CHAPTER XXIII.

RECENT PROGRESS IN TRAINING DELINQUENT CHILDREN.

By GEORGE S. ADDAMS.

Judge of Juvenile Court, Cleveland, Ohio.

CONTENTS.-The first juvenile-court law-The increased scope of juvenile court work-Mothers' pension laws-The judge's personality is the essential consideration-The probation officer-State probation commissions-Detention homes-Court procedure-Institutions for delinquents-Relation of feeblemindedness to delinquency-Examples of advanced legislation.

THE FIRST JUVENILE-COURT LAW.

The progress of the past year in the methods of dealing with wayward children has been a general approach toward recognized standards rather than a marked departure from former approved methods. One community follows the lead of another. For this reason, and because recent progress can be understood only in connection with the conditions from which it came, it is appropriate to outline the present accepted methods of dealing with delinquents, tracing briefly their growth and indicating the present line of development.

The present movement began with the passage of the first juvenilecourt act in Illinois in 1899. That act has given direction to all subsequent legislation pertaining to children. In the late nineties the conditions to which delinquent and dependent children were subjected in institutions in Chicago and throughout Illinois generally were probably as bad as any in the country. This was due to the city's congestion and to the lack of ameliorating conditions which prevailed in other populous communities of the State. The situation was brought to the attention of the Chicago Bar Association in October, 1898, and a committee was appointed to investigate conditions and formulate remedial legislation. Its chairman, Hon. Harvey Hurd, called to his assistance a subcommittee of active child-welfare workers. Dr. Hastings H. Hart, now of the Russell Sage Foundation, was chosen secretary of this subcommittee, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the bill.

Knowing how hard it is to engraft a new idea upon legislation, he, with his coworkers, searched the statutes for established legal usages which could be enlarged to meet the situation. The laws of Massachu

17726-ED 1913-VOL 1-31

481

setts and New York were especially suggestive. There were found provisions making it unlawful to restrain children in prison in company with adults or to try them at the same time. Either before or after conviction children might be placed in charge of institutions willing to receive them; after trial they might be placed on probation.

In the civil courts generally, where property rights were involved, a person was presumed not to have capacity to act under 21 years of age, but in the criminal courts children were held to full responsibility at 7 years. Some States had raised the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years, and this suggested the possibility of raising it to 16 years. Natural parents desire the reformation of their erring children; punishment is incidental. Why should the State's purpose be different? The State is the parent of the unfortunate and helpless, so chancery courts had long held. It was a simple step to extend the doctrine of parens patriæ to include the erring as well as the unfortunate children. This possessed the incidental advantage of removing the children entirely from the police court atmosphere. A precedent was found in a provision which had been for a quarter of a century in the laws of several States to the effect that incorrigible or truant children might be brought into a probate or surrogate court charged with being delinquent and, if so found, committed to a reformatory. This obviated the necessity for jury trials, for it was not a criminal procedure. It also offered a way to escape formidable indictments in which children were charged with crimes in antiquated sixteenth century phraseology which only a portion of the lawyers understood a part of the time. Instead, the charge was made that the child was delinquent, which means merely bad.

And as children had guardians for their property, it was proposed to provide a guardian for their morals, and a probation officer was suggested, not to prosecute, but to represent the interests of the child. To prevent the courts from killing the purpose of the act by strict interpretation, it was deemed necessary to add that it be liberally construed, so that the care, custody, and discipline of the children of the State shall approximate, as nearly as may be, that which should be given by their parents.

The bill thus drawn became a law April 21, 1899. It marked a new era in criminal procedure. Its essential features and phraseology are now incorporated in the laws of 44 States and the District of Columbia and of many foreign nations.

THE INCREASED SCOPE OF JUVENILE COURT WORK.

The tendency has been to broaden the scope of juvenile court work. In various jurisdictions the age limit has been raised to 17, 18, 19, and even to 21 years. It soon became apparent that, to remedy delinquency and neglect, the custodians of children must

be dealt with. Therefore, juvenile courts were given authority to enter orders as to discipline or control or support; that is, to prescribe the course of treatment and to enforce these orders, as courts of equity do, by imprisonment for noncompliance.

In 1903 Colorado created a new crime by providing that whoever shall be responsible for, or contribute to, a child's delinquency shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Similar provisions with various penalties have been widely adopted. One statute has made it a crime to indulge in conduct tending to lead a child into delinquency. This was because formerly there had to be delinquency before there could be contributing to delinquency; one can not contribute to a thing that does not exist (84th O. S., 366). As an example of the application of this law, it enables the juvenile court to punish a man who sends an innocent child into a gambling house. If the child did not know the character of the place, it would be unjust to hold him delinquent. So, under the old law, the person who sent him would escape on a charge of contributing. Some States have extended the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts to include all crimes against children. Where imprisonment is a possible penalty for contributing to delinquency a jury trial is a constitutional right.

MOTHERS' PENSION LAWS.

In an attempt to prevent rather than cure delinquency 20 States have, within the past two years, enacted laws making it possible to assist from the public treasury indigent mothers who, without this help, would be compelled either to surrender the custody of their children or leave them without proper care. In most of the States this assistance is granted on the order of the juvenile court. Much discussion has been awakened as to the advisability of such legislation, but those in charge of or familiar with the work of the juvenile courts generally favor it. It seems that no general rules can be laid down, the advisability of such legislation depending entirely upon local conditions. Where the situation is adequately met by existing agencies, or where such agencies, with new authority, can properly do the work, such laws are unnecessary. But where relief of this character has been inadequate, or existing public agents are inefficient, mothers' pension laws offer an opportunity for a new set of officials with a new spirit to teach efficiency and bolster up the public relief systems. In Cook County, Ill., where this system has been longest in operation, the work has been so systematized as to be a pattern for other localities. Under a recent law this character of relief is limited to mothers who are citizens of the United States and have been residents of Cook County for three

years and are proper persons physically, mentally, and morally to care for their children, but who are unable of themselves to provide properly and are without relatives of sufficient means and ability to support them.

The applicant for such a pension must sign a statement, which is verified. She is then visited by a district probation officer, who reports all visits to the head of the department. When the investigation is complete, if it is felt that there is a chance of the court's granting funds, the supervisor of the department, who is a trained dietitian, estimates the minimum budget for the family. These facts are then presented by the probation officer to a conference committee composed of members of the juvenile court staff. If they think the relief should be granted, an investigator of the county agent's office is notified, and he makes a separate investigation. If his findings agree with those of the conference committee, the mother and children are summoned to juvenile court and the judge passes on the case. Systematic supervision is made of the families to whom funds have been granted, and special conferences are frequently held by those engaged in this department. The work of the field supervisors is vastly different from the work of the ordinary probation officer, and specially trained people are needed to do effective service.

Since July 1, 1911, when the first Illinois law went into effect, pensions have been granted to about 600 families in Cook County. Of the 1,700 children in these families, only 1 has been brought into court for delinquency and 2 for truancy. The Chicago authorities attribute this remarkable record to the careful supervision given these families by the probation officers.

THE JUDGE'S PERSONALITY IS THE ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATION. Good laws do not make efficient government. The laws creating and empowering a court are important, but the chief consideration is good administration. The first requisite is a good judge, because his spirit will dominate the whole institution. He can strengthen every force in the community which is working for good, or he can throw all the social machinery out of gear. This statement needs no argument in communities which have been unfortunate in this regard. Very many well-educated people have no social intelligence. They may have lived all their lives in their limited environment and have no knowledge of the way in which the great majority of people struggle. Many such people have never talked to a criminal and have never known a person suffering from distressing poverty. How could a lawyer bred in such an atmosphere appreciate or understand the problems of the poor? It very frequently happens that lawyers

of profound learning have little knowledge of the human affairs that arise in a juvenile court. So the selection of the judge is all important.

In most places the juvenile court jurisdiction has been conferred on courts already established, and in such cases the judges have either set aside part of their time for work with children or have designated one of their number to devote his time exclusively to this work. In the larger centers of population the latter practice has been the rule. In some places the terms of service in the juvenile court branch have been long, while in others the judges have rotated every one, two, or three months. In some places special courts have been created, the judges of which devote all of their time to this kind of work. Some of these judges are appointed, as in the District of Columbia and the State of Massachusetts; while in others they are elected, as in Denver, Colo. None of these systems is free from difficulty. None is proof against poor selections. Perhaps the worst system is that where the judges rotate every few months. Many of the judges look upon the work of this branch of their court as mere drudgery and take no interest in it. They regret leaving the other branches of the court in which the business is conducted with great decorum by wise lawyers, to face the heterogeneous mass in the juvenile branch. A short term does not permit a judge to know the children or the families with which he must deal, nor the agencies through which he must work. The careful investigations, well-considered recommendations, and devoted work of the various social agencies of a community can relieve a judge of many worrying details and of much of his responsibility; but a judge who serves but a month or two can not become properly acquainted with his own assistants. The court is not the sole reforming agency in a community. It is rather the place where the child is brought into contact with the social agencies which seek to work his redemption. It is important that a judge know not only the agencies and the character of their work, but the personalities of the various officers.

The choice of the judges in Chicago has been uniformly wise. There the jurisdiction was placed in the circuit court, which is a court with chancery powers. The judges have designated one of their number to preside in the juvenile court, and the terms of service of those so chosen have covered a period of years.

In Ohio the jurisdiction over children has been placed in a number of important courts such as the common pleas, probate, superior, and insolvency courts. The judges of these courts in the various counties meet and designate one of their number to exercise juvenile court jurisdiction. Many of the judges of these courts have no liking for this kind of work and recognize their unfitness for it, but among their number one is usually found qualified by education, disposition, and