllVDJO'^ 
 
 ^.I/OJIIVDJO^ 
 
 ^^WEUNIVER%. ^vl 
 
 '% 
 
 3J> 
 
 
 "% 
 
 l\l\ 
 
 -< 
 
 ^OFCAIIFO/?^ 
 
 OFCAIIFO% 
 
 
 ^(9Ajiv;i3niS^ 
 
 A\^r.i"v'ivFDr/> 
 
 vin^Aurnrr 
 
 ^^.OF-CAIIF'^'^ 
 
 Y^ 
 
 ■ O U J( \H ' . t J I 
 
 liitYQ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 aweuniver% 
 
 < -"si X > 
 
 ,vlOS'ANT,Firr.. 
 
 ?3 (P 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 S^ 
 
 OJO^ 
 
 ..s\T^-!!['f?Ar^V''!.- 
 
 <\^rrvi\TPr/> 
 
 >- 
 
 < 
 
 ■2? 
 
 )ff^^ 
 
 1-^^^ 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ,^WE•U^•IVERy/A 
 
 
 ■JO 
 
 
 %■ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■^Aavijuui^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 f^^^ 
 
 |3V\V 
 
 so 
 
 > 
 
 so 
 
 -< 
 
 cr 
 
 CO 
 50 
 > 
 
 SO 
 
 -< 
 
 ^^vSMIBRARYQ^;^ 
 
 ^<!/0JllV3J0^ 
 
 aOF-CA1IF0% 
 
 &^ 
 
 ■VQ^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 so 
 
 ^JUVDJO"^ 
 
 .^OFCA1IFO%. 
 
 3WV^ "^^^Ayvaaii-^^J^ "^(^Awaaii-^^ 
 
 5? 
 
 
 
 ,^#^ 
 
 ■ V 
 
 V 
 
 . iVO-JO 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 ^WEIINIVERS//;^, ^lOSANCElfjv. ^n^HIBRARYOc. ^MIBRARYQc. 
 
 .^. 
 
 '%
 
 Gt- Brit' H^-TTNa delpt 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE 
 TRAINING, APPOINTMENT AND PAY- 
 MENT OF PROBATION OFFICERS. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TRAINING, APPOINTMENT AND 
 
 PAYMENT OF PROBATION 
 
 OFFICERS. 
 
 Appointed by 
 His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department. 
 
 Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. 
 
 \ m r^ 
 
 LONDON- 
 PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. 
 
 To be purchased through anv Bookseller or directly from 
 
 ILM. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses: 
 
 Imperial House, Ki:<gs\vay, Londox, W.C.2. and 28, AuiNonoN Strebt. LoxnoN, S.W.I ; 
 
 37. Peter Street. Manchester ; 1. St. Andrew's Cre.scent, Cardiff; 
 
 or 23, Forth Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 1922. 
 
 Price 6d. Net. 
 [Cmd. 1601.]
 
 Departmental Committee on the Training, 
 Appointment and Payment of Probation 
 
 Officers. 
 
 MINUTE OF APPOINTMENT. 
 
 I Hereby Appoint 
 
 Sir Jolin Baird, Bt., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.R, 
 
 T. W. Fry, Esq., O.B.E., 
 
 S. W. Harris, Esq., C.B., C.V.O., 
 
 Oliver W. Hind, Esq., and 
 
 Miss A. Ivimy, 
 
 to enquire into the existing methods of training, appointing and paying 
 Probation Officers, and to consider whether any, and if so what, 
 alterations are desirable in order to secure at all Courts a sufficient num- 
 ber of Probation Officers, having suitable training and qualifications ; 
 and also to consider whether any changes are required in the present 
 system of remuneration. 
 
 And I Appoint Sir John Baird to be Chairman and Mr. H. Houston, 
 of the Home Office, to be Secretary of the Committee. 
 
 EDWARD SHORTT. 
 
 Whitehall, 
 
 22/Mi November, 1920. 
 
 The cost of this inquiry, including the preparation, printing and 
 publishing of the Report, is estimated at £270 \s.
 
 wv 
 
 3 3-4-t 
 AS 
 
 I REPORT. 
 
 To the Right Monourable Edward Shortt, K.C., MP., 
 His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 We have the honour to report that in pursuance of your appoint- 
 ment of the 22nd November, 1920, we have enquired into the existing 
 methods of training, appointing, and paying Probation Officers, and 
 we have considered whether any alterations are desirable in order to 
 secure in all Courts a sufficient number of Probation Officers having 
 suitable training and qualifications ; we have also considered whether 
 any changes are required in the present system of remuneration. 
 
 Procedure of Committee. 
 
 We have held 16 meetings, and have heard evidence from 49 
 witnesses. These witnesses, whose names are printed at the end of 
 our report, included Police Magistrates, Borough and County Justices, 
 representatives of Borough Councils, County Councils and Standing 
 Joint Committees, a number of Probation Officers, both men and 
 women, from different parts of the country, and representatives of 
 Societies or other persons specially interested in the subject. 
 
 From these witnesses, to whom we wish to take this opportunity 
 of expressing our sincere thanks, we obtained much valuable informa- 
 tion, and we regret that on the ground of economy it is not possible 
 to print the verbatim report. For this reason we have not thought it 
 desirable to quote the opinions expressed by individual witnesses, but 
 in arriving at our conclusions we have weighed carefully the evidence 
 laid before us, and we have been considerably influenced by the views 
 of those who have had practical experience in the working of the 
 probation system in this country. We have studied the report of the 
 Departmental Committee on the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, 
 who issued their report in December, 1909 (Cd. 5001), the report of a 
 Departmental Committee on the Remuneration of Probation Officers 
 in the Metropolitan Police Court District (1913), and the various 
 circulars issued by the Home Office from time to time on the subject of 
 probation. 
 
 We have also obtained information as to the working of the proba- 
 tion system in other countries, mainly in America, where the subject 
 has received great attention and an elaborate administrative machinery 
 has been estabUshed. 
 
 (B 3,343) 2HM477 * 2
 
 Value of Probation. 
 
 Before discussing the questions immediately referred to us, we should 
 like to say a few words on the great value of probation as a means of 
 reformation and the prevention of crime. The system has long passed 
 the experimental stage and has, we venture to think, taken a prominent 
 and permanent place in our judicial system, as in that of other countries. 
 The underlying idea is the value of the influence which a man or 
 woman of strong personality may exercise over one of weaker or 
 immature character, who, owing to lack of discipline, bad associations 
 or other circumstances, has been led to commit offences, and is liable to 
 fall into or persist in criminal habits. Experience has proved beyond 
 doubt that the ordinary methods available to judicial authorities for 
 dealing with offenders, such as fine and imprisonment, too often fail 
 either as reformative or preventive agencies. On the other hand 
 probation, when apphed in suitable cases, has frequently proved 
 successful in producing a real change in the moral attitude of persons 
 brought before the Courts, restoring their self-respect, and enabling 
 them to take their places as decent and law-abiding citizens. 
 
 The figures which have been produced to us, showing the percentage 
 of successful and unsuccessful cases, are most encouraging, and afford 
 the strongest possible argument for the value of the system. 
 
 It does not follow that probation is a imiversal remedy for the 
 prevention of crime. There are some offences which are too serious to 
 admit of release on probation, and there are offenders who, owing to 
 long association with crime or other circumstances, are unfit to benefit 
 from an apphcation of the system. Indeed, positive harm may be done 
 by releasing on probation an offender to whom its application is 
 entirely unsuitable. ^Vhether a particular offender can with advantage, 
 be put under a probation order must depend on the circumstances of 
 each case, and the decision must be left to the judicial authorities. 
 There seems, however, good reason to believe that the great benefits 
 which may be derived from the use of the machinery provided by the 
 Probation of Offenders Act are not always sufficiently known or 
 appreciated by Courts in this country. It appears to us that every 
 magistrate ought not only to be familiar with the procedure, but alsa 
 to have constantly before his mind the jjossibility of using it ; and the 
 organisation of Probation Officers should be such as to admit of every 
 Court exercising its duties under the Probation of Offenders Act to the 
 fullest possible extent. 
 
 We wish to draw special attention to the importance which was 
 emphasised strongly in the evidence of using the probation system at 
 the earliest possible stage in an offender's career. Too often, both in 
 the case of juveniles and adults, probation is only applied when other 
 methods have failed, with the result that the Probation Officer starts 
 his work with much diminished chances of success. 
 
 On the other hand, where an offender has been placed on probation 
 without success, there may be a danger in repeating the process for 
 second and sub.sequent offences. As regards juvenile delinquents, the 
 Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, 
 who reported in 1913 (Cd. 6838), drew attention to the fact that the
 
 work of Reformatory and Industrial Schools had been rendered more 
 difficult by an unwise use of the Probation Act, as boys and girls who 
 have been put on probation not only for their first but also for second, 
 third, or even fourth offences before they are committed to a school 
 " become habituated to an undisciplined life, their characters have 
 become formed and their reformation is more difficult." For these 
 reasons the Committee deprecated the use of probation after the 
 first period, except for special reasons. We agree that where a juvenile 
 of!ender has failed to take advantage of an adequate period of proba- 
 tion, or when the home associations are bad, immediate committal to 
 a Reformatory or Industrial School offers, as a rule, a better chance of a 
 permanent cure. 
 
 Tlie marked decrease in the prison population, and in the number of 
 committals to Reformatory and Industrial Schools which has taken 
 place during the last few years, may be attributed partly to the increas- 
 ing use of probation. It is hardly necessary for us to point out that 
 probation is extremely economical compared with the cost of keeping 
 persons in prison, or of maintaining boys and girls in Reformatory or 
 Industrial Schools. We do not advocate the use of probation merely 
 because it is inexpensive, but we wish to lay great stress on the con- 
 siderable saving to public funds which is likely to follow from the use 
 of probation in all suitable cases. 
 
 Law. 
 
 The law on the subject of probation is contained in the Probation 
 of Offenders Act, 1907, as amended by the Criminal Justice Adminis- 
 tration Act, 1914. The magistrates whom we consulted agreed that 
 it was, generally speaking, sufficient for its purpose. Some suggestions 
 were made to us for minor alterations in the law, but this matter is 
 outside the scope of our enquiry. 
 
 Extent to which Probation is Used. 
 
 A useful estimate of the extent to which probation has been used 
 in England and Wales in recent years can be obtained from the Tables 
 which are printed at the end of the report. 
 
 It will be seen that in 1908, the year after the principal Act came into 
 force, 8,023 persons were placed under probation. The number rose 
 to over 11,000 in 1912 and 1913, and over 12,000 in 1916 and 1917. 
 The year 1919, which is the last year for which figures are available, 
 shows a drop in the numbers to 9,(555. 
 
 The great iiiajority of probation orders are made by Courts of 
 Summary Jurisdiction. For instance, of the 9,655 orders made in 1919, 
 those made by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction amounted to 9,068. 
 A very small number were made by Courts of Assize (7), and a com- 
 paratively small number by Quarter Sessions (580). Of these 580 the 
 majority (465) were made by the London Sessions. 
 
 The total number of persons brought before the Courts in 1919 
 amounted to 546,588, and the number placed under probation, 9,655, 
 represents a percentage of 1 • 77. 
 
 (B 3'343) A 3
 
 Taking London alone, the number of persons brought before the 
 Police Courts in 1919 amounted to 138,910, and of these 3,148 were 
 placed under probation, representing a percentage of 2-27. 
 
 Probation is particularly applicable in the treatment of juvenile 
 delinquents, and it is satisfactory to find that a much higher proportion 
 of children are released on probation than of adults. In 1919 the 
 number of juveniles {i.e., persons under 16) dealt with in Juvenile 
 Courts amounted to 40,473. Of these, 4,188 were placed under proba- 
 tion, representing a percentage of 10-35. 
 
 There appears to be a marked difference in the practice of different 
 Courts. One witness furnished us with Tables which have been verified 
 and are printed at the end of our report, comparing the practice of 
 16 towns selected merely because their police returns enabled a satis- 
 factory comparison to be made. Taking all these to^vns together, 
 2-36 per cent, of the cases tried, both juvenile and adult, were placed 
 on probation, but the figures for each town vary from • 74 per cent. 
 in the case of N. to 5-75 per cent, in the case of E. On the 
 other hand, taking juvenile cases only, the average number of cases 
 placed on probation was 13-82 per cent., and the figures for each 
 town vary from 1-45 per cent, in the case of N. to 43-61 per cent, in 
 the case of G. 
 
 The use of the Act by magistrates must depend on the presence of 
 Probation Officers to whose care offenders can be released. It is disap- 
 pointing to find that fourteen years after the principal Act was passed, 
 out of 1,034 Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Wales, no 
 less than 215 have taken no steps to appoint a Probation Officer. 
 Many of these Courts are in country districts, and it was suggested to 
 us by one of the' witnesses that probation is unnecessary in country 
 villages, where public opinion makes the influence of a Probation 
 Officer unnecessary. This view was not shared by other witnesses, and 
 we are unable to accept it. There are many villages where the work of a 
 Probation Officer is as much needed as in the towns and large cities. 
 The organi.sation of probation work is no doubt more difficult in some 
 country districts, especially in remote villages, but we believe the prob- 
 lem is by no means incapable of solution. 
 
 The conclusion to which we have come after consideration of these 
 figures and the representations made to us is that many Courts — 
 including Courts of Quarter Sessions — could with great advantage use 
 probation procedure much more freely than they do at present, and 
 that every Court should have the services of a Probation Officer at its 
 disposal, .so that probation orders can be made when the circumstances 
 render surh a course desirable. 
 
 Probation Officers. Appointing Authority/. 
 
 Under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, Probation 
 Officers are appointed by the Justices of each Petty Sessional Division, 
 except in London, where the appointments are made by the Home 
 Secretary. They may be paid out of local rates such remuneration
 
 and expenses as may be fixed by the Borough Council in boroughs and 
 by the County Council in counties.* 
 
 In the Metropolitan Police District the remuneration is paid out of 
 the Metropolitan Police Fund. 
 
 A far-reaching proposal has been made by the Howard League of 
 Penal Reform, and was put before us in evidence that all Probation 
 Officers should be appointed and paid by the State. We found little 
 support for this proposal among other witnesses, and it appears to us 
 open to strong objection. Experience has shown that one of the 
 elements in the successful working of probation lies in close co-operation 
 between the Court and the Probation Officers. This co-operation is far 
 more likely to be secured when the Justices have a direct voice in the 
 selection and control of their officers. Further, the Probation Officer has 
 hitherto owed much of his success to the relationship he has been able 
 to establish with the probationer, who looks upon him as a friend, not 
 as an official. To turn Probation Ofiicers into a new class of Civil 
 Servant would, we believe, tend to destroy this valuable influence. 
 Nearly all the witnesses were of an opinion that the appointment of 
 Probation Officers should continue to be made locally, and we are in 
 agreement with this view. 
 
 No difficulty arises in towns where there is enough work to justify 
 the appointment of one or more full-time Probation Officers. In small 
 towns and country districts where probation orders may be few in 
 number, it is often arranged for one man to act as Probation Officer 
 for several Petty Sessional Divisions. In the latter case there is some- 
 thing to be said for placing the power of appointment in the hands of 
 the County Coimcil and the Standing Joint Committee, but on the 
 whole we are of opinion that, for the present at any rate, the legal 
 responsibility should rest with the Justices of the Petty Sessional 
 Court, though it may be desirable, as we show later, for the probation 
 service to be organised on a Coimty basis by agreement between the 
 various Courts. 
 
 Some trouble may arise from the fact that the appointing 
 authority is different from the paying authority, and a few cases were 
 brought to our notice where the Borough or County Councils were dis- 
 inclined to pay remuneration which the Justices considered adequate. 
 It was suggested that there might be an appeal to the Home Office, 
 as in the case of the salaries of clerks to the Justices, but we think 
 that the difficulties which have arisen in a few cases do not justify 
 any amendment of the law, and they could probably be removed by 
 co-operation between the two authorities. 
 
 Under the Rules made on the 27th November, 1907, by the Secretary 
 of State under Section 7 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, the 
 ai)pointment of Probation Officers is renewed amiually. It was sug- 
 gested to us that Probation Officers would feel greater security of tenure 
 if the requirement as to annual appoi ntment were dispensed with , 
 
 * There is some doubt whetber tlie County Council or the Standing Joint 
 Committee is the Authority indicated in tlie Act. The Home Secretary, in a 
 circular letter dated 31st January, 190S, advised local authorities that the 
 remuneration should be proposed by the Standing Joint Committee and 
 confirmed by the County Council. 
 
 (3/343) A 4
 
 8 
 
 subject always to the power to terminate the appointment at a month's 
 notice. We agree that it is imnecessary to insist on a rule which tends 
 to become a mere formality, and we think that the Rules should be 
 amended accordingly. It would, however, be desirable that every 
 appointment should be reviewed annually for a period of two years 
 before it is confirmed by the Court. 
 
 Nature of Existing Appointfnent!^-. 
 
 The current register of Probation Officers issued by the Home Office 
 contains the names of 784 men and women employed in this work 
 throughout the country. From returns supplied to the Home Office 
 we have been able to obtain fairly complete information as to the source 
 from which the Probation Officers are drawn. The largest number are 
 the agents of religious and social organisations, the most important of 
 which is the Church of England Temperance Society. Other bodies 
 which may be mentioned are the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, 
 the Cathohc Aid Society, the British Women's Temperance Associa- 
 tion, the Church Army, and the Salvation Army. The work of some 
 of these bodies in helping offenders — notably the Police Court Mission 
 of the Church of England Temperance Society— has been carried on 
 for many years, and was in existence when the Probation of Offenders 
 Act, 1907, was passed. When, therefore, the demand for Probation 
 Officers arose it was natural that the duties should be largely under- 
 taken by the agents of the various Societies which WTre already experi- 
 enced in this class of work. 
 
 These agents, though appointed Probation Officers by the different 
 Courts, remain under the control of, and are paid by, the Societies to 
 which they belong, though some part of the salary, varying consider- 
 ably in amount, is paid by the local authorities in respect of probation 
 work. 
 
 It may be mentioned here that in addition to probation work, 
 properly so-called, these agents frequently perform duties of an analo- 
 gous character which are conveniently included under the description 
 of " mi.ssionary work." The missionary w^ork of the Police Courts is 
 of the greatest value to magistrates when they need enquiries to be 
 made as to the circumstances of the persons who come before them, 
 and when a helping hand can be given, or a word in due season can be 
 spoken. Frequently the missionaries are employed in arranging 
 disputes or differences, especially between husbands and wives. All 
 the witnesses, including magistrates whom we consulted, were unani- 
 mous in attaching great importance to the missionary work of the Courts, 
 and expressed the opinion that it is essential to the proper administra- 
 tion of justice. We agree with this view, and we are strongly of 
 opinion that in appointing and fixing the remuneration of Probation 
 Officers, Courts and local authorities should not discriminate too 
 narrowly between probation work and missionary work. 
 
 Many of the agents of voluntary Societies are employed wholly on 
 probation and missionary work in the Courts. This is especially the 
 case in London and some other large cities. Some Courts, instead of 
 availing themselves of the services of Societies, have appointed full-time
 
 officers of their own, and there appears to be a growing tendency to 
 adopt this plan in large centres. In London the women officers who 
 deal with juvenile offenders are appointed directly by the Home 
 Secretary, and give their whole time to the work, and there are also 
 one or two Probation Officers for adult cases in the direct employment 
 of the Home Office. 
 
 Apart from these two classes, the returns disclose a considerable 
 number of persons of varied interests and qualifications who are em- 
 ployed on probation work, such as attendance officers, police officers, 
 collecting officers, rescue workers, ofiicers of the National Society for 
 the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Poor Law and other local officers, 
 keepers of places of detention, and a number of persons engaged m 
 various occupations which are but remotely connected with probation 
 work. Many of these persons do not appear to be properly qualified 
 to act as Probation Officers, and their employment is detrimental to 
 the success of the system. We deprecate especially the continued 
 employment of police officers in this work, as although instances 
 have been given to us where such officers have done admirable work 
 of this kind, association between probation and the ordinary duties 
 of the police is, as a general rule, undesirable. 
 
 In districts where there is a sufficient number of probationers it 
 is very desirable that the Probation Officer should be employed only on 
 this work, and similar missionary duties. The care of probationers is 
 necessarily of an absorbing character, and demands the fullest atten- 
 tion and energy of the officers employed. If they have other duties 
 not connected with probation or similar social work, the interests of 
 the probationers arc bound to suffer. 
 
 When a particular Court has not sufficient probation and missionary 
 work to justify the appointment of a full-time officer, it can often be 
 arranged that two or more Courts should share the services of the same 
 officer. This method is now frequently adopted with successful results, 
 especially in country districts. 
 
 The question whether it is better for Courts to appoint their own 
 officers or to employ the agents of Societies is one on which opinions 
 differ. Some witnesses preferred the former system, because the 
 Probation Officer is entirely under the control of the Court which em- 
 ploys him, and he does not serve two masters. Others thought that 
 an officer so appointed may be looked upon by persons coming under 
 his care as an official of the Court rather than a friend, and may thereby 
 lose some of the influence which he would otherwise possess. It was 
 also suggested that under this system it is more difficult to secure the 
 appointment of officers possessing those religious convictions which are 
 generally admitted to be essential to success in probation work. 
 
 Those who represent the Societies engaged in this work point with 
 much force to the valuable work which they have accomphshed hitherto, 
 and to the loss which would ensue to the community if any step is 
 taken which would jeopardise its continuance. They urge that their 
 agents are men and women who undertake this work owing to religious 
 conviction, and, not being officials of the Court, they exercise a much 
 wider and more beneficial influence than would otherwise be the casft.
 
 10 
 
 Further, they are able to commaud a considerable amount of financial 
 support from voluntary subscriptions, which tends to relieve public 
 fimds. For instance, the funds administered by the Police Court Mis- 
 sion of the Church of England Temperance Society amounted to 
 about £31.000 last vear, and the Staffordshire Police Court Mission 
 raised about £4,000 for the County of Staffordshire. Similar fmids are 
 raised by other Missions and Societies. 
 
 We have had before us Probation Officers of both classes, and have 
 considered the views expressed by them. We have been much im- 
 pressed by the valuable work now being done by the various Societies, 
 especially by the Church of England Temperance Society, and by the 
 high character and qualifications of many of their missionaries. While 
 we think there is room for improvement in their organisation, we 
 should feel reluctant to make any recommendation which would have 
 the effect of putting any check on the development of their work. 
 It must be remembered that in this country much of the best social 
 work has been accomplished by voluntary organisations, and probation 
 offers a field in which private enterprise may be looked upon to yield 
 good results. 
 
 After full consideration of both methods of appointing Probation 
 Officers we do not think it desirable to recommend a uniform system. 
 In some cases it may be found that the work of providing Probation 
 Officers can best be organised by Societies, as in the Metropolitan area, 
 and this systein seems particularly appropriate in counties. In other 
 cases, especially in the larger provincial towns, the Justices may prefer 
 to appoint their own Probation Officers. When this system is adopted 
 proper arrangements must be made for the selection and supervision 
 of the officers, and for the performance of the missionary duties of the 
 Court. Some fund will also have to be provided from which the Proba- 
 tion Officers can obtain assistance for helping their probationers in 
 finding employment, providing outfits, etc. 
 
 Of exi.sting Probation Officers about two-thirds are men and one- 
 third women. It is hardly necessary to point out that as a general 
 rule a woman probationer should be under the care of a woman officer. 
 This may not always be possible, especially in small towns and country 
 districts, but no probation system can be regarded as wholly satis- 
 factory which does not make such a provision. 
 
 The Act also contemplates the appointment, where circumstances 
 permit, of special officers for children under 16. In London this 
 requirement has been met by the appointment of specially qualified 
 women, who devote their attention entirely to children. Some Courts 
 elsewhere have special officers for children, but it is the exception 
 rather than the rule, and enough consideration does not appear to 
 have been given hitherto to the needs of children. 
 
 The importance of a good probation system for children is even 
 greater ihan for adults, because good influences can more easily be 
 brought to bear on the receptive minds of children before character 
 and habits are formed. If children who have fallen into mischief can 
 by a judicious appUcation of the probation system be saved from a life 
 of dishonesty and crime, and eventually from prison, the benefit to
 
 11 
 
 the community is incalculable, apart from the saving of money. We 
 think that whenever possible children put on probation should be under 
 the supervision of Probation Officers- especially women — who have a 
 knowledge of and sympathy with children, and that specially qualified 
 children's officers should be attached to every Juvenile Court. When 
 the number of children does not justify the appointment of a full-time 
 officer, it will usually be possible either to secure the service of someone 
 who is willing to give part of his or her time to the work, or to select a 
 Probation Officer with suitable qualifications who devotes the remainder 
 of his or her time to the supervision of adults. 
 
 Voluntary Assistance. 
 
 It may be convenient to discuss here the position of voluntary 
 assistance in probation work. Such assistance may take two forms : 
 (1) Men and women may be employed without remuneration as Proba- 
 tion Officers, either for the whole or part of their time. (2) Paid Proba- 
 tion Officers may obtain help from individuals and from societies, 
 clubs, etc., in the work of supervising a probationer. 
 
 It appears from the evidence which we received on this subject 
 that there is a sharp division of opinion among those experienced in 
 probation as to the value and extent of the services which can be given 
 by an unpaid Probation Officer. Many witnesses to whose opinion 
 weight must be attached share the view, which appears to be widely 
 held in America, that probation must be organised on a professional 
 basis, and that volunteer ofiicers cannot be reUed on to accept — and, 
 indeed, cannot properly be asked to accept — the legal responsibility 
 imposed on them by a Probation Order. Those who hold this view 
 point out that voluntary work of this kind is apt to be spasmodic, and 
 men and women whose main interests lie elsewhere will not be able to 
 maintain the keenness and devote the attention which the work requires. 
 
 On the other hand it must be borne in mind that a great deal of 
 excellent work has been done hitherto by unpaid Probation Officers, 
 and in not a few cases men and women have been found who have been 
 willing to give their whole time to probation work without receiving 
 any remuneration. Many persons well qualified to express an opinion 
 believe that there is a still wider scope for employing volunteers. One 
 of the London magistrates holds this view strongly, and has given 
 practical effect to it in organising probation at his Court. He stated 
 in his evidence that the experiment which he inaugurated during the 
 war of handing over the majority of his probationers to the care of 
 volunteers gave excellent results. The employment of unpaid officers 
 where men and women with suitable qualifications are available can, 
 of course, be advocated on the ground of economy, but it may also be 
 the means of obtaining the assistance of men and women with special 
 qualifications who cannot give their whole time to the work, and who 
 will bring to it new ideas and freshness of mind which may prove helpful 
 to the regular officers. Further, unpaid officers may in some cases 
 be able to exercise greater influence because thev are not connected 
 directly with the Court, and by their disinterested motives may 
 estabfish special bonds of sympathy with the probationers.
 
 12 
 
 \Miile, therefore, we are in favour of the employment of unpaid 
 Probation Officers where the circumstances make it possible, we think 
 that certain safeguards should be adopted to prevent any weakening 
 of the close touch which ought to be maintained between the magistrate 
 on the one hand and the Probation Officer and probationers on the 
 other hand. 
 
 The volunteer should be known personally to the magistrate, and 
 as a general rule he should exercise his authority under the supervision 
 of a paid officer, who should be responsible to the Court. There may be 
 cases, however, where a well-qualified volunteer is willing to accept full 
 responsibihty for one or more probationers. In such cases it wiU be 
 desirable that his name should appear in the Order, and that he should 
 be present in Court at the hearing, and subsequently when the Order 
 comes up for reconsideration. 
 
 As regards the second class of voluntary assistance mentioned 
 above, we found little difference of opinion. The general view seems to 
 be that a paid Probation Officer can obtain most valuable help from all 
 kinds of social workers and agencies, and especially in the case of 
 juveniles from boys' and girls' clubs. We are satisfied that a Probation 
 Officer who is content merely to visit a probationer and does not bring 
 him into touch with other influences is bound in many cases to fail. 
 While many Probation Officers are well aware of the importance of 
 strengthening their own efforts, we believe that there is room for 
 greater co-operation in this direction. 
 
 Duties of Probation Officers. 
 
 Whatever may be the class of officer employed, and the conditions 
 of employment, it is essential to the success of probation that the 
 Probation Officer should be able to devote sufficient time and attention 
 to each case, and that probation and missionary work should not be 
 interfered with by other duties. It is very difficult to estimate the 
 time occupied in supervising a probationer or to fix the number of 
 cases which one officer can superintend at one time. So much depends 
 on the circumstances of each particular case and the extent of an officer's 
 district. The general opinion seems to be that a Probation Officer 
 cannot adequately look after more than about 50 or 60 cases in addition 
 to missionary work, but it appears from the returns made to the Home 
 Office that some Probation Officers have from 70 to 100 cases imder their 
 charge. Two men are stated to have 124 and 131 cases respectively. 
 In one large borough the average number of cases for each officer 
 amounts to 100, and in one thickly populated coimty four officers are 
 responsible for 450 cases. Without knowing the circumstances it is 
 not possible for us to express a definite opinion whether, in cases of 
 this kind, tlie Probation Officer can adequately supervise so many 
 cases, but it is clear that the efficiency of probation must suffer severely 
 when the officer is overworked, and cannot give sufficient time to 
 .seeing at regular intervals the probationers under his care. Instead of 
 attempting to lay down any standard based on the number of cases, 
 which is bound to be a variable one, we recommend that magistrates 
 should pay close attention to the amount of work given to the Probation
 
 13 
 
 Officers attached to their Court, and satisfy themselves that the officers 
 are able to give sufficient time and attention to each case, and to see 
 that the conditions of the probation order are suitable, and are being 
 fulfilled. 
 
 Although in small towns and country districts it appears to us 
 better to employ one man as Probation Officer for several Courts rather 
 than to employ a large number of part-time officers, it is possible to 
 err in the other direction, and make an officer's district so wide that he 
 cannot cover the ground eflectively. We notice cases in which one 
 man is appointed to act for as many as 10 or 12 Courts, and in one 
 County as many as 21 Courts. 
 
 It is not an uncommon practice to make the Probation Officer also 
 a collecting officer to the Courts. While some of the Probation Officers 
 who came before us saw no objection to this practice, and even regarded 
 it as a help to their work, we are of opinion that these duties are in- 
 compatible with the work of a Probation Officer, and that other persons 
 should be employed in collecting. 
 
 We also think it very undesirable that officers belonging to Societies 
 should be employed in collecting subscriptions which are largely 
 required to pay their own salaries. 
 
 As a general rule financial relief should be dissociated from proba- 
 tion work. If a probationer needs monetary assistance he should be 
 placed in direct touch with Societies and Agencies who are best able to 
 help him. But the use of voluntary funds by Probation Officers in 
 providing outfits for probationers so as to enable them to obtain 
 employment is legitimate and desirable expenditure. The work of a 
 Probation Officer may be greatly reinforced if he is able from funds 
 placed at his disposal to fit a probationer for some useful occupation. 
 
 Qualifications avid Method of Apjwintment. 
 
 As the success of the probation system depends so much on the 
 personality of the Probation Officer, it follows that the greatest care 
 should be taken to attract the right men and women to this form of 
 social service. The task is not an easy one, as the power of influencing 
 others depends on qualities of character which cannot readily be 
 ascertained. Many qualities were mentioned to us as desirable in a 
 good Probation Officer — sympathy, tact, common sense, firmness, are 
 but a few — but there was general agreement that a keen missionary 
 spirit, based on religious conviction, is essential. We were impressed 
 by the testimony borne by magistrates and others to the character 
 of many of the Probation Officers now employed, and to the valuable 
 work done by them, and the opportimity which we had of meeting 
 some of these officers tended to confirm this testimony. Some wit- 
 nesses, however, considered that many Probation Officers are not 
 sufficiently equipped in training and experience, and that their outlook 
 is narrow, particularly because they belong to Societies which require 
 their officers to be total abstainers or to subscribe to the tenets of a 
 particular religious commimion. Some of these witnesses urged the 
 need for higher educational attainments and more speciaHsed training, 
 such a« would be afforded by a course of social science at a University.
 
 14 
 
 It must be remembered, however, that men and women who go to the 
 universities usually do so to fit themselves for a professional career, 
 and it is doubtful whether a probation service organised on the lines 
 we consider desirable would provide opportunities or prospects which 
 would usually attract candidates of university training. We agree, 
 however, that so long as regard is paid to the essential qualities of 
 character and personality, there is much need in the probation service 
 for men and women of the higher qualifications referred to, who may be 
 \\'illing to devote themselves to the work either permanently or for 
 some years. 
 
 Some of the Societies who furnish Probation Officers— for instance, 
 the Church Army and Police Court Mission — already undertake the 
 training of candidates. It might be arranged for such Societies to give 
 selected candidates opportunities for higher education and wider experi- 
 ence of different forms of social work, and that such candidates should 
 receive a salary for a year or two while they are fitting themselves 
 for the work of a Probation Officer. The course of training should 
 conclude with experience of police-court work under the supervision of a 
 competent Probation Officer. The value of the latter form of training 
 was emphasised by several witnesses. 
 
 It was suggested that Probation Officers might be appointed after 
 examination, which is the system adopted in America, but while we 
 attach importance to educational quahfications, we consider that 
 personal qualities are paramount, and these can best be ascertained 
 by careful selection. We suggest that in London candidates might 
 be selected by a small committee, including representatives of the Home 
 Office and of the magistrates, and that elsewhere the Justices should 
 appoint two or three members of their own body, who might be en- 
 trusted not only with the duty of selecting officers, but also with the 
 supervision of probation work generally. 
 
 Remuneration. 
 
 The Returns made to the Home Office contain a good deal of informa- 
 tion as to the remuneration of Probation Officers, but they are not 
 complete, and as the majority of Probation Officers are engaged in 
 other work, and are only paid small sums for the probation work they 
 undertake, it is not always easy to ascertain what proportion payment 
 made for probation work bears to an officer's total income. 
 
 As the position in London is clearer, it may be as well to take 
 London first. 
 
 Nearly all the Probation Officers for adults are missionaries attached 
 to the Police Court Mission of the Church of England Temperance 
 Society, who are employed wholly on probation and missionary work 
 at the Courts. The present salary was fixed in 1919 at £200 a year, 
 rising to £250 for men, and £120 rising to £150 for women. Of these 
 amounts the Home Office contributes two-thirds and the Society 
 one-third. Last year, in view of the continued high cost of living, 
 a special sum of £15 was given to each man, and £7 10s. to each woman. 
 
 The women appointed by the Home Office to take juvenile cases 
 are normally paid a salary of £120 a year, rising to £150, though some
 
 15 
 
 of them were in receipt of a maximum of £200 before the new salary 
 was settled. In addition they receive war bonus on the same scale 
 as that given to Civil Servants, with the result that the children's 
 officers are actually receiving considerably higher salaries than the 
 ordinary Probation Officers, a position which cannot be justified. 
 
 The travelling and other incidental expenses of all Probation 
 Officers are paid. In the case of the Probation Officers employed by the 
 Police Court Mission, the expenditure is borne by the Society. 
 
 In addition to the regular officers in London other persons are 
 sometimes named in Probation Orders. About 40 persons were so 
 named in 1919 for 300 cases, and the remuneration was by fees, except 
 in cases where services were given voluntarily. The scale of fees 
 given in London is now 12^. Gd. for a case lasting three months, 20.9. 
 for six months, 25^. for nine months, 30s. for twelve months, with 
 an additional ds. for any remaining period of three months. 
 
 As regards England and Wales outside London, one or two counties 
 and a few of the larger to\vns pay regular salaries on a full-time basis. 
 But in most cases the officer is either paid a small lump sum, varying 
 from about £5 to £20, for probation work, and the rest of his salary 
 is obtained from other sources, or he is paid by fees. The system of 
 paying by fees is still maintained in over 400 Courts, including one or 
 two of the larger cities. 
 
 Apart from London and a few places outside, we cannot resist the 
 conclusion that the system of paying Probation Officers is at present 
 far from satisfactory. The sums paid by many Local Authorities 
 toward the cost of probation work are very small, and in view of the 
 value of the work we are of opinion that they ought to be increased. 
 We wish to say at once that we do not think the work of a Probation 
 Officer can be looked upon in any sense as a profession in which persons 
 can expect to earn large salaries. This view was confirmed by Ihe 
 Probation Officers themselves. The representations made to us on this 
 subject were generally very moderate, and some of the ofiicers even 
 deprecated the granting of large salaries on the ground that it might 
 attract to the work persons who did not enter upon it from a love of 
 the work, but for the prospect of a well-paid career. The general view 
 seemed to be that a Probation Officer should be assured of such a salary 
 as will enable him to maintain an adequate standard of life, and save 
 him from^financial anxiety and embarrassment, which must prove a 
 severe check to the usefulness of his services. 
 
 It is, of course, for Local Authorities themselves to determine 
 what remuneration they will pay to the Probation Officers they employ, 
 and we cannot suggest any fixed standard, as so much depends on the 
 circumstances of the work and the cost of li\dng in the district where 
 the ofiicers are employed. On consideration of all the circumstances 
 and having regard specially to the conditions of living in London and 
 the large cities, we think that a male Probation Officer engaged wholly 
 on probation and missionary work, who is appointed at the age (»f 30, 
 should receive not less than £200 a vear, and that he should be able to 
 look forward to reaching a salary of £350 at the age of 45. Women 
 Probation Officers might begin at a salary of £150, and rise to a maxi-
 
 16 
 
 mum of £250. Travelling and other incidental expenses should be 
 paid in addition. 
 
 AVe should like to make it clear that these standards are merely 
 suggested as a guide, because it is difficult in present circumstances to 
 fix definite salaries. In some cases where the cost of living is excep- 
 tionally high, or where an officer possesses special qualffications, 
 or where no provision is made for a pension on retirement, a Local 
 Authority might reasonably decide to increase the remuneration. 
 
 AMiere an officer is wholly in the employ of the Local Authority 
 the latter will be responsible for the whole salary. Where an officer is 
 pro\'ided by a Society, the amount to be contributed by the Local 
 Authority must depend on the time which the officer devotes to proba- 
 tion work. The proportion of two- third seems to us a reasonable and 
 satisfactory arrangement in London. 
 
 There is also the case of those men and women who give only a 
 part of their time to probation or missionary work, and devote the 
 rest of their time to other forms of social work or to other duties. 
 It is more difficult in these cases to fix the remuneration, and we can 
 only suggest that regard must be paid to the amount of time occupied 
 with probation cases. The remuneration of part-time officers, unless 
 the circimistances are very exceptional, should be a fixed annual sum. 
 
 The system of paying by fees was strongly deprecated by many 
 witnesses. It was stated that the system is apt to encourage Probation 
 Officers to undertake more cases than they can properly look after. 
 On the other hand, we were informed that some Courts were inclined 
 to discharge an offender on recognisances without employing a Proba- 
 tion Officer, in order to save the fees which would thereby be incurred. 
 We agree with the criticism levelled against the fee system, and we 
 think that all regular officers, even though they are employed for only 
 part of their time on probation or missionary work at the Courts, 
 should be remunerated by salary or a fixed annual sum, and not by 
 fees. It may be necessary to retain the system of payment by fees for 
 persons who are rarely employed on the work of probation, but we 
 hope that it will seldom be necessary to have recourse to this method of 
 payment. 
 
 Super annuaiio7i. 
 
 Strong representations were made to us that Probation Officers 
 .should be entitled to a pension on retirement. It was urged with much 
 force that they are faced with considerable anxiety, because, owing to 
 the smallness of their salaries they are unable to provide enough for 
 them-selves in their old age. This question presents great difficulty 
 because the probation service is — rightly as we think — organised on 
 local lines, and Probation Officers are in the employment of a number 
 of different Local Authorities. Of existing officers only a compara- 
 tively small number are in the direct employment of the Local 
 Authorities. The Probation Officers point to the pension rights 
 enjoyed by Elementary School Teachers, Poor Law Officers, etc., but it 
 must be remembered that there are many other classes of persons 
 employed by Local Authorities who are not yet entitled to super- 
 annuation.
 
 17 
 
 Further, it is open to question whether the best interests of probation 
 work are served by retaining men and women in it until the age of 
 60 or 65, which are those normally fixed in superannuation schemes. 
 It may be contended that to secure the most fruitful results from the 
 probation system, especially in the case of children and young people, 
 it is better to secure the services of men and women who have not 
 passed the prime of life, and who are able later on to devote their 
 attention to other forms of social service. This may be an ideal which 
 cannot be reached, as in the majority of cases it may be impossible for a 
 Probation Officer to give the best years of his life to probation work 
 and then to find other interests or other employment, and there are 
 many officers who retain their vigour and usefulness up to a late age. 
 While we recognise the strength of the arguments put before us in favour 
 of a pension scheme, we feel it right to mention the disad vantage .s. 
 and we do not see how, under the present organisation, any general 
 scheme applicable to all officers employed wholly or mainly in proba- 
 tion work could be devised. 
 
 We understand that the Police Court Mission — to which many of 
 the existing officers belong — have a scheme of insurance under which 
 their missionaries become entitled to an annuity of about £60 a year 
 on retirement, the missionaries contributing a proportion of the pre- 
 mium. Some scheme such as this ofEers a solution in the case of the 
 agents of Societies, and we think it should be considered whether the 
 amount of the pension should not be increased, and a contribution 
 made to the cost of the premium by the Local Authorities concerned. 
 
 Organisation — Central Authority. 
 
 We have had before us a proposal made by the Howard League of 
 Penal Reform that the administration of the probation system in 
 this country should be vested in a paid Commission, assisted by a 
 secretary, inspectors, etc. It is contemplated that this Commission 
 should have a general responsibility for the treatment of probationers. 
 estabUsh local probation authorities for difierent areas, be responsible 
 for the training and appointment of Probation Officers, and undertake 
 a number of other duties. The promoters of this scheme have no 
 doubt been influenced by a study of the organisation of probation 
 work in America, especially in New York, where a Probation Commis- 
 sion appears to have given much valuable assistance in the development 
 of the system. The proposal of the League would involve the creation 
 of a new Government Department, which is not likely to be viewed with 
 favour at the present time, even if the additional expense could be 
 justified, and we do not think that a new organisation of this kind 
 is required. Indeed, as we have already indicated, we believe that 
 probation work in this country can best be developed locally, with the 
 aid of voluntarv organisations. 
 
 We are not, however, satisfied with the progress which probation 
 has made in this country, and it appears to us that while local areas- 
 should be left to develop the work, a Central Authority is needed to 
 bring the importance of the work to the knowledge of magistrates, to 
 keep in touch with and study its development both in this country
 
 18 
 
 and abroad, and to collect and publish information. This work is 
 naturally one of the functions of the Home Secretary. The Committee 
 of 1908 recommended that one ofl&cial at the Home 0£&ce should be 
 specially charged with some duties of this kind, and the recommenda- 
 tion has been acted upon as far as possible ; but the stafE of the Home 
 Office has been so taken up with other duties that there has been diffi- 
 culty in providing satisfactorily for the development of probation 
 work. AVe share the opinion of the former Committee that the func- 
 tion of a Central Authority should continue to be discharged by the 
 Home Office, and that the Children's Department of the Home Office, 
 which is now concerned with probation, should be enabled to devote 
 more time to it than in the past, and that its staff should be adequate 
 for the purpose. We believe that it would be very desirable that this 
 Department should have the assistance of a small Advisory Com- 
 mittee of, say, 10 or 12 members, including representatives of Magis- 
 trates, Local Authorities, Probation Officers, and other persons specially 
 experienced and interested in this work, who could consider questions 
 specially referred to it, such as the best method of organisation suited 
 to different localities, and of training and selecting Probation Officers, 
 the keeping of records, and the publication of information, etc. Some 
 of the members of the Advisorv Committee should be chosen from 
 London, and could deal specially with the organisation of the work 
 in London, including the selection of Probation Officers. We also 
 consider that it would be useful if the Home Office were to issue an 
 annual report giving information as to the operation of the probation 
 system throughout the country, which is likely to be of use to magis- 
 trates and to Probation Officers and to other social workers. 
 
 Several witnesses urged the need for some system of inspection. 
 As we have already explained, we believe that Local Authorities are 
 in the best position to develop the work on their own lines, but we 
 think that there would be mutual advantage in a closer co-operation 
 between the Central Authority and the Local Authorities. We 
 suggest that the officer in the Home Office who is specially charged 
 with this work and who might act as secretary to the Advisory Com- 
 mittee should be enabled to keep in touch with the development of 
 probation work throughout the country, and could discuss with Local 
 Authorities the organisation of their schemes. 
 
 Local Organisation. 
 
 As we have indicated above, the supply of Probation Officers 
 throughout the country depends to a large extent on the work of 
 voluntary Societies. The principal of them is the Church of England 
 Temperance Society, which has performed most valuable services 
 in supplying for this field of social work a number of devoted 
 men and women. A few Local Authorities have decided to 
 organise their own service, but the bulk of the work stiU depends on 
 the assistance of this and other Societies. So long as the Societies 
 are able and wiUing to provide officers and can raise voluntary funds 
 we think it would be a great pity to take any step which would endanger 
 the carrying on of this valuable work.
 
 19 
 
 We have, however, received a good deal of criticism of the organ- 
 isation of the Church of England Temperance Society. Many wit- 
 nesses deprecated the association of probation work with a society 
 formed primarily to promote temperance, and thought that Probation 
 Officers should not be directly identified with temperance propaganda. 
 Some witnesses expressed the opinion that while many of the Soci^'ty's 
 officers were admirably fitted for the work, others have not the right 
 qualifications and consequently probation work suffers. They attri- 
 buted this partial failure to maintain an adequate standard of qualifica- 
 tion to the narrowing of the field of selection, because many men and 
 women who wish to undertake probation work are not willing to 
 subscribe to the tenets of the Church of England. Further, it was 
 pointed out that the constitution of the Society is based too much 
 on ecclesiastical lines. 
 
 We believe that there is substance in these criticisms and that 
 in order to encourage a more progressive spirit in probation work 
 and to attract better candidates to the ser\dce, considerable 
 changes are required in the constitution of the Society. For 
 instance, it appears to us that the Pohce Court Mission should 
 be separated entirely from the temperance work of the Society, 
 and should be organised on county rather than on diocesan areas. 
 Magistrates and experienced social workers should be prominently 
 associated with the control of the central organisation and local 
 branches, and preference should be given to lay rather than clerical 
 representation on the Committee. The selection of Probation Officers 
 should not be Umited to members of the Church of England. Proba- 
 tion Officers attached to the Mission should not be required to take 
 an active part in the work of organisation or raising funds. We 
 understand that the responsible authorities of the Society recognise 
 the force of the criticisms and are prepared to re-organise their proba- 
 tion work on much broader lines. If such a policy is carried into 
 effect we believe that the Police Court ]\Iission would not only gain 
 new vigour but it could appeal witli greater success for the fimds 
 which are so necessary to carry on the work. 
 
 London Organisation. 
 
 We have come to the conclusion that the provision made in London 
 for the supply of Probation Officers is not unsatisfactory, and that there 
 is no reason for making any fundamental change. Some of the magis- 
 trates, however, were of opinion that the number of officers ought 
 to be increased in order to provide adequately for the probationers 
 under their care. The two methods of appointing Probation Officers 
 in London— some being directly selected and employed by the Home 
 Office, and the other remaining agents of the Police Court Mission, 
 but appointed by the Home Office — are not incompatible. We think, 
 however, that there is a great disadvantage in having two separate 
 branches of the Police Court Mission in London, and that there should 
 be one Police Court j\Iission for the whole of London, and possibly 
 adjoining areas. 
 
 There appears to us to be need for more supervision and control.
 
 20 
 
 We understand that both branches of the Police Court Mission hold 
 regular meetings of their stafE, but many of the magistrates who attach 
 much importance both to probation and to missionary work have 
 little knowledge of what is being done outside their own Court. We 
 have already suggested that the organisation of the work in the metro- 
 politan area might be entrusted to the members of the Advisory 
 Committee who are selected from London. In this way the magis- 
 trates and the Home Office could be brought into closer touch with 
 the work. 
 
 Provincial Organisation. 
 
 In the larger towns where the work justifies the appointment of 
 one or more full-time Probation Ofiicers, we think that the development 
 of the work is best left in the hands of the Borough or City magistrates 
 who can either appoint their own officers direct, or arrange to employ 
 the agents supplied by the Police Court Mission or other Societies. 
 We recommend that in all cases the magistrates should appoint two 
 or three of their number to organise probation work, select Probation 
 Officers, and keep closely in touch with the progress of their cases. 
 
 More difficulty arises in small towns and villages where the number 
 of probationers is small and organisation is often defective. The 
 difficulty has been successfully got over in a few cases by organising 
 probation work on a county basis. The example of Staffordshire is 
 one which we commend to the consideration of other counties. In 
 Staffordshire a Police Court Mission for the whole county has been 
 organised and is independent of any other Society. Its control is 
 vested in a body which includes magistrates from the various Petty 
 Sessional Divisions, and full-time officers are appointed who act for 
 several Courts, so that no Court is without the service of a Probation 
 Officer when the need arises. The circumstances of some counties 
 may not make it easy to adopt an exactly similar procedure, but we 
 beheve that in most cases the difficulties could be got over by close 
 co-operation between the Standing Joint Committee, the County 
 Council, and the various Borough and Petty Sessional Courts. If, 
 as we recommend, the Police Court Mission is organised on a Comity 
 basis, this organisation would be available for the supply of probation 
 officers where separate organisations do not exist. 
 
 Cost of Probation. 
 
 We have obtained from the responsible authorities detailed par- 
 ticulars as to the money expended by them for the financial year 
 1919-20 with the following results : — 
 
 Salaries. 
 
 Fees. 
 
 Other 
 Expenses. 
 
 Total. 
 
 London 
 
 Counties 
 
 Boroughs 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 6,007 1 4 
 
 3,991 10 9 
 
 9,585 3 10 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 522 19 6 
 
 2,634 15 7 
 
 1,565 4 3 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 428 7 9 
 
 1,267 1 8 
 
 995 1 3 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 6,958 8 7 
 
 7,893 8 
 
 12,145 9 4 
 
 26,997 5 11
 
 21 
 
 Having regard to the important part played by probation in the 
 reformation of offenders, the cost of the system to public funds, amount- 
 ing to about £27,000 a year, is remarkably small. AN'hen it is considered 
 that the average cost of maintaining a single boy or girl in a Reformatory 
 or Industrial School is about £70 a year, and the cost of maintaining an 
 offender in a Borstal Institution, or in a prison, is considerably higher, 
 it will be reahsed that every offender who can be released to the care 
 of the Probation Officer means a great economy to the community. 
 
 If our recommendations for increasing the remuneration of Proba- 
 tion Officers, and for adding to their number, are carried into effect, 
 the total cost will be increased ; but even if the amount were doubled 
 or trebled the expenditure could not be regarded as excessive when the 
 importance of the work and the saving in other directions are taken 
 into accoimt. 
 
 Hitherto the total cost of probation has fallen upon local rates. 
 It has been represented to us that on the analogy of other public ser- 
 vices the incidence of the cost is unfair and that a proportion of the 
 expenditure should be met out of the Exchequer. The usual pro- 
 portion in the case of other services is one-half. Having regard to 
 the national importance of a good probation service, the direct saving 
 to the Exchequer when probation is successful and to the fact that the 
 State already contributes to the cost of elementary schools, reformatory 
 and industrial schools, places of detention and other public ser\aces, 
 we strongly recommend that the Government should undertake — at 
 any rate when the financial position is clearer — to pay half the cost 
 of providing Probation Officers. If a Government grant on these lines 
 were agreed to, it should carry with it a certain amount of supervision 
 without direct interference with the organisation of the work on 
 local lines. When a County or Borough wishes to obtain the Govern- 
 ment grant they should submit a scheme for the approval of the Home 
 Office, giving particulars of the scheme and the number and qualifica- 
 tions of the Probation Officers they propose to appoint. 
 
 Su'pervision of Persons released from Prison. 
 
 We have been asked to consider another question which has been 
 referred to us, though it is not directly concerned with probation. 
 The Central Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society have dra^^•n the atten- 
 tion of the Prison Commission to the need for a period of legal super- 
 vision following the discharge from prison of prisoners who have 
 received treatment under the modified Borstal system. It is urged 
 that the Borstal Committee take great pains with these young offenders, 
 while they are in Prison, only to find that they revert to ^^Tongdoing 
 as soon as their control is relaxed. In the case of young offenders 
 committed to Borstal Institutions, the law provides for a period of 
 supervision after release, and an offender is liable to be recalled if he 
 fails to behave himself during that period. Similarly in the case of 
 boys and girls sent to certified schools, they remain under the super- 
 vision of the managers imtil they reach the age of 18 in the ca^e of 
 industrial schools, and 19 in the case of reformatory schools, and they
 
 22 
 
 can be recalled to the schools when such a step is needed for their 
 protection. 
 
 It is suggested that it would greatly reinforce the value of im- 
 prisonment if a similar system could be adopted for all juvenile adults 
 sent to prison, say, for three months or more. For this purpose the law 
 might be amended to provide that in all such cases the offenders on, 
 release should remain under the supervision of the Prison Commis- 
 sioners for a period of not less than six months, and that they should 
 be liable to be recalled by the Court to prison for a period not exceed- 
 ing three months, if there is evidence that they are falling back into 
 evil ways and associations. 
 
 During the period of supervision, the offenders should be under the 
 care of persons who are experienced in after-care work, such as agents 
 of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, who are familiar with the 
 needs and circumstances of this class of offender. 
 
 Co-ordination of after-care, etc. 
 
 We may mention here a suggestion which has been made that all 
 after-care work needs co-ordination. A large number of organisations 
 and persons throughout the country are engaged in similar work, 
 and if their efforts could be co-ordinated bv the formation of a Central 
 Association it would prevent overlapping and tend to much greater 
 efl&ciency. The work of the Probation Officers, Discharged Prisoners'^ 
 Aid Societies, the after-care of children released from Reformatory 
 and Industrial Schools, may be instanced. 
 
 We are impressed by the argument which has been put forward 
 in favour of closer co-operation in the various descriptions of after- 
 care. We do not feel in a position, and indeed it is not our duty, to 
 make a definite recommendation on this subject, but we should like 
 to point out that if the probation system is better organised on the 
 lines we suggest, it wiU help towards the promotion of a Central 
 Organisation such as has been advocated. 
 
 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND 
 RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 1. Probation is of great value as a means of reformation and is 
 economical. Magistrates should always consider the possibility of 
 using it, and the organisation of Probation Officers should be sufficient 
 for this purpose. 
 
 2. Probation should be used at an early stage in the offender's 
 career, but where it has definitely failed its use should not as a rule 
 be repeated. 
 
 3. The existing law is generally speaking adequate. 
 
 4. The extent to which probation is used varies considerably in 
 different places, both as regards young offenders and adults. Proba- 
 tion could with advantage be used much more freely in many Courts. 
 Every Court should have a Probation Officer at its disposal.
 
 23 
 
 5. Probation Officers should continue to be appointed by the 
 Courts and paid by the local authorities as at present. It is not desir- 
 able that they should be appointed by the State. 
 
 6. It is not necessary that the appointment of Probation Officers 
 should be reviewed annually by the Courts except for the first two 
 years after appointment. 
 
 7. It is not desirable to separate probation work from other 
 missionary work in the Courts. 
 
 8. Many persons are now employed as Probation Officers who are 
 not properly qualified for the work. 
 
 9. Wherever possible Probation Officers should be employed only 
 on probation work and similar missionary duties. Where the work 
 at one Court does not justify the appointment of a full-time officer 
 it is desirable to arrange that two or more Courts should share the 
 services of the same officer. 
 
 10. The Societies who have hitherto provided Probation Officers 
 have done most valuable work, and, though some Courts may prefer 
 to appoint their own officers, others can rely on the services of these 
 Societies. 
 
 11. Women officers should be appointed as a rule to supervise 
 women probationers, and specially qualified officers should be appointed 
 to look after children. 
 
 12. Volunteer officers can often give valuable assistance and their 
 employment imder proper supervision should be encouraged. The 
 paid Probation Officers should make greater use of voluntary agencies 
 in carrving on their work. 
 
 13. Probation Officers should not be given too many cases or too 
 large districts. No absolute standard can be fixed, but the amoimt 
 of work and nature of their duties should be supervised by the magis- 
 trates. 
 
 14. As the value of probation depends on the character and per- 
 sonal qualities of the Probation Officer, great care must be exercised 
 in their selection. There is need in the probation service for men and 
 women of higher education and better training, and Societies who 
 provide Probation Officers should be advised to improve the education 
 and training of their candidates. 
 
 15. The remuneration of Probation Officers is imsatisfactory in 
 many places, both as to method and amount. It is suggested that full- 
 time officers (men) should receive not less than £200 at the age of 30 
 and rise to £350 at the age of 45. Women should receive £150 and 
 rise to £250. Travelling and other incidental expenses should be paid. 
 Where the officers are provided by a Society the local authorities 
 should pay an adequate proportion of the salary. 
 
 The remuneration of part-time officers should be by salary or 
 fixed annual sums, and should be fixed according to the average 
 amoimt of work. The system of paying by fees should be abandoned 
 except for isolated cases.
 
 24 
 
 16. No general superannuation scheme for Probation Officers is 
 practicable. Societies should be encouraged to establish adequate 
 schemes for their own officers to which both the local authorities and 
 the officers might contribute. 
 
 17. The creation of a paid Government Commission to control and 
 develop probation work is not desirable. 
 
 18. The Home Office should continue to act as the Central Authority 
 and should be assisted by an Advisory Committee having a paid 
 secretary. 
 
 19. The supply of Probation Officers will depend largely on the 
 services of voluntary Societies, especially the Police Court Mission, 
 which should be reorganised on broader lines. 
 
 20. In London there should be one Police Court Mission. Better 
 organisation and supervision is required, in which the members of the 
 Advisory Committee who are selected from London should assist. 
 
 21. In pro\dncial towns the magistrates should appoint a small 
 conmiittee of their own members to select Probation Officers and 
 generally supervise the work. In counties endeavour should be made 
 in suitable cases to organise the work on County lines. 
 
 22. A Government grant should be given eventually towards the 
 cost of probation. 
 
 23. It is suggested that juvenile adults sentenced to prison for three 
 months or more might be placed under supervision on their release 
 for a period of six months. 
 
 We desire to express our warmest thanks to our Secretary, Mr. 
 Houston, for his invaluable assistance both during the conduct of 
 our inquiry and in drafting the report. 
 
 We have the honour to be, 
 Sir, 
 Your obedient servants, 
 
 JOHN BAIRD. 
 S. W. HARRIS. 
 T. W. FRY. 
 OLIVER W. HIND. 
 A. IVIMY. 
 
 H. Houston (Secretary). 
 SOlh January, 1922.
 
 V 
 
 25 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Boswell, Mr. S. G. 
 Biron, Sir Chart res 
 Canceller, Mr. H. L. 
 Chapman, Mr. Cecil 
 Cheshire, Miss E. D. 
 
 Clarke Hall, I\Ir. W. 
 "Cohen, Mr. S. ... 
 
 Davi«, Mr. Walter W. 
 Dixon, Mr. W. Vibart 
 
 Edridge, >Ir. S. G. . 
 Fanner. Mr. H. R. 
 
 Fitzsimmons, Mr. W. 
 Francis, Mr. C. K. 
 Franey, Mr. G. E. 
 Fry, Miss M 
 
 Glover. Mrs. Arnold ... 
 
 Goldstone, Mr. H. 
 Grant- Wilson, Sir Wemyss 
 Griffiths, Mr. Evan ... 
 
 Hale, Mr. F. A. W. ... 
 Hart, Mr. E. S. W. ... 
 
 Hart, Mr. William E. 
 
 Hemsley, Mr. H. 
 
 Herbert. :Mr. F. A. 
 Holding, Mr. J. L. 
 Locke, Mr. C. ... 
 
 List of Witnesses. 
 
 .. Probation Officer, Marylebone Police Court. 
 
 . . Chief Magistrate. 
 
 .. Metropolitan Police Magistrate. 
 
 .. Metropolitan Police Magistrate. 
 
 .. Special Children's Probation Officer, Old Street 
 Police Court. 
 
 .. Metropolitan Police Magistrate. 
 
 .. Secretaiy to the Jewish Association for the 
 Protection of Girls and Women. Chairman 
 of the Probation Sub-Committee of the 
 Stepney Juvenile Organisations Committee. 
 
 .. Organising Secretary', Statfordshue Police Court 
 Mission. 
 
 .. Deputy Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding 
 and Deputy Clerk of the West Riding County 
 Council. Representative of the County 
 Councils Association. 
 
 ... Clerk to Justices, Croydon. Chairman of the 
 National Association of Probation Officers. 
 
 ,.. Clerk to Justices, Southend, and Clerk to 
 Justices, Rochford Petty Sessional Division, 
 Essex. 
 
 ,.. Probation Officer, Thames Police Court. 
 
 .. Metropolitan Police Magistrate. 
 
 ... Probation Officer, Greenwich Police Court. 
 
 ... Justice of the Peace, London. Hon. Secretary, 
 Howard League of Penal Reform. 
 
 ,.. Representative of London Society for Women's 
 Service. 
 
 ... Chief Probation Officer, Liverpool. 
 
 ... Hon. Director of the Borstal Association. 
 
 ... Secretary of the Southwark Diocesan Branch of 
 the Church of England Temperance Society. 
 
 ... Probation Officer, Leicestei-shire. 
 
 ... Clerk of the Peace, Middlesex, and Clerk to the 
 Standing Joint Committee and County 
 Council, Middlesex. Representative of the 
 County Councils Association. 
 
 . .. Town Clerk, Sheffield. Representative of Asso- 
 ciation of ^Municipal Corporations. 
 
 ... Probation Officer, Stockton (Durham), and 
 North Riding of Yorkshire. 
 
 ... Probation Officer, Bow Street Police Court. 
 
 ... Probation Officer, Staffordshire. 
 
 ... Probation Officer, Essex.
 
 26 
 
 Macadam, Miss E. 
 
 Martin, Mr. W. R 
 
 McKenna, Mr. T. J 
 
 Melland, Mr. W 
 
 MiUs, Mr. G 
 
 Murray, Rev. S. R. Glanvill ... 
 Peai-son, Rev. Harry ... 
 
 Pike, Mr. H. Ferris 
 
 Roberts, i\Ir. John R. 
 Russell, Mr. R. 
 
 Scott, :\Ir. F 
 
 Searle, Miss M. 
 
 Statham, Rev. S. R. H. 
 
 Stead, Mrs. B. M 
 
 Thomas, Mr. D. Lleufer 
 
 Thomley, Mr. H. G 
 
 Tonks, Rev. C. F 
 
 Trought, Mr. T. W 
 
 Wallace, Sir Robert, K.C. ... 
 Way, Mr. T 
 
 Wiiberforce, Mr. H. W. W. ... 
 Woolcombe, Rev. E. P.,0.I3.E. 
 
 Wric'lov, Mr. C. F 
 
 Hon. Secretary, Joint Univereity Council for 
 Social Studies. 
 
 Justice of he Peace, Middlesex. Chaiiman of 
 the Executive of the Finchley Juvenile- 
 Organisations Committee. 
 
 Probation Officer, Essex. 
 
 Justice of the Peace, Mancliester. 
 
 Justice of the Peace, Bury, Lanes. 
 
 Chaplain of Holloway Prison. 
 
 Secretary of tlie London Diocesan Branch of 
 the Church of England Temperance Society. 
 
 Probation Officer, Oxfordshire. 
 
 Clerk to Justices, Newcastle-on-Tyne. 
 
 Roman Catholic Probation Officer, MetroiJolitaii' 
 Police Courts north of the Thames, etc. 
 
 Probation Officer, Darlington. 
 
 Voluntary Probation Worker, Old Street Police 
 Court. 
 
 Hon. Secretary, Central Discharged Prisoner& 
 Aid Societ}^ Late Chaplain Inspector of 
 Prisons. 
 
 Special Children's Probation Officer, Tower 
 Bridge Police Court. 
 
 Stipendiary Magistrate, Pontypridd and 
 Rhondda (Glamorgan). 
 
 Clerk of the Peace for the West Riding of 
 Yorkshire. 
 
 Secretary, Church of England Temperance- 
 Society, Central Police Court Mission. 
 
 Justice of the Peace, Birmingham. 
 
 Chairman of the London Sessions. 
 
 Probation Officer, Wakefield and West Riding 
 of Yorkshire. 
 
 Metropolitan Police Magistrate. 
 
 Head of Oxfoid House. Chairman of Bethnal 
 Green Main and Executive Juvenile Or- 
 ganisations Committees. 
 
 Probation Officer, South W^estern Police Court.
 
 27 
 
 TABLES. 
 
 Table I.— General Statement as to Probation during 1908, 1913, and 
 
 1919. 
 
 1919. 
 
 Number of Courts of Summary Juris- 
 diction 
 
 1,043 
 
 1,037 
 
 1,034 
 
 Probation Officers. 
 
 Number of Clourts with no officer 
 
 ■ appointed 
 
 Number of Courts at which officers 
 were appointed 
 
 280 
 763 
 
 264 
 
 773 
 
 215 
 819 
 
 / 
 
 1,043 
 
 1,037 
 
 1,034 
 
 Probation Orders. 
 
 Number of Orders made — 
 At Assizes 
 At Quarter Sessions — 
 
 London 
 
 Others 
 
 At Courts of Summaiy Jurisdiction 
 
 15 
 
 388 
 
 110 
 
 7,510 
 
 6 
 
 504 
 
 182 
 
 10,379 
 
 7 
 
 465 
 
 115 
 
 9,068 
 
 
 8,023 
 
 11,071 
 
 9,655 
 
 Table II. — Number of Persons tried in all Courts, and number placed 
 on Probation, with similar fignres for Juvenile Courts. 
 
 
 Persons 
 
 iried in al 
 
 Courts. 
 
 Persons tried in Juvenile Courts. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Total 
 Number. 
 
 Number 
 placed on 
 Probation. 
 
 Percent- 
 age. 
 
 Total 
 Number. 
 
 Number 
 placed on 
 Probation. 
 
 Percent- 
 age. 
 
 1908 .. 
 
 1909 .. 
 
 757,080 
 726,256 
 
 8,023 
 8,962 
 
 106 
 1-23 
 
 > Particul 
 
 ars not ava 
 
 ilable. 
 
 1910 .. 
 
 . 698,305 
 
 10,223 
 
 1-46 
 
 33.598 
 
 3,568 
 
 10-62 
 
 1911 .. 
 
 . 697,463 
 
 9,521 
 
 1-37 
 
 32,977 
 
 3,454 
 
 10-47 
 
 1912 .. 
 
 7.30,669 
 
 11,219 
 
 1-54 
 
 38,351 
 
 4,537 
 
 11-83 
 
 1913 .. 
 
 . 743,559 
 
 11,071 
 
 1-49 
 
 37,520 
 
 4,465 
 
 11-90 
 
 1914 .. 
 
 . 685,324 
 
 10,747 
 
 1-57 
 
 36,929 
 
 4,496 
 
 12-17 
 
 1915 .. 
 
 . 587,979 
 
 10,676 
 
 1-82 
 
 43,981 
 
 5,719 
 
 1300 
 
 1916 .. 
 
 . 668,835 
 
 12,329 
 
 1-84 
 
 47,342 
 
 6,781 
 
 14-32 
 
 1917 .. 
 
 . 508,763 
 
 12,505 
 
 2-46 
 
 51,323 
 
 6,548 
 
 12-76 
 
 1918 .. 
 
 . 433,476 
 
 11,719 
 
 2-70 
 
 49,915 
 
 5,868 
 
 11-76 
 
 1919 .. 
 
 . 546.588 
 
 9.655 
 
 1-77 
 
 40,473 
 
 4,188 
 
 10-35
 
 28 
 
 Table III. — Offenders Released on Probation, shewing Age and Sex and 
 
 Number subsequently sentenced. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number 
 
 
 
 
 Number 
 
 who were 
 
 of Persons 
 
 
 
 Sex. 
 
 under 16. 
 
 who 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 appeared 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 for 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 
 
 
 sentence- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 after 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 release 
 
 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 on 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Probation 
 Order, 
 
 190S ... 
 
 8,023 
 
 6,110 
 
 1,913 
 
 2,503 
 
 340 
 
 565 
 
 1909 ... 
 
 8,962 
 
 6,862 
 
 2,100 
 
 3,004 
 
 394 
 
 624 
 
 1910 ... 
 
 10,223 
 
 7,975 
 
 2,248 
 
 3,294 
 
 435 . 
 
 584 
 
 1911 ... 
 
 9,521 
 
 7,315 
 
 2,206 
 
 3,215 
 
 379 
 
 596 
 
 1912 ... 
 
 11,219 
 
 8,851 
 
 2,368 
 
 4,199 
 
 475 
 
 661 
 
 1913 ... 
 
 11,071 
 
 8,526 
 
 2,545 
 
 4,076 
 
 492 
 
 605 
 
 1914 ... 
 
 10,747 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1915 ... 
 
 10,676 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1916 ... 
 
 12,329 
 
 >-Particula 
 
 rs not avail 
 
 able for the 
 
 se years. ( 
 
 Returns 
 
 1917 ... 
 
 12,505 
 
 
 note 
 
 olleoted.) 
 
 
 
 1918 ... 
 
 11,719 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1919 ... 
 
 9,655 
 
 7,033 
 
 2,622 
 
 4,078 
 
 511 
 
 477 
 
 Table IV. — Offenders Released on Probation, shelving Age and Sex and 
 
 Number subsequently Sentenced. 
 Metropolitan Police District and London City. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Year. 
 
 Total 
 Number. 
 
 Sex. 
 
 Number who were 
 under 16. 
 
 of Persons 
 
 who 
 appeared 
 
 for 
 
 vSentence 
 
 after 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 release 
 
 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 on 
 
 Probation 
 
 Order. 
 
 1908 ... 
 
 1,411 
 
 1,047 
 
 364 
 
 .321 
 
 41 
 
 88 
 
 1909 ... 
 
 1,458 
 
 1,078 
 
 380 
 
 302 
 
 37 
 
 96 
 
 1910 ... 
 
 2,005 
 
 1,535 
 
 470 
 
 447 
 
 44 
 
 91 
 
 1911 ... 
 
 1,844 
 
 1,363 
 
 481 
 
 421 
 
 41 
 
 100 
 
 1912 ... 
 
 2,219 
 
 1,676 
 
 543 
 
 638 
 
 56 
 
 116 
 
 1913 ... 
 
 2,.544 
 
 1,844 
 
 700 
 
 694 
 
 75 
 
 118 
 
 1914 ... 
 
 2,535 
 
 -N 
 
 
 
 
 
 1915 ... 
 
 2,659 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1916 ... 
 
 3,459 
 
 yParticula 
 
 rs not avail 
 
 able for the 
 
 se years. ( 
 
 Returns 
 
 1917 ... 
 
 1918 ... 
 
 3,618 
 3,.593 
 
 
 not c 
 
 olleoted.) 
 
 
 
 1919 ... 
 
 3,148 
 
 2,106 
 
 1,042 
 
 994 
 
 109 
 
 175 
 
 "Vn rif 
 
 r«rintj wcTf- n 
 
 lar-r.!-! iinrlcr 
 
 '\^rf\\\f^^\f\r\ \ 
 
 ^7 iVir» Ocviivr 
 
 #7 tlvt'YVi'i'nnl ( 
 
 'Viiir/ fliirinor 
 
 the years 1917 to 1919.
 
 29 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 a . 
 
 o o 
 
 t; O 
 
 >■ 
 
 2 
 a, 
 
 o 
 
 Ji 
 
 o 
 
 •JO pdsodsip 
 asiAvjaq'^o 
 
 •saouT?siu3oooy^ 
 
 •auT^ 
 
 •Suiddiq^^\^ 
 
 •s[ooqog 
 
 •siiao aonOfi 
 
 •^uauiuosuduix 
 
 •paptAUOD jaquin^ 
 
 •saAi;oaj9(i .loj 
 
 02S>'8aAi';^[9.i JO iCpo^sno 
 o:^ pa;;;ivanioQ 
 
 o 
 
 GO 
 
 «o 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 <M 
 
 •[ooqog iBi.i:^snpux 
 o^ pa'^^^iraraoQ 
 
 •uoi'^Bqojj 
 
 •SOOUB8TUSOOO>I 
 
 •pas8iuisi(x 
 
 •pasgTnigi(2 
 .10 u-tt.Bjpq'^iAV a8.iBqQ 
 
 S ^ ^ 
 
 CI ^ g 
 ^3 £ 
 
 <4^ 
 
 3 
 
 •IBUj, aoj paniiuiuoo 
 
 •passnusip .xo UAi^jpqjiAV aBj^qQ 
 
 •}sinBSB papaaoojd aaqranx I'B'Jox 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 «o 
 
 (N 
 
 Tl fC C. X 
 
 ir> ■«*< •>«< o 
 
 ■* O U5 cv 
 
 l^ CO O f^ 
 
 10 CO t^ >o 
 
 O 05 05 t-- 
 00 CO C5 ■rj'^ 
 
 1— I O --< cv 
 
 — < <N T-l — ' 
 
 C5 I— I CO Oi 
 
 r-- »o oi o 
 
 o o »a L';^ 
 
 (rf '* CO ^ 
 
 cq CO o 
 
 00 C<> I— I ^ 
 
 o^ CD u's J:; 
 
 I— < i-H 1— I o 
 
 t^ 00 1— ' 
 
 (M o >-':: ^: 
 
 10 ''jt iri r- 
 
 Tt< O t- <N 
 
 •-H 05 05 00 
 
 (N (N CO C-l^ 
 
 »o i> t^ <^f 
 
 »-H (M <M <M 
 
 CD o c; 
 I— I so f-« 
 
 (M CD ^M 
 
 I— < I— C-l 
 
 O -H CO 
 O O 05 
 <N 00 »o ^ 
 
 rH I— i 1— I X 
 
 (M 
 
 O 00 00 oc 
 CO ■<* CD oc 
 ■* VO 00 — 
 
 TjT CD ir; -^ 
 
 I-- Oi -H CO 
 
 ■* CO t^ i^ 
 
 '^ CO 3i_C0 
 
 c4~ CO c^ oi' 
 
 Oi -^f ^ M 
 (M t- O oc 
 >i5 C5 -- ■+ 
 
 oT t-^ t-^ CD* 
 
 00 (N O O: 
 
 >(0 t— CO ir: 
 
 CO O CD -^ 
 ^1 ^1 ^5^ ^(j* 
 
 O '— ' CD 1-0 
 >0 CO CI CI 
 
 O O CO -« 
 10 •>* no O 
 CI CI o ^ 
 
 O CO -H CO 
 O CJ 10 t^ 
 
 in CO 05_ ■* 
 
 1-^ — ^ 05" © 
 CO uo -^ •<# 
 
 ro oc © r- 
 
 ro ci CO ci 
 
 
 o »o — < ^ 
 
 C< C4 C< CO 
 
 CD CO t- CJ 
 
 ■«* t- o >-^ 
 
 — c; -^ 00 
 
 CO CO -t t 
 
 tJ< O O >C 
 t.O CD 01 T. 
 
 to 
 
 00 t^ o — 
 
 X »— ' O CO 
 
 CI 
 
 000 
 
 o © o 
 
 -# 00 10 eo 
 
 ^ © © © 
 
 © © © © 
 
 O t~ Ci m 
 
 U5 — « X © 
 
 © c: 
 
 O lO 
 
 so © 10 
 © © © 
 
 © © © 
 
 CI eq CO 10 
 
 © © © © 
 
 © © © © 
 
 © — t 3i 00 
 C< O ^ © 
 
 SO CO CO eg 
 
 © CO © "!0 
 
 3i t^ t^ CO 
 
 — I d '-< © 
 
 cj — >n — 
 
 i-o m c: 00 
 
 CO © ic in 
 
 © -^ CO CI 
 
 ^ 1.0 CI © 
 i-O O «* CD 
 
 CO X 
 
 SO ci 
 
 — ' t- 35 © 
 
 Ct CD 1.0 © 
 
 -H © © C 
 
 © © © c 
 
 t- t^ — < o 
 © ■«* IC CI 
 
 6 © © C 
 
 
 CO t- X 55 
 
 ^ o> © s; © 
 
 gsSO t- X © 
 
 s © © © © 

 
 30 
 
 Table VI. — Use of Probation in Sixteen Towns. Year 1919. 
 {From Police Annual Returns of Crime.) 
 
 
 All Cases (Juveniles and Adults) 
 
 Persons dealt with Summarily 
 
 
 ( 
 
 iealt with Summarily. 
 
 in 
 
 Ordinary Courts. 
 
 Court. 
 
 tal Number of 
 Cases. 
 
 mber withdra^vn 
 or Dismissed. 
 
 mber of Cases in 
 hich charge was 
 proved. 
 
 Total put on 
 Probation. 
 
 centage of Column 
 ) put on Probation. 
 
 Total Number of 
 Cases. 
 
 mber withdrawn 
 or Dismissed. 
 
 mber of Cases in 
 hich charge was 
 proved. 
 
 centage of Column 
 ) put on Probation. 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 3 fe 
 
 
 r; ^ 
 
 3 
 
 P fe 
 
 5r: "^ 
 
 
 E-i 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ "^ 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 ^- 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 (5) 
 
 (6) 
 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 (9) 
 
 (10) 
 
 A 
 
 2,994 
 
 290 
 
 2,704 
 
 50 
 
 1-85 
 
 2,614 
 
 269 
 
 2,345 
 
 1-02 
 
 B 
 
 1,170 
 
 83 
 
 1,087 
 
 53 
 
 4-88 
 
 994 
 
 69 
 
 925 
 
 3-46 
 
 € 
 
 3,205 
 
 677 
 
 2,528 
 
 55 
 
 218 
 
 2,846 
 
 643 
 
 2,203 
 
 1-36 
 
 D 
 
 , 4,443 
 
 563 
 
 3,880 
 
 59 
 
 1-52 
 
 4,134 
 
 509 
 
 3.625 
 
 0-72 
 
 E 
 
 1 932 
 
 80 
 
 852 
 
 49 
 
 5-75 
 
 802 
 
 73 
 
 729 
 
 3 02 
 
 T 
 
 1 3,362 
 
 293 
 
 .3,069 
 
 70 
 
 2-28 
 
 3,010 
 
 288 
 
 2,722 
 
 1-43 
 
 G 
 
 11,198 
 
 559 
 
 10,6.39 
 
 223 
 
 210 
 
 10,736 
 
 418 
 
 10,318 
 
 0-80 
 
 H 
 
 5,653 
 
 774 
 
 4,879 
 
 149 
 
 305 
 
 5,224 
 
 766 
 
 4,458 
 
 1-57 
 
 I 
 
 2,221 
 
 109 
 
 2,112 
 
 79 
 
 3-74 
 
 2,019 
 
 103 
 
 1,916 
 
 2-45 
 
 J' 
 
 1,962 
 
 76 
 
 1,886 
 
 95 
 
 5-04 
 
 1,607 
 
 70 
 
 1,537 
 
 2-93 
 
 K 
 
 5,2.33 
 
 421 
 
 4,812 
 
 42 
 
 0-87 
 
 4,913 
 
 388 
 
 4,525 
 
 0-27 
 
 L 
 
 2,888 
 
 319 
 
 2,569 
 
 93 
 
 3-62 
 
 2,398 
 
 300 
 
 2,098 
 
 3-20 
 
 M 
 
 1,752 
 
 109 
 
 1,643 
 
 34 
 
 2-07 
 
 1.494 
 
 104 
 
 1,390 
 
 0-29 
 
 N 
 
 1,252 
 
 444 
 
 808 
 
 6 
 
 0-74 
 
 1,063 
 
 324 
 
 739 
 
 0-68 
 
 
 
 2,874 
 
 999 
 
 1,875 
 
 28 
 
 1-49 
 
 2,668 
 
 954 
 
 1,714 
 
 0-41 
 
 P 
 
 1,375 
 
 181 
 
 1,194 
 
 14 
 
 1-17 
 
 1,260 
 
 164 
 
 1,096 
 
 0-58 
 
 Totals 
 
 ! 52,514 
 
 1 
 
 5,977 
 
 46,537 
 
 1,099 
 
 2-36 
 
 47,782 
 
 5,442 
 
 42,.340 
 
 1-23
 
 31 
 
 Table Vll. — Use of Probation in 16 Children's Courts. Year 1919. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sent to 
 
 
 
 
 
 Num- 
 
 
 Per- 
 
 Certified 
 
 
 
 
 With- 
 
 ber of 
 
 
 centage 
 
 Schools. 
 
 
 Indict- 
 able. 
 
 Non- 
 indict- 
 
 drawn 
 or dis- 
 
 cases m 
 which 
 
 Put on 
 Proba- 
 
 of Col. 
 4a put 
 
 
 Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 able. 
 
 missed. 
 
 charge 
 
 was 
 proved. 
 
 tion. 
 
 on 
 Proba- 
 tion. 
 
 After 
 Proba- 
 tion. 
 
 Before 
 Proba- 
 tion. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4 
 
 (4a) 
 
 (5) 
 
 (6) 
 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 A 
 
 159 
 
 221 
 
 21 
 
 359 
 
 26 
 
 7-24 
 
 
 13 
 
 B 
 
 70 
 
 106 
 
 14 
 
 162 
 
 21 
 
 12-96 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 C 
 
 135 
 
 224 
 
 34 
 
 325 
 
 25 
 
 7-69 
 
 1 
 
 48 
 
 D 
 
 110 
 
 199 
 
 54 
 
 255 
 
 33 
 
 12-94 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 E 
 
 49 
 
 81 
 
 7 
 
 123 
 
 27 
 
 21-95 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 F 
 
 46 
 
 306 
 
 5 
 
 347 
 
 31 
 
 8-93 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 G 
 
 176 
 
 286 
 
 141 
 
 321 
 
 140 
 
 43-61 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 H 
 
 161 
 
 268 
 
 8 
 
 421 
 
 79 
 
 18-76 
 
 1 
 
 32 
 
 I 
 
 45 
 
 157 
 
 6 
 
 196 
 
 32 
 
 16-33 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 J 
 
 113 
 
 242 
 
 6 
 
 349 
 
 50 
 
 14-33 
 
 — 
 
 17 
 
 K 
 
 152 
 
 168 
 
 33 
 
 287 
 
 30 
 
 10-45 
 
 — 
 
 15 
 
 L 
 
 101 
 
 389 
 
 19 
 
 471 
 
 26 
 
 5-52 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 M 
 
 52 
 
 206 
 
 5 
 
 253 
 
 30 
 
 11-86 
 
 — 
 
 5 
 
 N 
 
 52 
 
 137 
 
 120 
 
 69 
 
 1 
 
 1-45 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 130 
 
 76 
 
 45 
 
 161 
 
 21 
 
 13-04 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 P 
 
 62 
 
 53 
 
 17 
 
 98 
 
 8 
 
 8-16 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Totals ... 
 
 1,613 
 
 3,119 
 
 535 
 
 4,197 
 
 580 
 
 13-82 
 
 5 
 
 218 
 
 T.^BLE VIII. — Total Receptions into Prison on Conviction. 
 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females, 
 
 Total. 
 
 1913-14 
 
 1920-21 
 
 103,010 
 32,873 
 
 33,414 
 11,043 
 
 136,424 
 43,916 
 
 2HM77
 
 32 
 
 Table IX. — Daihi Average Po'pidation of Prisons, etc. 
 
 
 1920-21. 
 
 1913-14. 
 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Local Prisons 
 
 Convict „ 
 
 Preventive Detention 
 
 Prisons 
 
 Borstal Institutions ... 
 
 7,233 
 L359 
 
 75 
 906 
 
 1,159 
 76 
 
 1 
 191 
 
 8,392 
 1,435 
 
 76 
 1,097 
 
 12,116 
 2,609 
 
 167 
 841 
 
 2,236 
 95 
 
 4 
 87 
 
 14,352 
 2,704 
 
 171 
 
 928 
 
 Totals 
 
 9,573 
 
 1,427 
 
 11.000 
 
 15,733 
 
 2,422 
 
 18,155 
 
 Table X. — Prisoners, aged 16-21, Sentenced to Imprisonment, Received 
 
 into Prison during 1920-21. 
 
 Sentenced to — 
 
 1 month and less ... ... 
 
 Over 1 month and under 3 months 
 3 months and under 12 months ... 
 12 months and over 
 
 Totals 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 1,831 
 
 453 
 
 666 
 
 99 
 
 1,063 
 
 120 
 
 78 
 
 2 
 
 3,638 
 
 674 
 
 The number of males transferred to Collecting centres was 524, the minimum 
 sentence for which is over 3 months. A rough approximation of the total males 
 sentenced to over 3 months would be about 600. 
 
 Previous Convictions — 
 
 2,115 males and 290 females had no previous convictions. 
 
 l,.jlU ,, ,, oil ,, ,, 1— o ,, „ 
 
 161 „ , 61 „ „ 4-6 „ „ 
 
 52 „ , 6 „ „ over 6 „ 
 
 3,638 
 
 674 
 
 Printed under the Authority o{ His Majesty's Stationery Office by 
 HARRISON AND SONS, Ltd., 44-47, St. Martin's Lane, W.C. 2. 
 (3.221 (B3;34.3) Wt. 179C0— 284 1500 UJ-J-J H & S Ltd. g3 
 
 Ci^iv':. 
 
 nni^ 
 
 Ai 
 
 LOS ANGELii^j;
 
 •'aujnviur"' 
 
 «/jajAii>iirin>- 
 
 'i/AavaaMi>f^' 
 
 't/Aavaaii'i^- 
 
 
 ,^WEUNIVER% 
 
 ^lOSAKCE[fX;> 
 o 
 
 <rjl3DNVS01^ %a3AlNrt-3UV 
 
 ^OFCALIFOff^ ^OFCAIIFO;?^ 
 
 
 ,^WEUfJIVERy/A 
 
 ^VOS-ANCElfj-^ 
 
 O 
 
 <rjl33NVS01^ %a3AINn-3WV 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 ^ Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 
 
 >- 
 
 <c 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 ^> 
 
 UCLA 
 
 DUE: OCT 2 
 
 YRL 
 
 UCLA ACCESS 
 Interlibrary Lea 
 11630Univers 
 Box 951575 
 Los Angeles, C 
 
 ILL 
 
 1 2005 
 
 SERVll 
 
 n 
 
 ly Researct i ir>id< > 
 
 \ 9009b 1 b /t: 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 oo 
 
 1 
 
 3WV 
 
 -< 
 
 '% 
 
 1 
 
 CO 
 30 
 
 
 V/1. 
 
 
 ^^AHvaan-^^ 
 
 
 
 S s 1 IflT i s 1 IfT i 
 
 ^aweunivers/a A^ciosAKcnrj!* 
 
 ^1
 
 I 
 
 ,s;;;a,sa-™™^^ 
 
 ^A 000 425 790
 
 ■iJ-'r,^: 
 
 hi^- 
 
 
 i^M 
 
 Universi 
 
 South 
 
 Libr;