FOREWORD Three years ago at my direction there was commenced a research project known as the Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures. The undertaking was financed by a substantial grant of funds by the Works Progress Administration; but the professional direction of the project was made the responsibility of the Attorney General and a staff of persons designated by him. In spite of many difficulties, some foreseen and others unforeseen, the Survey, subject to certain necessary limitations, has been completed. It is my pleasure to present to the public these five volumes of source material dealing with the various methods for the release of persons who have been convicted of crime. If it had been so There were suggestions at the outset that the Survey be limited to a probe of the subject of parole. limited I would not have been interested. purpose was to secure a broad view of the whole field of release procedures, including probation, parole, pardon, and other forms of release both from penal institutions and through the courts. No such study had theretofore been undertaken. There is in the United States no uniform system of probation or parole or pardon. Widely varying methods of administering these procedures prevail in the various jurisdictions, State and Federal. Very little is known about them. The study was instituted in a spirit of experimentation. It does not purport to furnish the answers to all of the questions which arise in this broad field. These five volumes do, however, furnish valuable source materials which lay the foundations for intelligent work by legislators, administrators, scientists, students, and all others who are concerned with the problems involved in the punishment and rehabilitation of convicted men. These studies supply a part, but only a part, of the need for sound research data in every phase of criminal law administration. The process of fact-finding must be continuous and exhaustive; and it is my hope that this Survey will act as a stimulus to the development of permanent research programs. The success of this effort may be judged by the extent to which public opinion demands the necessary reforms in the administration of criminal justice which are pointed out in the reports. I express my deep appreciation to all those whose conscientious efforts have gone into the making of the Survey, particularly to Justice Justin Miller, who prior to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia served as Director of the Survey, and to Dean Wayne L. Morse, who succeeded him as director and editor in chief. I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the large number of relief workers and administrative officers of the Survey staff whose loyal services have made possible the completed reports. A special word of thanks is extended to the following groups and individuals: The members of the executive committee of the Survey, Mr. Brien McMahon, Mr. James Bennett, and Mr. Gordon Dean; the statistical specialists, members of the technical advisory committee, Prof. Samuel A. Stouffer, chairman, Mr. Ronald Beattie, Dr. Morris A. Copeland, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Dr. Alba M. Edwards, Prof. Merrill M. Flood, Dr. Milton C. Forster, Mr. Bennet Mead, Prof. Thorsten Sellin, Mr. Frederick F. Stephan, and Prof. S. S. Wilks; Messrs. Sanford Bates, Lovell Bixby, and Barkey S. Sanders, who were very helpful in preparing the original plans for the Survey; Dr. Milton Forster of the Works Progress Administration whose splendid cooperation made possible the completion of the study; and the several editors, associate and assistant editors whose writings speak for themselves, Mr. Howard Gill, Mr. William Hurwitz, Dean Paul Raymond, Prof. Henry Weihofen, Dr. Hans von Hentig, Miss Helen Fuller, Mr. Charles Morris, Mrs. Elizabeth Peterson, and Mr. Ivar Peterson. I am also under deep obligation to the governors and other officials of the States whose fine cooperation made possible the collection of the source material. HOMER CUMMINGS, DECEMBER 31, 1938. Attorney General. PREFACE Preliminary plans for this extensive survey of probation, parole, pardon, and prison administration were started in the summer of 1935. At that time Attorney General Homer Cummings announced that he would undertake to make a survey of methods used in the releasing of convicted criminals, not only in the system of the Federal Government, but also in that of the various States. This announcement was in response to an increasing volume of protest against the use of parole. Although many people were assuming parole to be a separate procedure apart from all other methods, the Attorney General pointed out that parole must properly be considered in relation to other methods of treatment and release, and he wisely decided to make his study broad and comprehensive rather than devote it to the examination of parole procedures alone. On January 1, 1936, the Works Progress Administration made an allotment of funds for a Federal project to study release procedures, placing the direction of the project in the hands of the Attorney General. From the beginning there were two motives at work in the establishment and operation of this project. To the Works Progress Administration the important objective was that of securing employment for white-collar relief workers. From the point of view of the Attorney General the important objective was the securing of information concerning the various release procedures. The original plan of methods to be followed in carrying forward this study assumed that the work would consist of an analysis of laws and a survey of administrative practices used in dealing with persons found guilty of crime; the compilation of relevant statistics from each State; a detailed comparative analysis of characteristics of individuals placed on probation and parole with those treated by other methods; and the study of characteristics associated with success or failure on probation and parole. It was planned to fill out about 275,000 schedules from the files of probation departments, penal and correctional institutions, and parole authorities. There was to follow the editing, verifying, coding, punching, tabulating, analyzing, and making the results available in useful form. At the beginning the exact objectives of the study were stated as follows: 1. The preparation of a comparative digest of all laws and statutes, and of decisions pertaining to them, relating to the disposition of persons found guilty of crime. 2. The compilation of a census of the facilities available to the courts, probation departments, penal and correctional institutions, parole and pardon authorities, etc., that come in contact with persons found guilty of crime from the time of conviction to the time of final release. 3. The compilation of a census of case history data available in courts, penal and correctional institutions, parole offices, and other departments dealing with persons convicted of crime. 4. An analysis of court cases to determine the relationships between the offense, the characteristics of the convicted persons, and the eventual disposition of the case. 5. An analysis of case history data in probation cases to determine what characteristics are associated with successful termination of probation. 6. An analysis of case history data of parolees to determine what characteristics are associated with successful discharge from parole. 7. The preparation of tentative experience tables (where the findings warrant it) for the guidance of courts and paroling authorities, to aid them not merely in selecting individuals for probation or parole, but also in setting up more individualized forms of supervision. 8. The establishment of tentative standards for probation work, for parole selection and supervision, and particularly for institutional services aimed toward prevention and rehabilitation. 9. A tentative evaluation of the effectiveness of various release practices throughout the country and mapping of the field to designate areas where more intensive research is likely to be of most immediate value. To carry out the objectives of this survey the Attorney General appointed Mr. Justin Miller, one of his special assistants to serve as administrative director. Mr. Miller brought to his position a wide background of valuable knowledge and experience. The actual control of the entire project was in his hands, but the direction of the statistical phase of the study was the responsibility of Dr. Barkev S. Sanders who was appointed technical director of the survey. General policies for the study were drafted by an executive committee, appointed by the Attorney General, which originally consisted of Brien McMahon, Assistant Attorney General, Sanford Bates, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Justin Miller, director of the survey. Dr. F. Lovell Bixby served on the committee from the time of Mr. Bates' resignation from the Department of Justice until he himself resigned in July 1937. In January 1937, Mr. Justin Miller was appointed a member of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, and Dean Wayne L. Morse of the University of Oregon Law School was chosen to succeed him as administrative director of the survey. From July 1937, until the completion of the survey, the executive committee was composed of Assistant Attorney General Brien McMahon, chairman; Gordon Dean, Special Executive Assistant to the Attorney General; and James V. Bennett, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Attorney General invited a group of authorities in statistics who had wide experience in the analysis of sociological data to serve as a technical advisory committee. This committee performed many valuable services during the course of the survey. The technical advisory committee consisted of: Prof. Samuel A. Stouffer, chairman, Dr. Morris A. Copeland, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Dr. Alba M. Edwards, Prof. Merrill M. Flood, Dr. Milton C. Forster, Prof. Thorsten Sellin, Mr. Frederick F. Stephan, Prof. S. S. Wilks. The field work of collecting factual material about release procedures was carried on in all the States. Eleven geo |