Page images
PDF
EPUB

graphical regions were established, and the direction of the field work in each of these was turned over to two persons— a director and a statistical field supervisor. Immediately following their appointment, the regional directors and the statistical field supervisors were called to Washington for several days of intensive discussion and instruction in the methods to be followed in making the survey.

Two different approaches were adopted in organizing the field work. In the first place, the staff of regional directors undertook a first-hand investigation of the laws, organization and qualification of personnel, and procedures and practices involved in the administration of the various release procedures as they existed in each of the regions. In addition, the staff of statistical field supervisors set out to establish as many work units as necessary in order to abstract from available records statistical information concerning the personal, social, psychological, and other characteristics of persons convicted of crime. This information was recorded on schedule forms provided for this work and sent to the central office in Washington, there to be subjected to intensive analysis. Because of the nature of the work to be done the work units were established in the offices of prison administrators, prison boards, pardon boards, judges, bureaus of correction and probation, county clerks' offices, and similar places which in many instances were inadequate even for the use of those who generously shared their space with staff representatives of the survey.

The objectives and scope of the study as originally planned would have required several years for completion. Unfortunately, the Works Progress Administration was unable to approve projects for longer than a 1-year period at a time, and when after 1 year funds were not available to continue the research along the original lines, changes in the plans for the remainder of the study had to be made. Sufficient personnel to analyze the great mass of statistical data which had been collected could not be employed; therefore, only such data were analyzed as could be used for illustrative purposes in the volumes on probation and parole.

As originally conceived, the statistical phase of the survey was planned as a "prediction study." Because the data were

collected from this point of view, it has been impossible to obtain from the survey statistics the desired quantitative material, and hence other sources have had to be relied on for much of this type of data. For this purpose reports of the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Prisons have been invaluable. The principal difference in the statistical work contained in these volumes and the original plans for this phase of the study is that no attempt has been made to set up prediction tables. The statistical sections of the study are presented to point out some of the present difficulties in the administration of probation and parole. It has been possible to give a general picture of some of the factors that are considered in granting probation and parole and the attendant results. The methods of statistical analysis which have been used indicate that the inaccuracies which might have crept into the data have not invalidated the results. Despite the differences in administrative practices and despite the fact that parole and probation mean so many different things in so many different places, these variations were not sufficiently great to change the general effect of the findings.

Naturally there are many statistical limitations to this study. In the first place, because of limitations in time and in the number of personnel, it has not been possible to analyze all the important factors surrounding the granting of probation and parole. It is entirely possible also that the most important factors to be considered may be the least objective ones and may not even have come to light at all in the course of the survey.

All parole cases within a given period were not studied, but rather a sampling process was used in selecting the cases. Data were obtained regarding only those prisoners who were paroled on or after January 1, 1928, and who were discharged from parole on or before December 31, 1935. This sampling process together with the fact that the schedules were devised primarily for a prediction study limited the value of the statistics in many respects. Then, too, many of the items on the statistical schedules were highly subjective in nature, and the value of the information gathered concerning them was limited not only by its

subjectivity but also by the fact that the interpretations were made by unskilled relief workers. Although these workers were carefully supervised by competent supervisors who followed uniform instructions as to each item, the very subjectivity of the interpretations themselves rendered them of little value. Therefore, the few items which were selected for statistical analysis in the final report were chosen from the group of highly objective items on the schedule, requiring no interpretation by the relief workers.

Since the first steps in the statistical phase of the work were carried on almost exclusively by Works Progress Administration workers, an effort was made to determine the margin of error involved in transcribing information from the original records to the statistical schedule. To measure this, three different samples, each of 500 cases, were recorded and reverified by different individuals and the duplicate recordings analyzed for each item on the schedule. Comparing the results obtained with those of similar studies made by Professors Vold and Tibbits, it was found that the precision with which information was abstracted was about the same despite the fact that this work was done by Works Progress Administration workers while the rerecordings reported by Vold and Tibbits were made by the authors themselves or by capable graduate students.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to presenting an accurate report on release procedures lies in the inadequacy of existing records. Time and again the application of statistical methods and the drawing of conclusions have been prevented by the faulty character of the data which were available. Many of the shortcomings of this study are traceable not to the methods used in collecting the data or in analyzing it but to the fact that the truth about release procedures is not written in the records. If this survey has disclosed any outstanding need in the administration of criminal justice it is for the installation of a uniform and comprehensive system of record keeping.

The survey has been a valuable instrument for testing the potentialities of large scale research projects carried on with a minimum of trained personnel and a large number of white-collar relief workers. From 1,200 to 1,800 workers

were employed on the survey during most of the time that the field work was being done. From the beginning it was realized by the Attorney General and by those in charge of administering the survey that the study could have been much better and more easily done if it had been possible to employ a small staff of well-trained workers. The necessity of relying upon relief workers in many instances seriously impeded obtaining the best results. Nevertheless, it is true that without the money provided by the allotment of funds for relief workers this survey would not have been possible. Consistency tests and other measures of accuracy indicate that this type of study is possible providing that the proper administrative and statistical safeguards are furnished.

Major emphasis in the study as reported in these volumes is not on the statistical phases of the investigations. Briefly, the plan which has been followed is to present in as much detail as possible the actual conditions and circumstances surrounding the administration of probation, parole, pardon, and prison treatment in America. This first volume of the reports contains a digest of the laws governing these procedures. Volume II on probation presents a comprehensive picture of the legal and administrative procedures in use throughout the country. The statistical portions of this volume are based on a study of 20,000 cases in widely scattered jurisdictions. Due to the local character of probation services in all but a few jurisdictions, considerable difficulty was encountered in collecting and presenting detailed information concerning the many existing probation units. Volume III is a study of the law and administration of pardon. The parole report, volume IV, contains statistical information on approximately 125,000 parolees, and it is a study of parole administration in the several States. The last report in the series, volume V on prisons, attempts to give a coordinated picture of the many types of services which go to make up prison treatment today.

During the spring of 1937, it became clear that the survey as originally outlined would require several years for completion. The Works Progress Administration advised

the Department of Justice that it would be unable to appropriate any more funds after July 1, 1937, to be used in completing the field work, and recommended that steps be taken to close all field units as rapidly as possible. This was done with the result that much of the statistical work on the survey was not completed. On July 1, 1937, the Works Progress Administration appropriated $50,000 to be used in salvaging at least part of the statistical data already collected and in writing the reports on the legal and administrative phases of the survey.

The following editors were appointed to help prepare the five reports of the survey: Prof. Henry Weihofen, University of Colorado Law School, was placed in charge of the pardon materials. The parole volume was assigned to Prof. Paul Raymond of the John B. Stetson Law School and the prison volume to Mr. Howard Gill, secretary of the Association of States Signatory to the Interstate Prison Compact. Dr. Barkev S. Sanders was appointed statistical editor for all the reports. Dr. Sanders resigned in September 1937 in order to accept a position in another branch of Government service. Mr. William Hurwitz, a member of the statistical staff of the survey, was then appointed statistical editor. Although he was confronted with many handicaps and limitations inherent in the data, his report on the parole and probation factors selected for study is a very worthwhile contribution to the survey. Limitation of time and money prevented analysis of the data pertaining to a much larger number of factors.

Dean Wayne L. Morse was appointed to serve as editor in chief of the five volumes of the survey. In addition to the four editors, Messrs. Weihofen, Raymond, Gill, and Hurwitz, he was assisted by the following associate editors: Ivar Peterson, Hans von Hentig, John Burroughs, Helen Fuller, Charles Morris, and Elizabeth Peterson. Acknowledgements are also due to Mr. James Tidwell, administrative secretary, Mrs. Margaret McGhee, executive secretary, and to the following editorial assistants: Mr. Henry Colman, Miss Evelyn Gerstenfeld, Mr. Robert Hislop, Mr. Jacob Master, Miss Jeanette Mindel, Mr. Edward Posniak, and

« PreviousContinue »