AH ET’ALUATiOH OF THE PRESENTENCE
lHVEaTiGATION REPORT OF THE
MiCHTGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
FROM THE VIEWPOTNT OF ITS AUTHORS
AND THOSE USING IT

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHTGAN STATE UNTVERSITY
HENRY B. RISLEY, JR.‘
1970

 

 

 

  
 
 
  

     

BINDING BY

HDAB & SUNS' ‘
nnnv munm m:

LIDMHI DINU‘HO

SIIIIGPOET. ”CHI“!

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
OF THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FROM THE
VIEWPOINT OF ITS AUTHORS AND THOSE USING IT

BY
Henry B. Risley, Jr.

At the suggestion of the Michigan Department of
Corrections a study was undertaken to find out the opinions
of the probation and parole agents and prison counselors in
the department concerning the presentence investigation
report form and content in use in the department.

Initially a review of the literature was undertaken
to determine the history and philosophy behind the presen-
tence report. It was found that the presentence report as
a part of the correctional process had become quite widely
used by the end of the second decade of the twentieth
century. It was during the period from 1910-1920 that the
basis was laid for the current form and content. Several
different social workers develOped similar presentence
reports based on the premise that the judge should have as
much information about the offender as possible on which to

base his decision concerning the sentence. Since that time

Henry B. Risley, Jr.

there have been few attempts to develop a theoretical base
through research to determine if the standard form and
content of the presentence report was a valuable correc—
tional tool. This fact had been assumed until only re-
cently when several research projects have been completed
examining the value of the traditional presentence report.

After many comments from probation agents concerning
the great amount of time needed to prepare a presentence
report and questioning the relevance and usage of much of
the data traditionally included in the report, it was sug-
gested by the Michigan Department of Corrections that a
study be undertaken to determine the relevance of the form
being used. This study is based on a questionnaire which
was developed to determine the probation agent's, parole
agent's and prison counselor's opinions concerning the form
and content of the presentence report.

It has been concluded that, in general, the staff
of the department are satisfied with the present form and
content. It was found that three sub-topics of the presen-
tence report were considered to be of little importance by
the majority of the respondents in the sample, i.e., reli-
gion, habits and recreation and service record. Generally
speaking, in terms of attitudes of the staff, there was a
certain resistance to changing the current form; but there
was some indication on possible changes in content. More

research is needed in various areas pertaining to the

Henry B. Risley, Jr.

presentence report and this study certainly gives some

indications of subjects which should be given a more

sophisticated examination.

Approved:

   

 

 

an N. McNamara, Ph.D.
HUR- chLwLU—U»?
W. A. Goldberg, Ph.D., ACSW

O a ,/ ‘
fl . ( -[,/ZO(‘71»LA{L’(C’Z{LL\
(7

R. C. Trojanowicz,<éh.D.

 

AN EVALUATION OF THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
OF THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FROM THE

VIEWPOINT OF ITS AUTHORS AND THOSE USING IT

 

A Thesis
Presented to
the School of Police Administration and Public Safety

Michigan State University

 

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

 

by
Henry B. Risley, Jr.

March 1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to
the Michigan Department of Corrections for making this
thesis possible. I would like particularly to thank Mr.
William Kime and his staff in the Program Bureau and Mr.
Roy H. Nelson in the Bureau of Field Services for their
guidance and assistance throughout the entire project.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the
members of my thesis committee, and particularly to Dr.
John McNamara without whose many hours of instruction and
guidance I could not have completed the project.

I also wish to thank my wife Suzanne whose patience,
understanding and assistance has enabled me to complete

this thesis and my education.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0
CHAPTER
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS . . .

The Problem . . . . . . . .

Importance of the Problem .
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 3 . . . .
Definition of Terms .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . .

Historical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contemporary . . . . . . . . . . .
Philosophy behind the Report. . . .
Practical Considerations of Style and
Format . . . . . . . . . . .
The Judge' 5 Concern . . . . .
Legal Considerations . . . . . .
Previous Empirical Findings . .
Time Factor in Preparation of the
Presentence Report . . . . . . . . . . .

III. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Technique . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . .

Probation Agents . . . . . . .
Parole Agents . . . . . . .
Rural Agents . . . . . . . .
Counselors . . . . . . . . .
Parole Board .

iii

Page

13
13
14
14

21

21
26
26

32
37
40
44

50
55

55
58
60

61

61
68
72
77
81

Chapter

AnalYSis O O O I O C O O O O O O

Probation Agents vs. Parole Agents

Parole Agents vs. Rural Agents
Parole Agents vs. Counselors .
Probation vs. Counselors . . .
Rural Agents vs. Counselors .

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Conclusions . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . .
Content . . . . . . .
Form . . . . . . . . .
Justification fo Change .
Resistance to Change . . .
Inference . . . . . . . . . .
New Form . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A - The Presentence Investigation
APPENDIX B - The Questionnaire . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

81
83
84
86
86
87

9O

90
93
93
94
96
97
98
99

100
108

114

Table

II.

III.

IV.

VI.
VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

LIST OF TABLES

Rank Order of Probation Agents Rating of the
Three Major Divisions of the Presentence

Report I O I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0

Rank Order of Probation Agents Rating of the
Subdivisions of Part III The Body of the

Presentence Report . . . . . . . . . . . .
Information Needed by the Probation Agent .

Parole Agents Rating of the Three Divisions
of the Presentence Report in Rank Order .

Parole Agents Rating of the Subsections of
Part III, Ranked According to Importance .

Information Needed by Parole Agents . . . .

Parole Agents Use of the Presentence Report

The Rural Agent's Rating of the Three
Subdivisions of the Presentence Report,

Ranked According to Importance . . . . . .

Rural Agent's Rating of the Subsections of
Part III, The Body of the Presentence
Report, Ranked According to Importance . .

Information Needed By Field Agents in Rural
Districts 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0

Rural Agents Use of the Presentence Report .

Counselors Rating of Importance of the Three
Subdivisions of the Presentence Report,
Ranked According to Importance . . . . . .

Counselors Rating of the Value of the
Subsections of the Body of the Presentence

Report, Ranked According to Importance . .

Page

62

63

64

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

76

77

78

Table

XIV.

Information Needed by Counselors .
Usage of Report by Counselors . .

Mean Scores of All Groups . . . .

vi

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS

I. THE PROBLEM

In recent years it has become recognized that the
presentence investigation report (hereafter referred to as
presentence report), particularly in felony uses, is a major
element in the correctional process. Since shortly after
probation began in the middle of the 19th century it was
realized that some type of information about the offender
was needed prior to sentencing. Judges could not grant
probation properly without knowing something about the
offender. The process and the report itself have developed
to such an extent and have become so useful throughout the
correctional process that the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and the Administration of Justice was prompted
to say that "the presentence investigations are probably
the best established and most formalized correctional

intake function."l

 

1The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice, Task Force Re ort: Correc-
f 19675

tions (Washington: Government Printing Of ice, ,
p. 18.

The form and content of the presentence report was
developed with little question as to what type of informa-
tion was needed. It has been accepted by correctional
people as well as academicians that the court needs to have
as much information as possible about the offender in order
to make a proper determination of sentence. Probation
agents who perform the investigations in order to write the
presentence reports have traditionally attempted to gather
volumes of information without questioning the usefulness
and relevance of doing so.

This theory of gathering volumes of information was
aptly presented by Jarvis when he stated:

If it be accepted that the sentence is to attempt in
many cases to influence the future conduct of the of-
fender, it follows that not only must he (the judge) be
well informed about the various sentences available but
he must also know something about the offender himself.
The more he knows about him, in theory at least the
better able he will be to select the most suitable
sentence.2

The phrase in this last sentence "in theory at
least" raises one of the major issues of this study for
there is doubt as to whether so much information is needed.

In theory it may appear logical to say so. John Wallace

questions the relevance of the theory in his statement:

 

2F. V. Jarvis, "Inquiry Before Sentence," Criminology
in Transition. Essa s in Honor of Herman Mannheims, Tadeusz
Grygier, Howard Jones, 35hn Spencer, editors (London:
Tavistok Press, 1964), p. 44.

 

 

(We now have at our fingertips more knowledge of
probation than ever before. Yet probation standards,
as expressed over the years, have become static. If we
continue to enunciate standards first expressed years
ago, without revising, broadening, or raising them,
they are likely to be neither realistic nor idealistic,
just anacronistic.

It is the intention of this study to examine the
presentence investigation from the standpoint of the writers'
and the users' Opinions concerning its form and content.
The effort put into the presentence report, particularly in
terms of the probation agent's time has become great due in
part to the increasing number of presentence reports which
the agent must prepare. A few of the probation agents and
a few of the administrators in the Michigan Department of
Corrections expressed the feeling that the value of the
report as it currently exists needed examination. The
President's Crime Commission expressed concern over the
result in the decreasing time alloted to supervision of
probationers as a result of large numbers of lengthy pre-
sentence reports when it stated:

Since presentence investigations usually take pre—

cedence, the officer may have so little time left that

"supervision" may take the form of receiving monthly
reports filed by probationers.

 

3John A. Wallace, "A Fresh Look at Old Probation
Standards," Crime and Delinquency, X (April, 1964), 124.

4The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice, loc. cit.

 

Most probation services are severely overworked and
under staffed. The heavy load of casework with probationers
is such that the large volume of presentence investigations
puts a severe strain on the resources of the agency. The
problem of the time factor i.eq,the time spent on presen-
tence investigations versus time spent on supervision will
be discussed in greater detail. Often it is not possible
to complete an extensive presentence report. Therefore the
probation agent must be selective in seeking information
about an offender. Under these conditions the information
to be sought cannot be predetermined. The probation agent
must spend the available time getting the information he
deems relevant.5

As has been pointed out, there have been few attempts
to assess the form and particularly the content of the
presentence report. Perhaps an obvious solution to reducing
the time element in the preparation of presentence reports
would be a reduction in the required content of the report.
It is the intention of this study to examine the problem
from this perspective. What information is needed about an
offender in order to effectively deal with him in the cor-
rectional process? Theoretically, at least, all of the

facts about the man which could be made available, should

5Leslie T. Wilkins and Ann Chandler, "Confidence and
Competence in Decision Making," British Journal of Crimin-
ology, V (January, 1965), 23.

be. The writer of the presentence report is expected to
gather all of the relevant data pertaining to the offender's
social history. Few people have questioned whether all the
information available should or could be useful to correc-
tional personnel. In addition, the practice of gathering
so much information is costly; impractical because the
information must then be processed and interpreted; an
extremely complex process, therefore perhaps impossible:
and perhaps unnecessary. A major intention of this paper
is to examine this necessity from the viewpoint of the
correctional worker who writes and makes use of the presen-

tence report.

II. IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM

Paul W. Keve, a former probation agent, currently
the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections,
and a recognized authority on the presentence report has
recently said that it is difficult for a probation agent to
be motivated to produce a high quality presentence report.
In this particular instance Mr. Keve was speaking of the
frequent lack of concern of judges, for it is known that
many read the presentence report hurriedly or only review

the probation agent's summary and recommendations.6

6Paul W. Keve, "Professional Character of the Pre-
sentence Report," Federal Probation, XXVI (June, 1962), 52.

 

This leads one to question whether the report is too
lengthy for the judge to read. In another source, Keve
suggests that the report, written with proper subheadings,
makes it possible for the judge to review only the sections
he feels important.

If the judge always receives reports from us that follow
exactly the same format, with the same headings in the
same order, he becomes familiar with this format and
can read more readily any particular category of infor-
mation he may especially want.7

The question can be raised that perhaps this is poor
practice because under such circumstances the judge is
basing his decisions on only certain types of information,
taken out of the context of a report presenting all the
information available about the offender.

Vernon Fox, formerly with the Michigan Department of
Corrections has done an excellent job pointing out that
there is a great discrepancy between theory and practice in
probation when he stated:

There are few fields of human endeavor where theory

and practice are farther apart, . . . than in the field
of juvenile and adult corrections.

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency has

stated that: "Only on the basis of a presentence

 

7Paul W. Keve, The Probation Officer Investigates
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961f: p. 52.

8Vernon Fox, "Probation and Parole: Theory vs.
Practice," Crime in America, Herbert A. Block, editor (New
York: Philosophical Library, 1961), p. 131.

investigation can the judge be sufficiently informed to
The presentence report

decide upon the best disposition."

is probably the most significant development in the dis-
Its use by

position of criminal cases in recent years.

the courts continues to increase throughout the country.

Many judges consider it an indispensible part of the sen-
tencing process. However, it is only as good a sentencing
tool as the agent who prepares it.10 That is, probation

agents do not normally have any formal training in the
Because of the limi-

preparation of presentence reports.

tations in time, the agent must frequently be selective in
His selections

gathering information about the offender.
will more than likely be based on his own personal biases.

In addition, it would be assumed that not every agent has

excellent abilities of communication in a written form.

The conflict between theory and practice is pointed

to by Arthur Miles, who has done some research into the use

of presentence reports.

Within the last ten years, however, there have been
numerous questions raised about the validity of exten—

sive case records in social agencies.

 

éggandard Probation and Parole Act (New York:
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1964), p. 18.

"Studying the Offender Before the
21.

loJohn R. Manson,
Court," Federal Probation, XXXIII (June, 1969),

llArthur P. Miles, "The Utility of Case Records in
Probation and Parole," Journal of Criminal Law Criminology
and Police Science, LVI (September, I965), 287.

It cannot be readily ascertained that many people
have been questioning the value of the presentence report
from the theoretical basis but Miles' statement indicates
that there is an increasing doubt as to the historical
assumptions about the content of the presentence report.

The President's Crime Commission points out that:
". . . the lack of adequate dispositional information of the
sort corrections could provide . . . is without a doubt a

12 This also raises

major cause for irrational sentencing."
questions as to the validity of the traditionally accepted
method of preparing and presenting presentence reports.
This contention is supported by a further statement of the
Crime Commission:
Experimentation with new and simpler forms of presen-
tence investigation is important for reasons beyond the
conservation of scarce resources of probation offices.
Presentence reports in many cases have come to include
a great deal of material of doubtful relevance to dis-
position in most cases.13
Statements from several other sources tend to support
the contention of the Crime Commission. Arthur Miles,
mentioned earlier, points out that.generally, social workers
believe that the more information they have about the case
the greater the probability they will be able to make

appropriate decisions about the man.14 But, David Dressler,

 

lZThe President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice, loc. cit.

l3Ibid. , p. 19.

14Leslie T. Wilkins and Ann Chandler, loc. cit.

 

one of the early authorities in the field of probation and

parole, pointed out that it is easy to put too much irrel-

evant material into the presentence reports on the assump—
15 John

tion that everything possible must be included.

Wallace stated that the reports frequently include minutiae
He further clarifies

which contribute only to their length.

this statement in stating that:

Although much of the information now included in our
reports is valuable to subsidiary users - probation
staff, correctional institutions, parole boards, clinics,
social work agencies - it is not so valuable to the
judge, for whom the reports were supposed to have been
Many judges use the sum-

designed in the first place.
mary or evaluation rather than the entire report

itself.16
The Crime Commission summarizes the various Opinions

in stating that such feelings have caused some authorities

to raise questions as to the need for the kind and quantity
17

of information that is typically gathered and presented.

Much of the traditional theory about the presentence
report tends to create problems. The theory that a presen—
tence report is needed in every case has much support but as

wallace pointed out, this theory continues to create prob-
18

lems until it is decided what constitutes a good report.

Probation and Parole (New York:
44.

 

lsDavid Dressler,
Columbia University Press, 19517, p.

hn A. wallace, op. cit., p. 125.

 

l6JO
17The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice, loc. cit.

loc. cit.

 

18John A. wallace,

10

Arthur Miles, mentioned earlier, after completing a

research project on the use of case records came to the

conclusion:

The limited use of case records plus the tremendous
amount of staff time devoted to the preparation and
maintenance of records indicates that revisions of the

recording system are needed.

The next problem which comes to mind concerns who
will do the research necessary to develop a better system.
There is little need to discuss the confusion that would

result if each probation agent were to develop a form to

suit his own needs. The individual probation office is not

in a good position to evaluate its own position much less

to examine the methods of others. One major factor impeding

the development of new reports is the legal system through

which probation operates. Because of this legal framework

it is difficult for probation offices to experiment in the

treatment of offenders.20 As an obvious example, in Mich—

igan, one could not perform an experiment in which a group
of felons is sentenced without benefit of a presentence
report and compare;& to a group which is sentenced on the

basis of a presentence report because the presentence

report is required by law for all felons.

 

lgArthur P. Miles, op. cit., p. 293.

zoEdward M. Taylor and Alexander W. McCachern,
and Directions in Probation Training," Federal Probation,

"Needs

XXX (March, 1966), 24.

11

Another major problem which indicates that revision
is needed concerns the time factor. According to Leon Sims,
one of the most frequent complaints probation agents express
concerning their job pertains to a lack of sufficient time
to complete thorough presentence investigations and re-
ports.21

Several British authors have pointed out that fre-
quently the presentence report must be completed in a short
time and therefore the agents must be selective in gathering
information. The amount of information which can be accum-
ulated is limited by cost factors as well as time.22 In
U.S. courts generally the probation agent has sufficient
time to complete the report but when the number of reports
plus the normal supervision caseload are considered, time
is at a premium.

. . . (A) probation officer may spend fifty to eighty-
five percent of his time on presentence investigation
reports. This disproportionate amount of effort spent
in the presentence investigations detracts from the
quality of supervision that can be given to proba—
tioners.

As a result, probation agents, contrary to theory,

do not gather all of the information available about the

 

21Leon Jr. Sims, "Pre-arraingnment Investigations:
A Partial Solution to the Time Problem," Federal Probation,
XXVIII (March, 1964), 24.

22

 

Leslie T. Wilkins and Ann Chandler, loc. cit.

23Vernon Fox, 0p. cit., p. 133.

12

offender. Selectivity must be exercised in the gathering

of information in order to make effective use of the time.24
Some authorities contend that the time element, while

important, is of far less concern than quality.25 While

others feel that quality does not depend solely on the

26 If the former

veracity of the information provided.
contention is to be accepted, then those who believe in the
traditional method of preparing presentence reports must
give that function precedence over the supervision duties
of the probation agent. Or more appropriately stated:
Thus the investigative process (is) as important as the
rehabilitation process. It is, in fact, of greater
importance, since it is the bedrock of treatment.
Quantitatively it is now the most significant part of
all probation work . .
But if the latter statement above is to be accepted, then
it becomes necessary to examine the relationship between
the theory of the presentence report and practice. It

becomes necessary to examine the value of the traditionally

accepted format and content of the report.

 

24Harvey Treger, "A Meaningful Inquiry Into the Life
of an Offender,“ Crime and Delinquency, XI (July, 1965),
255.

 

25Barbara A. Kay and Clyde B. Vedder, Probation and
Parole (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1963), p. 12.

 

26Graham B. Parker, "Use of the Presentence Report,
Legal and Social Role of the Probation Officer in the Sen-

tencing Process," The Canadian Bar Review, XLII (September,
1964), 627.

27

 

Barbara A. Kay and Clyde B. Vedder, op. cit., p. 35.

13

Hypothesis 1.--It is presumed that the majority of
probation agents and administrative personnel do not accept
the contention that presentence investigations are the major
function of the probation agent. At least, the investiga-
tive duties must not become so important as to detract from
the supervisory function of the probation agent. Therefore,
it is the purpose of this study to examine some of the
traditionally accepted notions regarding form and content
of the report. Because the project was suggested by the
Michigan Department of Corrections, it is also presumed
that at least in that department, there is a certain amount
of discontent concerning the traditional report.

The major hypothesis of this study is: The present
form and content of the Michigan presentence report is
unacceptable to most users of the report. Secondarily,
certain parts of the report are considered more valuable
by most users of the report, and others are considered to
be of such little value that they are rarely used and
should be omitted.

Hypothesis 2,--Another secondary consideration con-

 

cerns the length of service in corrections in relation to
the report. Men who have only been working in the correc—
tional setting a year or two will be more concerned with
writing and using the report in more detail than men who
have been in service for long periods of time. It is

presumed that those who have been using the report for a

14

great number of years, have learned by experience which
sections are important to their decision-making and program
planning functions. The sections which are considered
unimportant are only given cursory attention or perhaps
omitted from consideration entirely.

Some attention will be given to the time factor,
i.e.,how much time is used to prepare reports in relation
to what is theoretically an adequate amount of time to
prepare a report.

Hypothesis 3.--Another secondary hypothesis concerns
the use of the report. Probation agents who write and use
the report in their caseload will consider different parts
of the report more important than prison counselors, the
parole board and parole agents. Of course one can expect
to find individual differences of opinion but it is hypo-
thesized that there will be some general differences of

opinion between the groups and users.

III. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Although it is assumed that the terms probation and
parole are understood, brief definitions are appropriate at
this time to be certain the distinction between the two
functions is fully understood.

The following quote from a text by Charles L. Chute
and Marjorie Bell gives a good, concise definition of

probation:

15

Probation is a procedure under which a defendent, found
guilty of a crime upon verdict or plea, is released by
the court, without imprisonment, subject to conditions
imposed by the court and subject to the supervision of
the probation service.28
Parole is supervision of an offender within the
community after a period of imprisonment, prior to discharge
from legal custody of the prison or corrections department.
There are two primary functions of the probation
agent: first, the preparation of presentence investigation
reports, and second, the supervision of probationers.29
It is felt by some people that the presentence
report is the probation officer's first important function.30
It is questionable as to whether most probation agents hold
this Opinion but there is no empirical evidence which either
supports or refutes the contention.
Because it is difficult to measure good or poor
supervision by the probation agent and success or failure
of the probationer, and because the presentence report

offers something concrete on which the function of probation

can be judged, it is often stated that the presentence

 

28Charles L. Chute and Marjorie Bell, Crime Courts
and Probation (New York: The MacMillan Company, I956),
p. 137.

29Vernon Fox, op. cit., p. 132.

30Paul W. Keve, Prison, Probation, p£_Parole?
(Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, I954),
p. 16.

 

16

report is one of probation's major contributions to the

administration of criminal justice.31

Before going into a more complete definition of the
presentence report, a brief statement from an article by
G. G. McFarlane presents a fairly accurate, short definition
of the presentence report.

The presentence report or social inquiry as it is some-
times called, is basically a fact finding instrument

for the court's use in classifying and sentencing of-
fenders. Ordinarily it contains an inventory of positive
and negative facts in the offender's background and
current situation assembled in a manner so as to high-
light traits, patterns of behavior, strengths and
weaknesses in the subjects personal and social
situation.3

The primary purpose of a presentence investigation
is to aid the court in making an informed disposition in

order that the best rehabilitative program can be formu—

33

lated. Secondarily it is to provide basic background

data for all other agencies in the correctional process.

When the court knows the offender's previous behavior,

reasons for it, and circumstances surrounding it, then

the decision as to the type of treatment needed will be
more easily determined.3

 

31G. G. McFarlane, "Theory and Developments of Pre-
sentence Reports in Ontario," Canadian Journal pf Correc—
tions, VII (April, 1964), 212.

321bid., p. 201.

33L. Wallace Hoffman, "Analysis of a Presentence
Report," Federal Probation, XIV (December, 1950), 41;
Barbara A. Kay and Clyde B. Vedder, pp; cit., p. 36; Charles
L. Newman, Sourcebook on Probation, ParoIE—and Pardons

(Springfield: Charles—CI Thomas, I964), p. I06.
34

 

 

Ibid.

17

The use of presentence reports indicates an effort
by the courts and the correctional agencies to be much more
involved in the rehabilitation theory of modern penology.
It is a break from the historical method of making the
punishment fit the crime. It is the starting point of an
effort to consider the offender as an individual rather
than only considering the illegal act he committed. The
resulting assumption is that a prOper plan of action can be
decided upon which will be most beneficial to the offender
and his individual problems.35

Presented below is a summary of the presentence
report form and content as it is presented in the Michigan

Department of Corrections, Bureau of Field Services Manual

pf Operations (1969). The entire definition from the Manual

 

is reprinted in Appendix A. This particular definition is
used because this study pertains directly to that form and
the users of it. It must be pointed out that no matter
what source is referred to the content and form of the

presentence report are basically the same, with only minor,

 

 

insignificant variations.36 What has become, through time,
35Paul W. Keve, Prison, Probation, pp Parole, op.
Cit., p. 17.
36

Rather than list the numerous references presenting
form and content of the presentence report, only the four
most frequently referred to are listed here. The American
Correctional Association, Manual pf gp£rectional Standards
(New York: 1964); Paul W. Keve, The Probation Officer
Investigates (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press, 196i); Standard Probation and Parole Act (New York:
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1963); Adminis—
trative Office of the United States Courts, 222 Presentence
%gyestigation Report (Washington: Government Printing Office,
65).

 

 

18

to be accepted as the best way to write a presentence
report is universally accepted as the only method.

The presentence investigation report form is
divided into three parts:

I. The Summary, Evaluation and Plan, and Recommendation

of the probation agent are three subdivisions of Part I,
commonly referred to as the "report to the court.“ This
is the probation agent's summary of Part III, the body of
the report, and his evaluation of the offender and the
recommendations for disposition of the case.

II. The Basic Information Form, Part II, commonly
referred to as the face sheet, is a preprinted form pre-
senting demographic data about the offender.

III. Part III, the Body of the report is divided into

fourteen subdivisions:

(1) Source Of Referral states the court and judge
from whom the referral came.

(2) Sources of Information lists the sources from
which information was obtained concerning the offender.

(3) The Investigator's Version of the offense is a
detailed statement by the probation agent of the circum—
stances surrounding the arrest, confinement and conviction
of the offender.

(4) The Offender's Version of the Offense is the
verbatim statement by the offender concerning his arrest

and reasons for it.

19

(5) The Previous Criminal Record is a complete list
of all previous juvenile and adult arrests and convictions
incurred by the offender.

(6) The Offender's Personal History is a narrative
account of his background and early life.

(7) The Marital History is an account of the of-
fender's marriage (or marriages) including children, and
attitudes and relationships of the offender and his spouse.

(8) Education is a narrative account of the of-
fender's adjustment and progress in school.

(9) Service Record is an account of the offender's
time served in the armed forces.

(10) Employment presents a general picture of the
offender's overall employment history.

(11) Economic Situation lists the offender's assets
and liabilities in terms of income and indebtedness as well
as his ability to handle his finances.

(12) Health presents a history of the offender's
physical and mental health.

(13) Habits and Recreation describes the offender's
leisure time activities.

(14) Religion presents an account of the offender's
religious training and current attitude towards religion.

The problem as it has been presented in this chapter
is basically that the form and content of the presentence

report as it has been developed historically, is

20

traditionally accepted by correctional personnel. Although
complaints have been made as to the shortage of time to
adequately prepare what is traditionally accepted as a good
presentence report, no one has questioned the validity of
the traditional theory. Although this study will not
examine what information is needed in the correctional
processes, it will examine the attitudes of correctional

personnel toward the traditional report form and content.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

For convenience this chapter has been divided into

four subdivisions. The first section titled Historical,

 

presents a brief history of probation and the presentence
report with reference to early literature about the presen-
tence report. The second section, titled Contemporary,
presents the theoretical development of the presentence
report up through the present time. The third section

titled Empirical, presents what little research there is

 

pertaining to the presentence report. The fourth section,

titled, Time Factor ip_Preparation p£_the Presentence

 

Report, presents some empirical data pertaining to the time

involved to prepare a presentence report.

I. HISTORICAL

Probation began in the United States in 1841 in the
city of Boston, Massachusetts. John Augustus, frequently
referred to as the Father of Probation, requested that the
court place in his care, a man convicted of drunkenness, in

lieu of sending him to prison.37 By 1880 probation had

 

37McFarlane, Op. cit., p. 202.

21

22

developed to the extent that the Massachusetts Legislature

passed the first law pertaining to the presentence report.

The Massachusetts Act of 1880, Chapter 129, Section 3

stated:

It shall be the duty of such officer to carefully in-
quire into the character and offense of every person
arrested for crime in the city or town for which he
acts, with a View to ascertaining whether the accused
may reasonably be expected to reform without punishment.

He shall keep a full record of the results of his
investigation.38

In 1911 Illinois became the first state to make the

presentence report mandatory in all cases. Since then,

Arkansas, Idaho, and New Hampshire have followed in enacting
similar laws. At present there are an additional six

states which require a presentence report before probation
can be granted in felony cases. The states of Michigan,

Colorado and California require a presentence report in all

felony cases.39

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the

legality of the presentence report in a case decided in

1949.

The decision known in legal annals as New York v.
Williams, meant . . . that for the first time in its

history . . . the presentence investigation and report,
earned and received validation at the summitt.40

 

38

Ibid.; Chute and Bell, Op. cit., p. 137.
39Chute and Bell, Op. cit., p. 139.
40

Edmond Fitz Gerald, "The Presentence Investiga-

tion," National Probation and Parole Association Journal,
II (October, 1956), 321.

 

23

Williams had argued that for the judge to make
reference to the presentence report at the time of sentenc-
ing was in violation of due process. Williams based his
contention on the grounds that he had not been notified of
any charges put forth in the report and nor was he permitted
to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him.

The Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the presentence
report in ruling against Williams.41

According to Robert M. Carter, of the State of
Washington, Department of Institutions, the presentence
report in use in the United States today can be traced to
1910 at which time William Healy outlined the need for
individual study of the offender. Healy published several
articles pertaining to the need for a presentence report
prior to release of his textbook in 1915, The Individual
Delinqgent (subtitle: A textbook of diagnosis and prog-
nosis for all concerned in understanding offenders). The
form for the presentence report presented by Healy covered
eleven areas: "family history, developmental history,

environment, mental and moral develOpment, anthropometry,

medical examination, psychological data, delinquency record,

 

41Ibid.

24

a diagnostic and prognostic summary, as well as follow up

and subsidiary records.“42

A text by Mary E. Richmond in 1917 and another by

Edwin J. Cooley in 1918 introduced the social casework
approach of social workers which is very much in use today.

It is interesting to note how nearly identical their outline

is to the one currently in use in Michigan. Richmond's and

Cooley's form included such subsections as: general social

data, physical and mental condition, industrial history,
financial situation, education, religious affiliation,

recreation and others.43 It hardly needs to be pointed out

that this social casework approach has been adherred to for

some fifty years with little change.

In 1919 the National Probation Association asserted
that the judge should require a presentence report on all

convicted offenders if they are being considered for pro-

bation.44 Three years later, in 1922, John W. Houston

reconfirmed this contention in stating:

No person should ever be put on probation until a full
investigation has been made by a probation Officer of

 

42Robert M. Carter, "An Alternative Presentence
Report Model for the Division of Probation and Parole, "
Department of Institutions, Division pf Research, Research
Report (Olympia, Washington, 1969), 9.

43Ibid.

44National Probation Association, "Standards of
Effective Probation Work, " Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, X (August, 1919 9), 293

25

his home, family conditions, work record, criminal
record if any, and the general reputation he bears in
the neighborhood in which he lives.45
In 1928, Charles L. Chute, who has become one of
the most widely recognized authorities on the early devel-
opments of probation, pointed out the dual role of the
probation officer.
The principles of probation are: investigation to
establish the history, character, and social setting of
the offender . . . second, out:patient treatment under
strict conditions and competent supervision . . .4
Although the presentence report was initiated ear-
lier in history, the current form and content can be traced
to the period between 1910 and 1920 when Healy, Richmond
and Cooley, in separate texts, introduced the social case-
work method of preparing presentence reports and defined,
from the social casework philOSOphy, the content and form
of the presentence report. As it can readily be observed,
there has been little change in this form of the report.
It was also at this time that the dual functions, investi—
gations and supervision, of the probation agent were defined
and clarified. In the following section, it will be shown

how this basic philoSOphy behind the presentence report has

developed to what the report is today.

 

45John W. Houston, "Right Selection of Probation
Cases, " Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XII

(February, I922 2), 579.

46Charles L. Chute, "The Development of Needs of
Probation Service," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
XVIII (December, 1928 51

26

II. CONTEMPORARY

Philosophy behind the Report.

 

In the U.S. the investigation of criminal cases for
guidance of the court was early recognized as part of
the probation officer's work, but only in recent years,
with the development of larger staffs, has it become a
major division of the service.

Edmund Fitz Gerald points out that one of the major
reasons for the slow development of the presentence report
was that in the smaller communities the judge frequently
knew the offender's background and therefore there was no
need for a presentence report.48 This is not the only
explanation and perhaps not even a major one. At the time
when the sentencing process was concerned primarily with
punishment there was no need for a presentence report for
which a major purpose was to determine prOper sentence from
the rehabilitative standpoint. The presentence report is a
develOpment of the change from a punitive to a rehabilita-
tive philosophy. In light of the changing philOSOphy, the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, was prompted to
point out that the presentence report has many uses in the
correctional process following the sentence.

The report is of indispensible importance to the classi-

fication process and the institutional authorities
generally, as well as the parole board.

 

47Chute and Bell, op. cit., p. 137.

48Fitz Gerald, op. cit., p. 324.

4gstandard Probation and Parole Act, op. cit.,

p. 18.

27

A state government investigating committee, looking into

the prison, probation and parole practices in Pennsylvania
further develOped this notion in stating that: "presentence
investigations and the reports based on them are just as

essential in the control of crime as prison walls and

bars."50

David Dressler, writing twenty years ago, listed
four major purposes of the presentence report:
(1) It aids the court in making an intelligent decision

on what to do.
(2) It serves as a background data toward formulation

of a program for the inmate.
(3) It is the starting point for supervision of the
probationer.

(4) It is an instrument in parole selection and super-
vision.51
In one of the sources mentioned earlier, as a commonly
referred to outline for the presentence report, a fifth
purpose is listed. The presentence report serves as a
source of information for the researcher.52 This purpose
was not referred to earlier in the history of the presen-
tence report because it has been only quite recently that

a concern has developed for research in any of the correc—

tional areas.

 

50Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission,
Penal, Institutions, Probation and Parole (Recommendations
“ a T'__ . c
of the Task Force and Adv1sory Committee. Philadelphia,
1963), p. 15.

51Dressler, Op. cit., p. 39.

52Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Proba-
tion Division, op. Cit., p. 1.

28

The dominating influence of the social casework
method alluded to earlier, becomes quite obvious when one
reviews the definitions of the primary purpose of the

report.

Ben Meeker, twenty years ago, defined the primary

purpose as:
The primary function of a presentence report is to
present the court with a concise, yet adequate, evalua-

tion of all factors which will influence the adjustment
of an offender, either on probation or in confinement.

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency

stated this function as:

The purpose of the presentence investigation is to
present to the court a true picture of the defendant,
revealing his motivations and his capacity for more
orderly living.

The attitude regarding learning about the offender
in order to induce changes in his way of life is aptly

pointed out by Fitz Gerald when he says:

. . . the principal purpose of the investigation report
is to provide the diagnostic information on the basis
of which intelligent and workable retraining programs
can be formulated and carried forward, in or out of
correctional institutions.55

Ideally, a presentence report should be prepared in

every criminal case, attempting to give the judge some

 

53Ben Meeker, "Analysis of a Presentence Report,"
Federal Probation, XIV (March, 1950), 41.

54Standards and Guides for Adult Probation (New
York: National Council on Crime and'Delinquency, 1962),
p. 32.

 

55Fitz Gerald, op. cit., p. 325.

29

explanation for the anti-social conduct of the offender.56

As the Pennsylvania investigating committee, mentioned
above, pointed out, the need for presentence investigations
is particularly obvious in the case of offenders convicted
of more serious offenses calling for imprisonment. The
major reason given was that the offender had to wait as
much as three or four months in a reception center in order
that information could be gathered when no presentence
report had been done, in order to plan a program of treat-
ment for him.57
After completing a very extensive research project
in the Federal Prison system, Glaser made the interesting
conclusion that probation agents tended to give higher
priority to presentence reports. He points out that this
is a pervasive tendency in social casework.58
It is a development often observed also in mental hos-
pitals, juvenile correctional institutions, and prisons.
This is the tendency for diagnostic activities to expand

in volume, in comparison with counseling or other
treatment services.

 

56Parker, op. cit., p. 622.

57Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission,
Op. cit., p. 16.

58Daniel Glaser, The Effectiveness p£_§_Prispp and
Parole System (New York: The Bobbs-MerriIl Company, Inc.,
1964), p. 415.

59

 

 

 

Ibid.

30

This, of course, tends to help explain the rapid growth of
the presentence report in the early twentieth century and
its development to what it is today.

Glaser gives several reasons to explain his conclu-
sions:

(1) Diagnostic reports are usually required by a specific
deadline.

(2) Diagnostic reports are provided for higher officials
while treatment services are generally for persons
not in authority over the caseworker.

(3) Diagnostic activity produces a tangible product in
the report while the results of treatment are not
readily observed.

This third reason is perhaps the most important because it
is reasonable to expect that a caseworker can be more easily
judged and praised on the basis of their written communica-
tions, than on his supervision duties which are not easily
evaluated.61
Harvey Treger, writing as recently as five years
ago, presents excellent arguments in defense of the thor-
ough, detailed, traditionally accepted, social casework
method of preparing presentence reports. For example: the
offender's version of the offense has always been considered
an important section of the presentence report. Treger

contends that this account reveals the offender‘s ability

to assume the responsibility for his actions. When

 

GOIbid.

6lIbid., p. 446.

31

compared with the official version of the offense, the
caseworker can begin to understand the offender's percep-

tions as well as any feelings of shame, remorse, depression

or others.62

In concluding his discussion of the presentence
report, Treger summarizes:
A meaningful inquiry into the life of the offender
should pay particular attention to his significant
relationships as well as to the risks of allowing him
to remain under supervision in the community. Most of
all, we must look not only at the facts we gather, but
also behind them for a deeper understanding so that we
will approach evaluation of the offender in a meaning-
ful way.63
James V. Bennett, formerly the Director of the
Bureau of Federal Prisons, appears to be expressing the
same feelings when he points out that the knowledge of the
life of a man, his background and his family is the only
proper basis for the determination as to his treatment, for
there is no substitute for information.64
Perhaps F. V. Jarvis does a most accurate job of
summarizing the philosophy behind the presentence report.

He states that after reviewing the presentence report, the

court will presumably have a first hand picture of the

 

62Treger, Op. cit., p. 251.

63Ibid., p. 255.

64United States Congress, Senate, Committee on the
Judiciary, Of Prisons and Justice: A Selection g£_the
Writin s of James 2; Bennett, 88 Congress,fi2ndISessi33
(WashingtOH: Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 332.

 

32

defendant, his family, and his home conditions. The court
should know his attitude to his family and their feelings
toward him. The court should also know his attitude to
employment or school, his present offense and any previous
ones. All this will give the court a understanding of what
sort of man he is, whether he is a leader or follower,
gregarious or isolated, normal or inadequate, healthy or

65 Without

sick, casually delinquent or habitually criminal.
such a comprehensive social history, the court would be
compelled to impose sentence without a full understanding
of the man.

Therefore, the dominant philosophy underlying the
presentence report could be simply stated as the need for
as much information about the social history and development
of the offender. This led to the development of the tradi-
tional presentence report. The primary purpose, historically
and at present, of the presentence report is to provide a
complete "picture" of the defendant to the court in order
that the proper sentence can be chosen. In addition the
report is indispensible to the other agencies in the cor-
rectional process for it is the major source and often the

only one of background information about the offender.

Practical Considepations p£_Style and Format.--

 

Although most presentence report guides are basically the

65Jarvis, op. cit., p. 54.

33

same, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency has

pointed out that no one format can be said to be the best

one.66 For example, William B. Herland lists twenty six

questions which must be answered about the offender in the

report. These questions encompass the entire recommended

content of the traditional report.67

One point which is universally accepted concerns
the probation agent's summary and recommendations.

A probation report should carefully and deliberately
advise for or against probation, having in mind: (1)
the prospect of rehabilitation; (2) the risk of recid-
ivism; (3) the need to protect society; and (4) the
need to incarcerate because of the gravity of the
offense.68

Speaking with reference to style, Paul Keve, perhaps
the most widely recognized authority on the presentence
report, makes the suggestion:

Style should be determined mainly by utilitarian consid—
erations, but it can still have warmth and feeling. It
needs to be simple and direct, find its greatest virtue

in its self-effacement and its ability to carry immed-
iately understandable meaning in every line.

 

 

66Standards and Guides for Adult Probation, Op.
Cit., p. 35.
67

William B. Herland, "When & How a Sentencing
Judge Should Use Probation," Federal Rules Decisions, III
(October, 1964), 487.

68Francis S. Boldue, "A Reappraisal of Probation,"
The New Jersequar.Association Probation Committee, XII
(1963i, p. 6.

69Keve, The Probation Officer Investigates, Op.
cit., p. 41.

 

 

 

34

Keve also stresses the need for objectivity.

One goal of great importance that is closely allied
with style is objectivity. Even if the investigation
is done with great skill and thoroughness the report
will be very unworthy if it is written subjectively.7O

Keve suggests the report should be a story about
the defendant. It should be very evaluative, not merely a
listing of facts. Conversational rather than formal language
should be used. He suggests rewriting all presentence.

reports in order to smooth them out although he raises the

obvious concern about the availability of time to do this.71

John R. Manson makes the obvious statement that:

"The most important interview the probation officer conducts

72

is With the defendant." It is important that the proba-

tion agent gain an insight into the offender's problems,
particularly those leading to the incident and any other
offenses. Information about his family and marital rela-
tionships is important in determining how he was disciplined
and how he reacted to it. A history of offenses may indi-
cate long standing problems with authority figures as well

as other problems in relationship to his wife and

offspring.73

7OIbid., p. 44.

71Ibid., pp. 40-50.

Keve, "Professional Character of the Pre-Sentence
Report," Op. cit., pp. 55-56.

72Manson, Op. cit., p. 19.

73Treger, Op. cit., pp. 251-253.

35

Albert Wahl points out that verification of the
facts in a man's history frequently require contact with
family members, schools or employers, friends and others.
It is through this method that the information can be eval-

uated as to reliability and bias. "While this takes a long

time it goes a long way toward avoiding faulty conclusions."74

The problem of time in verifying information about
the offender has been considered by many. Manson and The
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Adminis-
tration of Justice make some interesting suggestions to
make the process more efficient. Manson states:

The use of standardized forms to secure information from
community sources has taken on increased use in recent
years . . . The specially designed forms are time saving
and convenient. The use of such forms is justified,
especially when forms elicit impersonal information

The President's Crime Commission suggests a slightly

different approach.

Much information of this kind can also be collected by
non-professional personnel under the superV1S1on of
trained correctional staff.76

The above considerations are particularly relevant
when considering Vernon Fox's statements concerning the

discrepancies between theory and practice on the presentence

74A. Wahl, "If I were a Judge," Federal Probation,
XXVI (June, 1962), p. 41.

75Manson, op. cit., p. 20.

76Task Force Report: Corrections, op. cit., p. 19.

36

report. The volume of work to be done by the probation
agent and the attitude of the judge toward the presentence
report may render a particular situation at variance with
the theory. Overworked probation agents spend a considerable
amount of their time preparing these reports and yet fre-
quently they are not so detailed as theory would have.77

Edmund Fitz Gerald has taken a somewhat different
approach in justifying the time spent to prepare presentence
reports by concluding that investigation is the most import-
ant function of the probation agent. In Fitz Gerald's
opinion, investigation is more important than treatment
because it is the bedrock of treatment.78

James V. Bennett hints that he may hold the same

opinion when he says that reducing caseloads leaves more

time for presentences, the result of which is more valid

79
sentences.

Stylistically, the presentence report should be
simple and direct yet it should not be merely a listing of
facts. The report should present a story about the offender.
Several sources mentioned above suggest that the probation
agent should be more concerned with the presentence report
than supervision because the former is more important. It

has been suggested that using non-professional personnel to

 

77Fox, Op. cit., p. 133.

78Fitz Gerald, op. cit., p. 324.

79"Of Prisons & Justice," 02. Cit. p p. 332.

37
gather much of the factual information would leave more

time for verification and interpretation by the probation

agent, resulting in a more detailed, well written presen-
tence report.

The Judge's Concern.-—Since the development of the
presentence report,

intending to give the court a picture

of the offender, the principle has been developed and is

now widely accepted that a sentence should be based on

comprehensive and reliable information which is relevant

to the objectives of the court.80

One judge, J. B. Parsons, has pointed out several

factors which sentencing judges should understand, recognize

and realize about presentence reports.

First, the probation
agent realizes that the judge may not and need not follow

his recommendations. Secondly, more than a quick skimming
of the report is necessary to fully understand it.

Thirdly,
the presentence report is used by other agencies in the

criminal justice system.

Lastly, any confidential sources

of information the probation agent may have must remain
confidential.81

Although it is questionable as to how many judges

take an active concern in the presentence report as well as

80

Jarvis, op. cit., p. 45.
81

James Benton Parsons, "Aids in Sentencing,"
§§§§£21_Rules Decisions, XXXV (October, 1964), p, 423_

38
their sentencing function, one conscientious jurist,

George
Boldt, was moved to make the statement:

Presentence reports containing more information
pertinent to the individual offender are becoming

widely recognized as indispensible to a just sentence.
Never,

in determining hundreds of sentences, have I
even tentatively concluded what one should be before

securing and carefully studying a presentence report.82

An interesting development in the sentencing process

occurred in 1960 when the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan located in Detroit, began
using a "sentencing council."

After a conviction or guilty
plea, the judge of jurisdiction and two others review the

presentence report and decide on the sentence as a group.83

Talbot Smith, who was at one time a judge in that

court, after being involved in the sentencing council pro-
cedure, was prompted to say that an extensive presentence

report was the key to the effective use of that system.

Through the use of a work sheet, each judge on the
council is required to summarize the content of the presen-
tence report. Smith feels that this is perhaps the most
valuable part of the sentencing process.

The factors which
must be specifically considered are the likelihood of satis-

factory community adjustment, the offender's work record,

82

George H. Boldt, “Recent Trends in Criminal Sen-
tencing,“ Federal Probation, XXVII (March, 1963), p. 4.

83

Talbot Smith, “The Sentencing Council & The
Problem of Disproportionate Sentences,“ Federal Probation,
XXVII (June, 1963), pp. 2-3.

39

family situation including need for financial support, and

84

the defendant's academic or vocational training needs.
After having worked with the sentencing council

system.for several years, Smith made the conclusion, with

regard to the traditional presentence report form:

There is no doubt that the report described is time
consuming, comprehensive, and eXpensive for the Govern-
ment.

But in light of the purposes accomplished in the

proper sentencing of the defendant, the expenditure
both of time and money is .

. well worthwhile.85
The chief probation agent, Richard Doyle, who

helped originate the sentencing council system was led to

conclude after five months of operation:

Although the council has been in Operation for only a
limited period, it has served to demonstrate that when
two or more judges individually review and appraise the
presentence material on a given defendant, divergent
opinions as to sentencing considerations and disposi-
tions frequently result. 6

This conclusion raises some interesting doubt as to

the value of the presentence report and the role of the

judge in the sentencing process. For if several judges
reach different conclusions as to sentence, based on the

same report, what value can be placed in that report. One
would presume that if the sentencing process were formalized

and/or professionalized, that different judges would reach

Ibidol Pp. 6‘7.

8SIbid., p. 7.

86

Richard F. Doyle, "A Sentencing Council in Opera—
tion," Federal Probatigp, XXV (September, 1961), p. 30.

40
similar conclusions based on a presentence report.

The
fact that judges do not reach similar conclusions, raises

the question as to whether the report provides the kind of

information necessary for the judge to base his decision as

to most appropriate sentence.

Although there is some question as to whether all
judges use the presentence report to the extent that it is
intended, it must be assumed that judges recognize the

value and role of the presentence report.

The report
should be reviewed in its entirety and the sentence should

be based on a consideration of all factors, not just a
particular part of the report.

The develOpment of the
Sentencing Council in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan raises some interesting

questions as to whether the use of a presentence report

does result in a prOper sentence.

Leggl Considerations.--Because it is not within the
scope of this study, a review of the literature concerning
confidentiality of the presentence report is not included.
There are other legal considerations which need mentioning.

Foremost among these is the Williams vs. New York case,

mentioned previously, the result of which was legitimization

of the presentence report by the Supreme Court of the
United States.

41
In Michigan a presentence investigation report is

required by law in all felony cases and may be requested by
the judge in misdemeanor cases.87

The Model Sentencing Act drawn up by the Advisory

Council of Judges of the National Council on Crime and

Delinquency, in Article II sections II and III, defines the

presentence report and makes it mandatory in all felonies.

It is not known how many states have adopted these acts or
similar ones.

The Michigan statute is very similar in
wording and meaning.88

In 1963 a New Jersey Appellate Court rejected a

presentence report under the existing New Jersey statute

and thereby defined what they considered to be an inadequate
report (State v. Leckis, 79 N.J. Super. 479). The majority
of the report pertained to details of the offense taken
from the prosecutor's files.

It lacked any resemblance to
what is defined as an adequate presentence report.

There is little in the report that would give a judge
an accurate idea of defendant's personal background -
his mentality, personality, habits and the like - or of
the family background which would give the case a
meaningful setting.

So much depends upon the completeness and balanced
presentation of a presentence report that anything

87

J. M. Henderson (ed.), Michigan Statutes Annotated
(Chicago: Calagan and Company, 1938i] Sec. 28.1144, p. 473.
88

"Model Sentencing Act - Text & Commentary," Crime
and Delinquency, IX (October, 1963), pp. 347-348.

 

42

less would fall short of providing the sentencing judge
with the information he must have in order to impose a
just sentence.

In consideration of the time factor, some courts
have begun doing prearraignment investigations. The defend-
and is asked to sign a consent form before the investigation
is started. This method is particularly helpful in juris-
dictions where the courts have terms and if the probation

staff waited until after conviction they would have a heavy

load during the court term and a light load between terms.90

Leon J. Sims points out that some people have ob-
jected to this method because it jeopardizes the rights of
the defendant. But Sims does not feel that this is a valid

objection so long as the offender understands the procedure

and gives his consent freely.91

Another legal consideration which has aroused much

controversy concerns the practice, common in Canada, of

submitting the report to the defendant for his evaluation.92

Sol Rubin defends this practice in stating:

Giving the defendant access to the report and opportu—
nity to comment on it, even to controvert it, protects
not only the defendant but also the court against error.
Because probation staffs are inadequate in most

89Sol Rubin, "Developments in Correctional Law,"
Crime and Delinquengy, XI (April, 1965), p. 193.

90Sims, op. cit., p. 24.

911bid., p. 26.

92McFarlane, op. cit., p. 211.

43

departments in numbers and quality, it cannot be assumed

that the reports are complete and accurate. Disclosures

to the defendant would militate against laxity in the

investigation, carelessness in writing of the report,

and rubberstamping of the report by the judge.93

As it has been presented in contemporary literature,

the purpose of the presentence report is primarily for the
judge upon which he can base sentence; secondarily, it is
the major informational tool for the entire correctional
process. If the report is adequately and properly prepared,
it presents a complete story of the defendant. The judge,
presumably, will be able to determine the most appropriate
sentence, based on this report, therefore.it is perhaps one
of the most important functions in the correctional process.
But, the experiences with the sentencing council in the
federal court in Detroit raise doubt as to the validity of
making such a definitive statement, since judges can decide
on entirely different sentences from the same presentence
report. The problem of confidentiality has not been con—
sidered but some advantages can be seen in the practice of
allowing the defendant to review the report. The validity

of the presentence report process was upheld by the Supreme

Court in Williams vs. New York.

93Sol Rubin, The Law pf Criminal Correction (St.
Paul: West Publishing Company, 1963i, p. 92.

44

III. PREVIOUS EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Very little has been done in the area of research
on the probation department and the presentence investiga-
tion report. Several researchers have been concerned with
the time factor in relation to preparation of the presen-
tence report. This will be discussed in the following
section.

David Gronewold, in 1957, conducted a survey of the
practices of federal probation agents. In drawing conclu-
sions with reference to the presentence report, he stated
that the probation agent refers to a wide variety of sources
in gathering data about the offender. Gronewold determined
that the most frequently referred to sources are the of—
fender himself, his relatives, employers and law-enforcement
and juvenile court personnel.94

Roger Hood did an interesting study in England in
an attempt to determine if the presentence report increased
the ability of the Court to choose the sentence which would
stop the offender from offending again. After presentence
reports had been in use in the district which he studied
for four years, the judges, when polled, felt the reports

were beneficial in deciding sentence. Hood's concern was

\

1.

94David H. Gronewold, "Presentence Investigation
Practices in the Federal Probation System,“ Federal Proba-
tion, XXII (September, 1958), p. 31.

If

 

45

whether the sentence was appropriate. Two samples of 100
offenders were defined and a presentence report was prepared
for one group but not the other.

Both of the groups in the sample had similar prior
conviction rates. That is, sixty-five members of each
sample of one hundred offenders had a previous conviction.
After several years had elapsed, a follow up study was done
which found that forty—three members of each group were
convicted of a new offense. This result would lead one to
believe that the use of the presentence report had no effect
on the ability of the judge to choose the proper sentence
which would result in rehabilitation of the offender. This
assumes that recidivism is an accurate measure of rehabili-
tation, however the results do raise questions as to the
traditionally accepted purpose of the report, i.e., to provide
information to the judge upon which he can base the
sentence.

In concluding his study, Hood makes excuses for the
results. "I hope no one will take the evidence of this
study as proving that information, as such, is unnecessary."95

Arthur P. Miles completed a study of "The Utility

of Case Records in Probation and Parole, which examines

95Roger Hood, "A Study of the Effectiveness of
Pre-Sentence Investigations in Reducing Recidivism," The
British Journal of Criminology, VI (July, 1966), pp. 303-
'“310“'". W ""

 

46

the use of the entire case report, and is not limited to
the presentence report itself. But some of his conclusions
have many implications for the presentence report.

In introducing his research, Miles points to a
study of two family service agencies in Chicago:

. . . the study concluded that the supervisory process

is based mainly upon verbal communication. The super-

Zizprgéaghiy found:i spgnt only eight percent of their

9 recor 5.

Four major uses of the case records by probation
and parole agents were found:

(1) the record serves as a guide to case activity; (2)
the record makes possible a smooth transition from one
agent to another; (3) the record provides information for
planning future action in the case; (4) the record is used
in supervision of the offender.

Although they said they did, it was found that
supervisors of probation and parole agents do not rely on
case records. Supervision is based more on oral
communication.

Miles also found that the administrative personnel
in the central office preferred abbreviated records to the

extensive recording common to most case records because it

was easier to locate specific facts in a short period of

time.

96Miles, "The Utility of Case Records on Probation
& Parole," op. cit., p. 287.

47

Miles further pointed out that the records were
used extensively by graduate students for research purposes.
They wanted basic factual data and were unconcerned with

the dynamics of psychological interaction between probation

or parole agents and the offender.97

Two interesting research projects have been com—
pleted which have attempted to examine the probation agent's
decision making duties with reference specifically to the
recommendation in the presentence report for imprisonment
or probation.

Leslie Wilkins and Ann Chandler, in an article
"Confidence and Competence in Decision Making,"98 conclude,
after completing a research project in England, that the
method by which the agent seeks information appears to be
the important factor. That is, the agent's pattern of
selection seems to be the important factor resulting in
successful decision making.

Chandler and Wilkins concluded that the probability
that an agent would change his decision decreased as the
amount of information available upon which to base the
decision increased. But they found that a change in the
agent‘s decision was not related to his degree of confi-

dence in the decision, because the degree of confidence did

 

97Ibid., pp. 289-292.

98Wilkins, Op. cit., pp. 25-34.

48

not increase as the amount of information increased. If

the decision was changed with an increase in information,

it most likely was changed to a more lenient recommendation.

It was found that the degree of confidence in the decision

was highly correlated with ease in making the decision.
Perhaps the most surprising result is the lack of any
consensus among trained officers as to the value of the
information in decision making.99

Wilkins and Chandler concluded that the method of
seeking and using information bears no relationship to the
type of decision made. The way in which people seek and
utilize information in the course of decision making, they
said, appears to be characteristic of the persons concerned
rather than the types of decisions.

Joseph Lohman, Albert Wahl and Robert Carter have
recently completed an extensive research project on proba-
tion, from the School of Criminology, University of Calif—
ornia. One part of that project, "Decision - Making and
the Probation Officer: The Presentence Report Recommenda-
tion," is of particular concern.

This project resulted in several interesting con-
clusions regarding the information contained in the pre-
sentence report. “It is clear that most of the data

collected in the presentence report investigation is not,

 

991bid., p. 28.

49

in fact, employed in the develOpment of a recommendation."100

The authors point out that this conclusion has no bearing
on the use of the information in other agencies in the
correctional process.

This leads to speculation as to how much presentence
investigation time is utilized to gather information
which may be of very minor significance in making a
recommendation. But in a more positive sense, how long
does it take to gather the "essential" information -
information on the current offense, prior record, and
so on. It also raises the question of whether probation
officers, once they have "decided" on a recommendation
for a specific case early in the presentence investiga-
tion, conduct the balance of their investigation in
search of further information which justifies the pre-
viously made decision, rather than seeking information
which might lead to a modification or rejection of that

decision.

These research projects raise several questions as
to the value of the presentence report. If decisions are
based on limited information why is it necessary to attempt
to gather volumes of information? If the presentence report
has no effect on whether the offender receives a sentence
which results in his avoiding further criminal activities,
what is its value in the sentencing process? Perhaps the
most obvious conclusion which could be drawn is that further

research is needed as to what types of information about

 

100Joseph D. Lohman, Albert Wahl, and Robert Carter,

Decision Making & The Probation Officer: The Pre-Sentence

Re ort RecommendEtion TUniversity of California School of

Cr1m1noIOgy, Research Report IV. Berkeley, California:
University of California Press, 1966), p. 17.

lollbid., p. 19.

50

the offender have predictive validity regarding his future
behavior. In addition it is recognized that judges have a
limited selection as to the types of sentences available,

therefore, the problem lies in the system, not only in the

presentence report as one part of the system.

IV. TIME FACTOR IN PREPARATION OF
THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

A concern over the time element as it pertains to
the two functions of the probation agent, investigation and
supervision, can be traced back to 1919 in a statement by
the National Probation Association:

Care should be exercised on the part of judges and
magistrates throughout the country lest the making of
preliminary investigations requires so much of the time
of probation officers as to prevent them from properly
performing their principal duties of looking after and
aiding persons who are placed on probation. 02

Contemporary authors apparently feel that the time
element, although important, is not of as major concern as
quality or quantity of the report. Of course, one of the
primary conditions affecting the adequacy of the investi-

gation is the work load of the probation agent. It has

been recommended that a minimum of three to four weeks is

. t 103
necessary for the completion of a repor .

 

102"standards for Effective Probation Work," op.
cit., p. 293.
103The American Correctional Association, Op. cit.,

Standards and Guides for Adult Probation, Op. cit., p. 23;
Ray and Vedder, op. Cit., p. 41.

 

51

The President's Crime Commission was prompted to
point out that the completion of the standard report is
extremely time consuming.

A probation officer should adequately prepare no more
than ten such reports during a month — and that exclu-
31ve of any other dut1es.1O

Only a few research projects have been completed
which deal directly with questions relating to the time
factor. Arthur Miles, researching in the Wisconsin system,
found that the probation agent spends as much as sixty
percent of his time in "indirect activities," i.e., not
directly related to supervision or investigation.105

Albert Wahl and Daniel Glaser conducted a fairly
extensive time study in a federal probation office in
California. It was found that the presentence investigation
and report was the most time consuming activity of the
agents, who handle both probation and parole caseloads.
Approximately one—third of the agent's time is spent on
presentence reports. Slightly less, twenty-nine percent
is spent in supervision. Thirty percent of the agent's
time is spent in the office with half of this time spent

on paperwork.106

—_

104Task Force Report: Corrections, 02: cit., p. 18.

 

105Arthur R. Miles, "Wisconsin Studies of the
Function of Probation & Parole," The American Journal pf
ggrrections, XXVII (March, 1965), p. 23.

106Albert Wahl and Daniel Glaser, "A Pilot Time
Study of the Federal Probationer's Job," Federal Probation,
XXVII (September, 1963): PP. 21-24.

 

52

This research served as one pilot study for a much
more extensive examination of the entire correctional
process by a team of researchers directed by Daniel Glaser.
The final report of this research is a book by Glaser: TEE

Effectiveness pf’g Prison and Parole System. Glaser found

 

 

that the Federal probation agent spent roughly eighty per-
cent of his time on probation activity. Half of this was
spent on presentence investigations. One—third of the
probation agent's total working time was spent in report
writing.107

Glaser makes the conclusion:

Apparently the demands of the federal probation job
relationships rather than the officer's preferences,
account for the time given presentence work.

As a result of his research, Glaser makes the in-
teresting observation concerning the value of the time
spent on presentence reports:

. . . it may frequently be the case that many of the
hours invested in diagnosis, by helping a court to
achieve wise sentencing decisions, contribute more to
crime reduction than would the same number of hours in
added supervision services.10

A study of the Grand Rapids Probation Office in the
Michigan Department of Corrections found that agents were
spending three to four hours total, spread over two to three

107Glaser, op. cit., pp. 442-443.

lOBIbid., p. 445.

1°9Ibid., p. 446.

53

weeks to complete a presentence report. Although it was
determined that these figures presented averages somewhat
lower than was actually the situation, these figures point
to grave discrepencies between theory and practice. The
agents in this sample were completing ten investigations
per month at the same time they were carrying supervision
case loads of seventy to eighty. The time figures in this
study were low, but even if the agent was spending twice as
much time on presentence reports, it still would not be
equal to that recommended by theory.110
Glaser's study, mentioned earlier, showed only one
hour per month per probationer for supervision.lll How
much supervision can be accomplished in so little time?
Of course this is a mean or per capita time and it can be
presumed that more difficult cases receive more time while
others receive less time. But this still appears that
little time remains for supervision of probationers.
Vernon Fox has stated that the congruency between
theory and practice is dependent upon, among other things,
"environmental factors which militate against the applica—

tion of theory, such as overwhelming caseloads."112

—_

110Henry B. Risley, "An Analysis of the Time Factor
as it Relates to the Presentence Investigation Report,"

(Unpublished Research, Michigan State University, E. Lansing,
1969).

lllGlaser, op. cit., p. 444.

112Fox, op. cit., p. 131.

54

The solution to these problems lies not in further
research of the problems directly related to the time-
function problem. Nor is the answer to blindly add addi-
tional manpower without asking why and for what they are
most needed. That is, it is common practice to hire more
probation agents as the caseload increases. These agents
are assigned the same functions as those already employed
with the intention that there will be more time for presen—
tence reports and supervision. There have been few at-
tempts to examine these functions to determine if they are
the most appropriate in attaining the goals of rehabilita-
tion. The answer lies in a detailed examination of the
presentence report itself. "Theory develOps from observa—

tions of practical situations and events."113

The theory
related to presentence reports was not developed in this
manner but stems from the early part of the century when

guidelines were set down without question as to their

relevance or validity.

 

113Ibid., p. 130.

CHAPTER III

METHODS

As has been mentioned previously, this study was
undertaken at the suggestion and under the direction of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. Questions were raised
as to the validity of the presentence report form (see
Chapter I), which had been in use several years. Many
probation agents expressed the opinion that they were
investing too much time in a report of questionable value.
They questioned the value of the information they gathered
for the report. Did it all need to be in the report? Is
all of the information which should be included used in the

correctional process?

I. THE SAMPLE

It was decided that a representative sample of
probation agents, parole agents, and institutional counsel-
ors was needed in order to determine the value of the report
throughout the entire department. In addition, supervisory
personnel and the parole board were considered to be a

necessary part of the sample.

55

56

In order to distinguish between geographic areas,
population size of the territory in which the field agent
worked was used as the critical factor. Three sampling
strata were used: (1) a large metrOpolitan area, Detroit;
(2) medium sized cities and surrounding urban area (popula-
tion over 75,000); and (3) rural areas where the town in
which the field agent's office is located has a pOpulation
of less than 10,000.

In order to reduce the total number of field agents
in the three strata to a workable number, a table of random
numbers was used. It was also decided that the large met-
ropolitan area, Detroit, should represent about one—half of
the sample because approximately half of the population of
Michigan is located in the city of Detroit.

The total number of thirty-eight parole agents in
Detroit was reduced to twenty-five, by random selection.
The total of one hundred and seventy probation agents in
Detroit was reduced to fifty, by random selection.

The total of thirty—two supervisors of probation
agents in Detroit was reduced by random selection to eight,
in order that the proportion be equal to that of the total
of the other supervisors and similar to the reduction in
the number of agents in the sample.

Six smaller cities, referred to generally as urban
centers, were chosen, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing, Saginaw,

Pontiac and Kalamazoo. Only one, Pontiac is close to

57

Detroit. It was intended that the cities would be located
outside the Detroit area, therefore,no others close to
Detroit were used. All of the field agents in these areas
were included in the sample--forty-two probation agents and
twenty-one parole agents. The five supervisors who are
responsible for the regions within which these cities lie
were included in the sample of supervisors.

Ten agents were located who had jurisdiction over
two counties, had an office in a small city or town, and
performed both probation and parole duties. This represents
the rural sample.

The total of forty-four institutional, prison and
conservation camp, counselors was reduced, by random sel-
ection, to twenty.

Also included are the five parole board members.

The resultant total number of cases to be examined was one
hundred and eighty-six.

The decision was made not to include judges in the
sample. Because of the method of appointment, judges are
not trained nor do they usually have any experience in the
correctional process. Although, traditionally, the presen—
tence report is primarily intended for use by the judge in
proper determination of sentence, it was felt that judges
more frequently are concerned with legal restrictions in
sentencing and public sentiment, in addition to any personal

biases they may have. Several probation agents expressed

58

the feeling that judges would accept any form of report
handed them. This tends to indicate that judges do not
have soundly based opinions on what constitutes a good
report. Therefore any suggestions judges may have would
be based on personal preferences which are not founded on
experience or training in the correctional functions.
Therefore it was decided that any recommendations from
judges would be less relevant than those Of correctional
personnel who have, if not training, at least experiences

to temper their decisions.

II. THE TECHNIQUE

Originally the possibility of interviewing the
subjects was considered. This idea, although deemed a
better method, had to be rejected because of limitations
in time and financial resources. Therefore a mailed ques—
tionnaire was develOped, a reproduction of which is included
in Appendix B. No figure was put forth as the expected
number of replies necessary to complete the study because
it was felt that a great percentage would reply. The ques~
tionnaire went out to department personnel on departmental
stationary under a deputy director's signature.

In order to validate the hypothesis that the members
of the department are dissatisfied with the current presen—
tence report form and content, questions four and five

pertain directly to that form and content. These questions

59

call for value judgments of the respondent as to his feel—
ings about the different sections of the report in its
current form. Question six deals with content of the report
and is intended to determine just what content is felt to
be a necessary part of the report and what is considered
unnecessary or at least not really needed.

Two different sets of questions are included on two
different third pages of the questionnaire. The probation
agents were questioned regarding their caseload size, and
number and length of presentence reports they prepare.
Additional questions pertain to their feelings about writing
reports for the judges. The third page for parole agents
and counselors contains questions concerning usage of the
various sections of the report.

One question included on both third pages, and
requiring a yes or no answer, asks whether the respondent
would be agreeable to a specific new form of the report
Which is in use in two other states.

Questions one through three on the first page con-
cern experience and education. It is presumed there will
be differences in the responses which are related to type
of education and length of service in the field of
corrections.

The questionnaire was pretested on a sample of field
agents and counselors to determine if anything about it was
unclear or misunderstood. After some minor problems in

clarity were corrected it was distributed to the sample.

60

III. ANALYSIS

Simple descriptive statistics were used to describe
the opinions of the various groups in the sample.

Length of service and education were related to
value judgments of the current presentence report form as
well as the type of content desired and usage.

It is hypothesized that institutional personnel
will feel the need for more information than the other
groups. Therefore frequency distributions were drawn up
for the various groups and an attempt made to analyze any
differences which may appear, i.e.,to determine if responses
made by counselors are significantly different from those
made by other groups.

Hopefully, conclusions can be drawn as to what type
of information is desirable, or at least what type is least
desirable, from the different groups if not from the entire
sample as a whole. Degree of satisfaction can be Speculated
on from the responses in the questions pertaining to the

current form.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE STUDY

For purposes of analysis, the sample is divided into
five groups: probation agents; parole agents; institutional
counselors; field agents handling both probation and parole
cases (hereafter referred to as rural agents); and the
parole board. The sample of probation agents in Detroit
had to be excluded because of a poor return of the ques-
tionnaires. This is perhaps apprOpriate because they are
not employed by the state and are not required to use the
same presentence report form. As a result, the sample of
supervisory personnel also had to be excluded. Over half
of this group was from Detroit and there was no way to
determine which of the less than fifty percent response,

were from Detroit.

Probation — 33 of 41 - or 80%
Parole — 38 of 46 — or 82%
Counselors — 15 of 20 - or 75%
Rural - 10 of 10 - or 100%
Parole Board - _§_of _§'- or 60%
Total 99 of 122

Probation Agents.--Table I presents the results of
the probation agents responses to question four which asked

that they rate the three divisions of the presentence

61

62

report according to which was: (1) most important; (2)
second most important; (3) least important. In order to
rank the responses, each was given a value: three for most
important, two for second most important and one for least
important. Included in Table I is the value score and the

mean score obtained from it as well as the raw scores.

TABLE I

RANK ORDER OF PROBATION AGENTS RATING
OF THE THREE MAJOR DIVISIONS
OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT
(n=33)

 

 

Degree of Importance

 

 

 

Second

Most Most Least Value Score Mean
Part I (l) (2) (3)
Summary and
Recommendations 23 9 l 88 2.7
Part III
The Body 9 l9 5 70 2.1
Part II
Face Sheet 2 4 27 41 1-2

 

Question five asked that the thirteen subdivisions
of Part III The Body of the presentence report be rated on
a scale of one to three: (1) valuable part of the report;
(2) usable but not of major value; (3) of little value.

Each of the raw scores was assigned a value as in Table I

63

in order to obtain a ranking according to importance and a

mean score. The results are presented in Table II.

TABLE II

RANK ORDER OF PROBATION AGENTS RATING OF

THE SUBDIVISIONS OF PART III THE BODY

OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

 

 

 

(n=33)
Value
(1) (2) (3) Score Mean
Previous Criminal Record 30 3 0 96 2.9
Offender's Personal History 27 6 0 93 2.8
Investigator's Version of the
Offense 26 6 1 91 2.8
Employment 25 8 O 91 2.8
Marital History 21 12 0 87 2.6
Offender's Version of the Offense 21 9 3 84 2.5
Education 12 20 1 77 2.3
Economic Situation 10 21 2 74 2.2
Health 7 23 3 70 2.1
Sources of Information 10 16 7 69 2.1
Habits and Recreation 5 15 13 58 1.8
Service Record 2 20 11 57 1-7
1 6 26 41 1.2

Religion

These result

sider most sections as fairly important,

received less than a mean 2.0 response.

5 tend to indicate that probation agents con-

only three parts

64

Question six listed twenty-four kinds of information
which are common in presentence reports. The respondent
was asked to rate each on a five point scale: (1) needed
information in all cases, (2) needed in most cases, (3)
nice to know information in most cases, (4) nice to know in
some cases, (5) not needed information. Table III presents
the number of responses in categories (1) and (2) i.e.,

"needed information."

 

 

 

TABLE III
INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE PROBATION AGENT
(n=33)

Number of

Responses
Prior Record 33
Offense 31
Employment History 30
Family History 25
Marital Status 25
Age 24
Alcoholic Involvement 24
Drug Usage 23
Defendant's Attitude (at the time of sentencing) 23
Psychological/Psychiatric Data 22
Confinement Status (at the time of sentencing) 22
Defendant's Statement 21
Plea 21
17

Residence Data

65

Table III continued.

The remainder of the items are considered needed

information by less than 50% of the respondents.

Homosexuality 16
Medical History 16
Family Criminality 12
Legal Representation 12
Education 11
Place of Birth 9
Race 7
Interests and Activities 6
Military History 6
Religion 1

 

This list is different from Table II in that it
presents somewhat specific informational items rather than
general categories as in Table II. The question required
the respondent to decide if he felt that kind of information
were needed or just something which was nice to know, where
as Table II asked for a choice between important part of
the report or not an important part of the report.

When asked to estimate the number of pages per
presentence report the agent wrote, twenty-nine responses
ranged from three to thirteen pages. The median and the
mean were seven pages. With regard to number of reports

written, the responses ranged from one to twelve presentence

66

reports per month with the mean and median being six reports.
The estimated average supervision caseload size in the

sample being studied ranged from twenty-five to ninety—five.
The median was seventy and the mean sixty-six.

Although a mean response of seven pages per presen—
tence report was lower than expected it remains that quite
a bit of work is necessary to write a: six to eight page
report for each case especially when it is necessary to
prepare six reports per month. As discussed in an earlier
chapter, a probation agent preparing ten presentence reports
per month should have no supervision case load, at least in
theory. These agents in addition to preparing six reports
per month, had case loads of sixty-five to seventy. They
are probably busy men and one or both of these functions
must be suffering, that is not being performed in a theor-
etically proper manner.

Twenty-five agents responded yes to a question
pertaining to their knowledge of the judges preferences
concerning presentence report content. Eight responded
negatively. Twenty-four agents felt the current format
for the presentence report was flexible enough to allow
them to follow these preferences, seven felt it was not.

When asked if they would prefer a new presentence
report form which eliminated Part III, the Body, but had
Parts I and II expanded, sixteen agents responded positively

and fourteen negatively.

67

Many probation agents, fifteen, felt that each
judge had his own peculiar interests which the agent knew
about, some of which resulted in specific requests for
types of information. Eight of the agents stated there was
little or no communication between them and the judge.
Therefore, the judges did not make requests as to kinds of

information to be included.

 

Probation agents were of the opinion, generally,
that the current format of the presentence report was suf-
ficiently flexible to permit the agent to write what the
judge wanted. Only a few agents felt that the report form
was inadequate or asked for too much information.

The three most common sources to which a probation
agent refers for verification of data about the offender,
are school, employer, and family. Neighbors and/or friends
were mentioned in a few cases as was other social and cor-
rectional agencies.

When asked to provide written comment about the
presentence report, few respondents did so. Several agents
cautioned against expanding the face sheet. Several others
wanted to exclude sections of Part III, the Body, but not
the entire Part. Other comments included were: too much
repetition in the current form; include agents in the plan-
ning and development of a new form; and increase the staff
size to permit more time for supervision and a smaller

number of investigations per agent.

68

Although the agents were evenly divided on the
question as to whether they would prefer a new form, it
appears that they would be receptive to a new form. They
are not dissatisfied with the current form generally, only
parts of it. They are apparently of the opinion that they
are capable of determining what should be included in a
report.

Parole Agents.-—Tab1e IV presents a tabulation of

 

the parole agent's responses to question four concerning
the importance of the three subdivisions of the current
presentence report form. Using the same method as was used
for the probation agent sample, the items were ranked ac-

cording to the value score, and the mean was calculated.

TABLE IV

PAROLE AGENTS RATING OF THE THREE DIVISIONS
OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT IN RANK ORDER

 

 

 

Most _ Value
Important Second Least Score Mean
Part III 26 6 3 99 2.7
Part I 7 16 14 69 1.9
Part II 3 14 19 54 1.5

 

Table V presents the parole agents rating of the
subsections of Part III, the Body of the presentence report.
The value score and mean score are included in order that

the sections can be ranked according to importance.

69

TABLE V

PAROLE AGENTS RATING OF THE SUBSECTIONS
OF PART III, RANKED ACCORDING
TO IMPORTANCE
(n=38)

 

 

Most Value
Valuable Second Least Score Mean

 

Offender's Personal

History 33 5 0 109 2.9
Offender's Version of the

Offense 29 7 2 104 2.7
Previous Criminal Record 29 7 0 103 2.9
Employment 26 12 0 102 2.7
Investigator's Version of

the Offense 27 6 5 98 2.6
Health 22 14 2 96 2.5
Economic Situation 20 15 3 93 2.4
Education l9 l7 1 92 2.5
Marital History 18 16 4 90 2.4
Service Record 12 18 8 80 2.1
Habits and Recreation l3 l6 8 79 2.1
Sources of Information l6 l3 9 78 2.0
Religion 5 13 20 60 1.6

Table VI presents the responses of parole agents to
question six which asked for the five point rating of the
twenty-four information items. The list is ranked accord—
ing to the number of (1) and (2) responses each received,

i.e., needed information.

 

70

 

 

 

 

TABLE VI
INFORMATION NEEDED BY PAROLE AGENTS
(n=38)
Number of
Responses
Offense 37
Prior Record 36
Drug Usage 34
Employment History 32
Age 30
Marital Status 30
Psychological/Psychiatric Data 29
Medical History 28
Alcoholic Involvement 28
Family History 28
Defendant's Statement 26
Education 26
Homosexuality 25
Residence Data 23
Family Criminality 21

Less than 50% of the parole agents considered the

following as needed information.

Defendant's Attitude (at the time of sentencing) l8
Plea l7
Interests and Activities 14

Confinement Status (at the time of sentencing) 13

71

Table VI continued.

Military Record 12
Race 12
Place of Birth 10
Legal Representation 6
Religion 2

 

There were four questions pertaining to use of the
presentence report. Table VII presents the percentages of
parole agents responding as to whether they review the
various sections of the presentence report in all, most,

some, or no cases. No one responded in the "none" category.

TABLE VII

PAROLE AGENTS USE OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

 

 

 

All Cases Most Cases Some
Entire Report 68% 26% 5%
Part I 71% 26% 3%
Part II 43% 27% 30%
61% 26% 13%

Part III

Twenty-eight parole agents responded negatively and
six positively to the question whether they would be in

favor of a new presentence report form.

 

72

Only nine of the thirty-eight respondents added
comments. Six agents wanted Part III expanded and improved
rather than eliminated. One agent did want an expanded
face sheet and probation agent's summary (Parts I & II).
Two other agents wanted more information on verification
of data in the current form.

Rural Agents.-—Because the agents in the sample,

 

which covers the rural areas of the state carry both pro-
bation and parole caseloads, it is necessary to consider
them as a separate group. Table VIII presents the rural
agent's rating of the three divisions of the presentence
report according to importance and includes the value score

and mean, computed to facilitate ranking the responses.

TABLE VIII

THE RURAL AGENT'S RATING OF THE THREE SUBDIVISIONS
OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, RANKED
ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE

 

 

Most Least Value
Important Second Important Score Mean

Part I
Summary and
Recommendations 9 1

Part III
The Body 1 9

Part II

Face Sheet 0 0 10 10 1.0

 

 

73

Table IX presents the summary of the rural agent's
ratings of the thirteen subdivisions of Part III, the Body,
of the presentence report according to value of that section
to the agent. Included is the value score and the mean,

computed on the same basis as in the two previous samples.

TABLE IX

RURAL AGENT'S RATING OF THE SUBSECTIONS OF
PART III, THE BODY OF THE PRESENTENCE
REPORT, RANKED ACCORDING
TO IMPORTANCE

 

 

Most Least Value
Valuable Second Valuable Score Mean

 

Previous Record 10 0 0 30 3.0
Investigator's Version
of the Offense 9 1 0 29 2.9
Offender's Version of
the Offense 7 2 l 26 2.6
Higiggsr's Personal 7 2 1 26 2.6
Marital History 5 5 0 25 2.5
Employment 5 4 l 24 2.4
Education 3 7 0 23 2.3
Habits and Recreation 4 3 3 21 2.1
Economic Situation 1 7 2 19 1.9
Health 2 5 3 19 1.9
Sources of Information 2 4 4 18 1.8
Service Record 0 7 3 17 1.7
l 5 4 17 1.7

Religion

 

 

74

The twenty—four informational items presented in
question six, rated on a five point scale, are presented
in Table X. They are ranked in descending order of need
as responded to by the rural agents. The number of re-
sponses as needed information is the critical factor. An
indication is made as to which information is considered

needed by less than fifty percent of the respondents.

TABLE X

INFORMATION NEEDED BY FIELD AGENTS
IN RURAL DISTRICTS

 

 

 

 

Number of

Item Responses
Prior Record 10
Offense 10
Alcoholic Involvement 9
Defendant's Statement 3
Marital Status 8
Confinement Status (at the time of sentencing) 8
Employment History 8
Family History 7
Age 7
Drug Usage 7
Plea 7
Residence Data 7
Defendant's Attitude (at the time of sentencing) 5
Education 5

Homosexuality 5

75

Table X continued.
The following items were considered needed by less

than 50% of the respondents.

Family Criminality 4
Medical History 4
Psychological/Psychiatric Data 3
Legal Representation 3
Interests and Activities 2
Race 2
Religion 2
Military History 1
Place of Birth 0

 

All ten of the respondents in this part of the
sample answered positively to the question asking if they
knew the preferences of the judges for whom they prepared
presentence reports. In response to the question asking if
they felt the current form was unrealistic in permitting
them to write in line with these preferences, three ans-
wered it was unrealistic but seven replied they did not
believe it was. In spite of this, seven of the ten agents
were in favor of a new report form. Of course, it does not
necessarily follow that because the agents felt the current
form permitted them to write reports in line with any
special preferences of the judge that they would be satis-

fied with that form. When one examines Table VIII, it is

 

76

apparent that agents prefer their section, i.eq the summary
and recommendations, to a very great degree over the other
two. They apparently feel they are capable of determining
what should and should not be in a presentence report.

In reference to usage of the presentence report,
Table XI presents the percent of agents responding in the

categories for each section of the report.

TABLE XI

RURAL AGENTS USE OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

 

 

 

Entire Report All Most Some None
Part I 55% 22% 22% 0
Part II 66% 22% 0 11%
Part III 44% 44% 11% 0

 

The rural agents responses as to how many pages in
length are the reports they prepare, ranged from three to
ten pages with a mean and median of six. The number of
reports they prepare per month ranged from three to fifteen
with the median being six and the mean seven.

The average caseload size of the rural agent ranged
from twenty-five to one hundred and thirty—five. The
median was fifty-four and the mean fifty—nine.

The rural agents stated that long association with

the judges as well as their comments about the presentence

 

77

reports were the major factors in permitting the agent to
know the preferences of the judges.

Several agents stated that the current form had
sufficient flexibility to allow them to meet the demands of
the particular judges. But, five of the ten agents crit-
icized Part III of the current form from the standpoint
that it contained too much trivia and took too much time
and effort to prepare it.

Counselors.--Tab1e XII presents the ratings of the

 

prison counselors as to the importance of the three parts
of the presentence report. As with the previous three
groups, the value score and mean were computed in order to

rank the three parts as to importance.

TABLE XII

COUNSELORS RATING OF IMPORTANCE OF THE THREE
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT,
RANKED ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE

 

 

 

(n=15)
Most Least
Important Important Value
(1) (2) (3) Score Mean

Part III

The Body 10 4 l 31 2.5
Part I

Summary 3 5 6 25 1.8
Part II

Face Sheet 2 5 7 24 1.7

 

78

Table XIII presents the subsections of Part III,
the Body, rated by the counselors in terms of value of the
section to the respondent. The value score and mean were

computed to facilitate ranking according to importance.

TABLE XIII

COUNSELORS RATING OF THE VALUE OF THE SUBSECTIONS
OF THE BODY OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT,
RANKED ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE

 

 

Little Value
Valuable Second Value Score Mean

(1) (2) (3)

 

Employment 13 2 0 43 2.9
Previous Record 17 4 0 41 2.8
Investigator's Version

of the Offense ll 4 0 41 2.8
Offender's Personal

History 11 3 l 40 2.7
Marital History 10 5 0 40 2.7
Offender's Version

of the Offense 9 6 0 39 2.6
Education 9 5 l 38 2.5
Economic Situation 6 7 2 34 2.3
Health 5 6 4 31 2.1
Service Record 2 9 4 28 1.9
Sources of Information 2 7 6 26 1.7
Habits and Recreation 1 8 6 25 1.7

Religion 0 5 10 20 1.3

F

79

Table XIV presents the twenty-four items of infor—
mation as they were rated as needed information by the
counselors. Those items rated as needed by less than fifty

percent of the respondents are indicated as such.

TABLE XIV

INFORMATION NEEDED BY COUNSELORS

 

 

 

(n=15)
Item Score

Offense 15
Prior Record 14
Employment History 14
Drug Usage 13
Marital Status 13
Psychological/Psychiatric Data 13
Defendant's Statement 12
Alcoholic Involvement 12
Age 11
Education 10
Homosexuality 10
Family History 9

8

Medical History

The following items are considered needed by less

than fifty percent of the respondents.

Table XIV continued.

80

Family Criminality 7
Residence Data 5
Defendant's Attitude (at the time of sentencing) 6
Confinement Status (at the time of sentencing) 5
Military History 4
Plea 3 I
Race 3 F
Place of Birth 2
Interests and Activities 2
Legal Representation 2
1

Religion

 

Table XV presents the percentage of respondents

using the different parts of the report in all, most, some,

or no cases.

TABLE XV

USAGE OF REPORT BY COUNSELORS

 

 

 

All Most Some None
Entire 20% 46% 37% 0
Part I 40% 33% 26% 0
Part II 66% 13% 20% 0
Part III 33% 33% 33% 0

81

Ten counselors responded negatively when asked if
they would prefer a new form for the presentence report,
three answered positively.

Parole Board.--With three of the five Parole Board

 

members responding, Part II of the report is considered
most important, with a mean score of 3. Part I is consid-
ered second most important, mean, 2.3; Part III least
important, 0.7. The Investigators Version, Offenders Ver-
sion, Previous Record, Offenders Personal History, and
Habits and Recreation had mean scores of 3.0. Marital
History, Education, Economic Situation, and Health had mean
scores of 2.7. Religion and Service Record had mean scores
of 2.3 and Sources of Information had a mean score of 1.7.
The three respondents said they made use of Part I in all
cases, and the other two parts in most cases. Of the
twenty-four information items, Birth Place, Interests and
Activities, Age, Confinement Status, Legal Representation,
Race, and Religion were rated as needed information by only

one of the respondents.

ANALYSIS

Table XVI presenting mean scores, was compiled to
facilitate cross references between groups in the sample.
The table presents the mean rating score for each of the
four groups in the sample on the three part subdivisions of

the presentence report and on the thirteen part subdivision

82

of Part III the Body. The group of Parole Board members

was omitted from the analysis because of the small number

of respondents. Following Table XVI, is a discussion of

the various factors on which the groups varied significantly.
The table is provided in order that some indication of just
what the differences are. The mean score does not reflect
the actual differences between groups, but gives an idea

of where differences exist.

TABLE XVI

MEAN SCORES OF ALL GROUPS

 

 

 

Division of Parole Probation Rural

the Report Agents Agents Agents Counselors
Part I 1.9 2.7 2.9 1.8
Part II 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.7
Part III 2.7 2.1 1.4 2.5
Sources of Information 2.0 2.1 1.8 l.
Investigator's Version
of the Offense 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.7
Offender's Version
of the Offense 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5
Previous Criminal
Record 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9
Offender's Personal
History 2.9 2.8 2.6
Marital History 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.
Education 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.
Service Record 2.1 1.7 1.7 .
Employment 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.
Economic Situation 2.4 2.2 1.7 2.
Health 2.5 2.1 1.9
Habits and Recreation 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.7

Religion 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.

83

The chi-square was used to test for significant
differences in all of the ratings discussed below.

Probation Agents vs. Parole Agents.—-The differences

 

which occurred in the ratings of Parts I and III were sig-
nificant at a level less than .001. In Part I the mean
score for probation agents was 2.7 and the mean score for
parole agents was 1.7. Seventy percent of the probation

agents rated Part I as most important; thirty-seven percent

 

of the parole agents rated Part I as least important and '1
another forty-five percent as second most important. In

Part III, the mean scores for the two groups do not reflect

 

as easily the difference. Sixty-eight percent of the parole
agents rated Part III as most important, where fifty-seven
percent of the probation agents rated it as second most
important. The differences in the ratings of Part II were
found to be significant at a level less than .05. Eighty-
two percent of the probation agents rated this section as
least important whereas fifty percent of the parole agents
rated it so and thirty-seven percent rated it as second
most important.

In rating the section titled Service Record, the
mean score for parole agents was 2.1 and the mean score for
probation agents was 1.7. The differences in these ratings
were significant at a level less than .05. The differences

in the ratings on the Health section were significant at a

84

level less than .01. Fifty-eight percent of the parole
agents rated Health as a valuable section whereas only
twenty-one percent of the probation agents rated it so.

Of the list of twenty-four informational items,
rated on a five point scale, medical history and family
criminality, were considered needed by more than half of
the parole agents but not by the probation agents. The
differences in these two ratings were found to be signif—
icant at levels less than .10 and .05, respectively. Con-
finement status and defendant's attitude were considered as
needed information by more than half the probation agents
but not by parole agents. These differences were signif-
icant at levels less than .02 and .05, respectively.

Generally speaking probation agents consider the
probation agent's summary (Part I) most important with the
Body (Part III) a close second whereas parole agents con-
sider the Body (Part III) most important, and the other two
parts as only having minor importance. The other differences
are somewhat functional. It is not unlikely that probation
agents would be more concerned with defendant's attitude
and confinement status at the time of sentencing than would
the parole agents. Why parole agents have a stranger con-
cern for service record and health cannot be readily ascer-
tained from the data.

Parole Agents vs. Rural Agents.--The ratings of the

 

three divisions of the presentence report were found to

 

 

85

have differences significant at a level less than .05.
Ninety percent of the rural agents rated Part I most im-
portant, Part III second most important and Part II was
rated least important by all the reSpondents. As mentioned
before, sixty-eight percent of the parole agents rated Part
III most important, PartsI and II were considerably less
important with mean ratings of 1.9 and 1.5, respectively.

Parole agents considered the Health and Economic
sections of Part III fairly important with mean scores of
2.5 and 2.4, respectively. Rural agents considered these
sections only of marginal secondary importance with mean
scores on each of 1.9. The differences in the ratings were
found to be significant at levels less than .05 and .10,
respectively.

Of the twenty—four informational items only one,
Confinement status, was rated differently to any degree of
significance. This information was considered needed by
eighty percent of the rural agents but less than fifty
percent of the parole agents. The difference was at a
level less than .05.

The generalizations made above concerning the
functional differences between probation and parole probably
apply here also. These contentions are further supported
by the lack of differences between parole and counselor

responses as discussed below.

 

 

86

Parole Agents vs. Counselors.-—There were no sig—

 

nificant differences in the ratings of the three divisions
of the presentence report by these two groups. The only
differences occurred in the ratings of the sections of Part
III, Habits and Recreation and Health. These were rated
higher by parole agents than counselors and the differences
were significant at a level less than .10.

These differences are probably also functionally
related for it is not surprising that a counselor would
have little concern for habits and recreation outside the
prison. In addition, for the counselor health is a concern
of the doctor's in the prison.

Probation vs. Counselors.--Probation agents rated
Part I quite high, mean score 2.7 where counselors rated it
quite low, mean score 1.8. This difference was found to be
significant at a level less than .001. The mean rating for
the counselors in Part III was 2.5 compared with 2.1 for
the probation agents. This difference was significant at
a level less than .05. The counselors mean rating of Part
II was 1.7 compared with 1.2 for the probation agents.

This difference was found to be significant at a level less
than .01. There were no significant differences found in
the ratings of the subsections of Part III. Of the list of
twenty-four informational items, Confinement Status and
Plea were considered needed by more than half of the pro-

bation agents and less than half of the counselors. The

 

87

statistical levels of significance were .10 and .01, re-
spectively. Again the differences are basically functional.
It is not unexpected that the probation agents would con-
sider Part I most important. Confinement Status and Plea
are relatively unimportant to the counselor.

Rural Agents vs. Counselors.--The mean rating for

 

Part I by the rural agents was 2.9 versus 1.8 for the coun-
selors. The difference was found to be statistically sig—
nificant at a level less than .05. The counselors had a
mean rating of 2.5 on Part III versus a 1.4 mean rating for
the rural agents. This difference was significant at a
level less than .001. Of the twenty-four informational
items, more than half the rural agents considered confine-
ment status and plea as needed information and Psychiatric/
Psychological data as not needed information. Psychological/
Psychiatric data was considered needed by the majority of
the counselors, the difference was significant at a level
less than .02. The other two items were considered not
needed by a majority of the counselors, and the statistical
levels of significance were .10 and .05, respectively.

Probation Agents vs. Rural Agents.—-There were no

 

significant differences in the ratings of these two groups
with the exception of the Religion section of Part III.
Fifty percent of the rural agents rated this section as
secondary in value and forty percent rated it as least val-

uable. But seventy—nine percent of the probation agents

88

rated it as least valuable. The difference was significant
at a level less than .10.

With these differences in mind, if one examines
Table XVI, it can be seen that the ratings are fairly con-
sistently equal in most of the thirteen subsections of Part
III. Of course, the mean scores do not reflect actual dif-
ferences which occur in the raw data. The parole agents
have a significantly greater concern for the offender's Eco-
nomic Situation than do rural agents. Parole agents have a
significantly greater concern for Habits and Recreation than
do the counselors. And Rural agents have a significantly
greater concern for Religion than do the probation agents.

Most of the statistical differences occur in the rat—
ing of the three subsections of the presentence report. The
two groups, probation and rural, which prepare the presen-
tence reports, rate Part I quite high (mean 2.7, 2.9, respec-
tively) but the parole agents and counselors rate it signif-
icantly lower (mean 1.9, 1.8, respectively). A similar
relationship occurs in the ratings of Part II. Although all
groups rate this part low in importance (mean less than 2.0)
the probation agents and rural agents rate it significantly
lower (mean 1.2, 1.0, respectively) than do parole agents
and counselors (1.5 and 1.7, respectively).

The rural agents rated Part III the lowest (mean 1.4)
of all groups. The difference is statistically significant.
The next higher rating (mean 2.1) was given by the probation
agents and this is significantly lower than both counselors

(mean 2.5) and parole agents (mean 2.7).

89

An attempt was made to determine if the number of
years of service in the field of corrections made a difference
in the responses to the questionnaire. Using three years and
less as a group of "new employees," it was found that there
was no significant differences between their ratings and those
of the other "experienced" respondents. The figure three
years was chosen mainly because to use a smaller figure would
have meant so few cases in the new employee classification
that statistical comparison would have been difficult.

It was intended that responses to questions concern—
ing type and amount of formal education could be examined to
see if education played a significant role in rating the fac—
tors. But, due to a failure of the respondents to properly
reply to these questions, such comparisons were impossible.
Most respondents have a bachelors degree, with only a few
reporting additional formal education, not enough cases to
make a statistical comparison. Most respondents neglected to
reply as to what major area the degree was in. Therefore,
no comparison was possible in relation to field of study.

Generally speaking, the total sample does appear to
have favorable attitudes towards the current presentence
report form. Therefore, the major hypothesis is proved to
be false. A general discussion of what types of information
and what sections of the report are considered most import-
ant, and which ones least important, will follow in the

concluding chapter.

 

CHAPTER'V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. CONCLUSIONS

 

As has been pointed out in previous chapters, the
presentence report was developed in the early twentieth
century by several social workers. The social casework
method of gathering as much socially relevant data about
the offender and fitting this into Specific, clearly de-
fined categories has been the predominant method of
preparing presentence reports for the fifty years since
their inception.

One can readily see that from the research men—
tioned in Chapter II, little has been done to define the
theory upon which the presentence report is based. With
only one exception, there has been no apparent follow
through in an attempt to apply research findings to the
modification of theory or practical developments. The one
exception being, the development of a new form presentence
report in the state of Washington and San Francisco County,

California from research done in California.

90

91

According to Fox, one method by which theory is
developed is observation of practical situations. "Good

114 It is by this method

theory evolves from practice."
that the theory surrounding the presentence report was
developed. There has been no research which identified
information which could be put in a presentence report
which is most relevant to the accomplishment of the correc—
tional goals, that is, the information which has predictive
validity. Research of some value has been completed which
indicates what types of information are usable in decision
making processes of the correctional agencies personnel.
But, as yet the general philosophy has been to supply in-
formation for information's sake.
To again use the words of Vernon Fox:
Theory and practice in any field, including probation
and parole, become widely separated when the practi—
tioner does not know the theory relating to what he is
doing, cannot perceive accurately and objectively the
extraneous factors that make his situation different
from that for which the pure theory was generalized, or
when the practitioner is not sufficiently flexible,
perceptive, or professionally competent to make the
necessary modifications.
But the difficulty here lies in the lack of good
theory which has not yet develOped.
Although the initial and perhaps the major purpose

of the presentence report is to provide information for the

 

114Ibid.

115Ibid., p. 131.

92

judge upon which he can base the sentence he passes, there
are many reasons for excluding judges from this research
project. One justification which raises many questions as
to the sentencing process as it presently exists, is Hood's
research (see Chapter II) which found that the use of the
presentence report in sentencing had no apparent effect on
whether or not the offender was convicted of a subsequent
illegal act. The judge has little or no training and per—
haps only limited experience with the correctional proces-
ses. Therefore, if not by training, at least through
experience, it is presumed that the correctional worker is
better qualified to judge what types of information about
the offender are needed by the correctional system. These
assumptions of course point out that more research is needed
on the probation agents recommendation and recidivism.

This research project is an attempt to indicate the
correctional workers' attitudes towards the content and
particularly the form of the presentence report. Although
there are some differences between groups of correctional
workers, according to their functional roles, they appear
to be generally satisfied with the current form and content
of the report. It is from these differences that perhaps

some suggestions for change can be formulated.

93

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

Content.--The primary recommendations which can be
made from this research involve certain specific items of
content. In questions concerning both form and content, it
is apparent that mention of religious beliefs or activities
can be excluded as a general topic. Other items of infor-
mation, rated consistently low in value by all groups were
legel representation, place of birth, race, military history
and interests and activities. If one can assume that
interests and activities as a title is synonymous with the
form title Habits and Recreation, then this could also be
eliminated as a topic in the form for it received only a
marginal second in importance rating.

Also military history in the content rating and
Service Record in the form rating were rated consistently
low, with the exception of parole agents who rated it as
marginally important on the form rating. Therefore, perhaps
this section could also be excluded.

Three information items, considered as marginally
important are, Defendant's Attitude (at the time of sentenc-
ing; Confinement Status (at the time of sentencing); and
Plea. These are considered marginal because they were rated
as needed by only the two groups representing probation
agents, i.e. rural agents and probation agents. Perhaps
these are important for reasons other than needed content

of the presentence report.

94

Two other items were not considered as needed in-
formation by at least two groups. The counselors and the
rural agents are not concerned with Family Criminality.

The counselors and the probation agents were unconcerned
with Medical History.

Fpgm,--As mentioned above, the sections Habits and
Recreation, Religion and Service Record could be eliminated
as required sections of the report. Of course if pertinent
information were found under one of these tOpics it could
be included under another subheading such as Offender's
Personal History.

In rating the three major divisions of the report
form, Part II, Face Sheet, received consistently low ratings
but it is felt that this does not indicate its functional
importance but only its importance in relation to the other
two subdivisions. Therefore, it should not be eliminated
on the basis of this rating. In making this conclusion, it
must be remembered that in ranking the three divisions, the
question asked that these divisions be rated one, two or
three; therefore Part II is considered of lesser importance
but not necessarily unimportant.

Part III, the Body, was rated high by parole agents
and Counselors while Part I, Summary and Evaluation was
rated low by these groups. The reverse is true for both
groups of probation agents; Summary and Evaluation is rated

high and the Body is rated marginal.

95

Although the predominant response to the question
of whether a new form would be acceptable was in the neg-
ative, perhaps this is not accurate. If a form, similar to
that in use in Washington were developed, it could be
designed to fit the needs of these groups. The "mini-
presentence" has an expanded face sheet and an expanded
probation agent's summary and conclusions. The Body is
eliminated. It could be defined in a set of guidelines
that that information, considered most necessary by the
various groups would be included in the probation agent's
summary.

Another change which should be considered is the
elimination of the sub-headings in the report. They could
be continued as a "crutch" to aid in investigation but
should be eliminated from the written form. These headings
allow the reader to take information out of context. If
properly written, the expanded face sheet and probation
agent's summary report form is intended to present behavioral
patterns, not specific acts, which is common of the current
form. As an example, to set out employment as a separate
subheading breaks up any continuity which could be Obtained
by discussing employment in terms of the Offender's reac—
tion to authority relationships and his ability to hold a

job for various behavioral reasons.

96

Justification for Change.--To use one of Keve's
statements in argument against his form of the report, he

has stated:

The fact of really central importance in the making of
any presentence report is that it is the first specific
step in the process of individualizing the offender.116
To specifically point out individual characteristics
about the offender, as the current form of the report does,
detracts from the report's ability to give an entire picture

of the offender.

Keve points out in another source that separately

 

recorded facts scattered through the report are there for

the reader but this is not enough. The facts must be

 

presented in a way which clarifies the relationship and
significance to other facts. This can not be easily accom-
plished in current form because of the subheadings which
force the writer to separate the facts of information.117
The object of the presentence report is to assess
the factors which have contributed to the offender's outlook

118

and character. As an example Manson disagrees with the

practice of including a "rap sheet" in the presentence

 

 

 

 

 

116Keve, The Probation Officer Investigates, op;
cit., p. 48.

117Standards and Guides for Adult Probation, 9p,
cit., p. 37.

118

Elizabeth R. Glover, Prgpation and Re-Education,
Ltd. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1956),
p. 26.

97

report. With numerous abbreviations and frequently three
or four entries applying to one conviction, they are diffi-
cult to understand. "The rap sheet overstates a defendant's
record of conviction at the same time it rarely tells the
whole story of his previous difficulty with the law."119
This is just one example of how listing facts under
a prescribed tOpic tends to detract from the ability of the

report to present behavioral problems and trends of the

offender. The new form suggested by this paper would be

 

of great value in eliminating this problem.
Resistance Ep_Change.--It is expected that a certain

degree of resistance will be encountered in any attempt to

 

alter the current form. This resistance could be minimized
if the change is made on a department wide basis and if the
philOSOphy behind the new form is adequately explained.
Using the results of this study, a set of guidelines could
be developed which would help to resolve some of the ap-
parent differences and therefore reduce the resistance.
Further consultation of agents would lead to more adequate
explanation of the functions of a new form.

Several agents in the Department are using a new
form for the report which is similar to that in use in
Washington. At a meeting attended by these agents for the

purpose of discussing the new report, their resistance

 

119Manson, op. cit., p. 20.

98

became obvious. The men could not or would not examine the
possible advantages of the new form. They were mainly
interested in the differences between it and the old form
they were accustomed to using. This even included a sug-
gestion by these agents to put subheadings in the probation
agent's summary in order to distinguish various categories
of behavior. One of the main advantages of this form is
elimination of these subheadings.

Inference.

 

I suppose it would be possible in this streamlined

electronic age to devise the sort of stereotyped to-

be-read-while-running probation report that could be

turned out on a mass production . . . basis. I hope

that it can never happen here.120

The importance of the evaluative portion of the

report cannot be overstated. Although most reports empha-
size objective facts, it is important that the agent empha-
size subjectivity in evaluating the behavior patterns of
the offender. This of course assumes that the probation
agent is capable, through training and experience, to eval-
uate objective facts in such a way as to present a picture

121

of the Offender. Making this assumption it is felt that

the traditional presentence report form is out-dated and a

 

120Kay and Vedder, op. cit., p. 41.

121Gronewold, pp; gip,, p. 32; Manson, pp; cit.,
p. 21; Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem (New YOEE:
Appleton-Century—Crofts, InETT'I96IT} p. 486; Lawrence M.
Stump, "Court Investigations and Reports," Federal Proba-
tion, XXI (June, 1957), p. 9.

 

99

new form could be developed and put in use which would have
much more meaning as an evaluative instrument in the cor-
rectional process.

Ngw_§p£m.--Much of the statistical information
needed by the Department of Corrections could be provided
in an expanded basic information sheet. The probation
agent's summary would be a three to five page biography of
the offender, containing an objective evaluation of the
factors which resulted in the offender becoming a convicted
felon. The deletion of subheadings in the report necessi—
tates reading the entire report to get a truer picture of
the man. An outline could certainly be used to prepare the
report. Such an outline would include tOpics which must
definitely be covered. But to use subtopics in the text of
the report merely serves to simplify and mechanize the role
of the user of the report. In addition, it detracts from
the professionalism of the probation/parole agent or coun-
selor as a person dealing with human behavioral problems.
For everyone must agree that one cannot say that it was a
poor school record or a poor employment record, or a poor
home life, or any other single set of circumstances which

resulted in the offender being the type of individual he is.

APPENDIX A
THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION

Reprinted from Michigan Department of Corrections,
Bureau of Field Services,
Manual pf Operations

 

 

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION
General Information and Outline

A presentence investigation report has been described as a
thorough study of the individual characteristics and prob-
lems of the offender. The process is one of selecting,
gathering, organizing and analyzing data relating to the
convicted person and his circumstances.

Such inquiry and report is required by the Michigan stat-
utes (MSA 28.1144, CL 771.14) in all felony cases and in
misdemeanants when referred by the court. All such reports
are declared by law (MSA 28.2299, CL 791.229) to be priv—
ileged or confidential communications not Open to public
inspection. Agencies entitled to inspect the presentence
are the Attorney General, the Auditor General and law
enforcement agencies.

Presentence referrals are channeled to the probation service
by varying means, according to local practices. It is the
responsibility of Staff to acquaint itself with local
methods and seek improvement when necessary. Faulty pro-
cedures result in not receiving referrals or untimely

delays in investigations and dispositions.

All offenders enter the adult correctional process by way
of the adult criminal courts. The presentence investiga-
tion therefore forms the cornerstone of our records and
information system. While this report was originally in-
tended only for the use of the court in determining dispo-
sition, its employment by probation and parole staff in
supervision, by the institutional personnel, the Parole
Board and others, indicates its long term value and wide-
spread use.

Factual information obtained from careful investigation and
appropriate verification constitute only the skeleton of the
report. The real substance consists of the professional
interpretations, evaluations and meanings. Objectivity and
fairness must be carefully observed to avoid misleading the
reader and minimize the perpetuation of error.

In giving life and depth to the personality of the offender,
you must be aware of feelings, aptitudes, capabilities,
interpersonal relationships, outlook, ambitions, and a mul-
titude of other intangibles which make up the unique person-
ality about whom you are writing. It is almost impossible
to completely avoid all biases, but you can be aware of and
make allowances for them. Judgments should be based on
professional observations and conclusions, not personal
feelings.

100

101

The presentence usually consists of three parts, but sup-
plements or additions may be added as local practice or
special circumstances may require. The three divisions are:

l. The "Presentence Investigation Report" (Form CFO-145)
2. The "Basic Information Form" (Form CFO-101)

3. The body of the report, essentially following the head-
ings set forth in 2.4.3. This is typed on plain paper.

PRESENTENCE BASIC INFORMATION SHEET 2.4.1

This form, No. CF-lOl, provides information usually found
useful by field and institutional personnel.

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT 2.4.2
(REPORT TO THE COURT)

This form, CFO-145, usually constitutes the first section
of the presentence report.

This report has three principle uses: as a part of a com-
plete presentence; as a supplemental to a relatively recent
presentence; and, as a probation violation report.

(For our purposes we are only concerned with the first use.)

I. Part pf §_Com lete Presentence.--When employed in this
connection it WIII Be diVided into three sections: Summary,

Evaluation and Plan, and Recommendation (where requested).

A. Summar . This is intended to provide the reader
with a brief, telesc0pic view of the essential elements
covered in Ehe body of the report. Details and new infor—
mation should not be included.

B. Evaluation and Plan. Inasmuch as the body of the
presentence report contains little evaluation, this section
should include your assessment of the offender's personality
traits, strengths and weaknesses, abilities and other diag-
nostic and evaluative information. Indicate the plan pro-
posed by you and the offender in the event of probation,
and the resources available in working toward the desired
goals. The plan should include not only the physical

 

102

aspects but also the therapeutic effects which might reas-
onably be expected. This section of the report, more than;
any other, reflects your professional ability and personal
judgment.

C. Recommendation. Most courts desire a recommendation
from the probation agent who has investigated and studied
the elements of an individual's case. If a disposition
recommendation is desired or required by the court is is
placed in this section. It should logically follow the
previous section. It should logically follow the previous
section and may contain references to restitution owed and
such special terms of probation as you think are indicated.
If prison is the recommendation, the institution will wel-
come your suggestions relative to programs which might be
of benefit and the reasons for your position. Recommenda-
tions for post-institutional programming could be of value
where the minimum term is only a matter of a few years.

 

BODY OF THE PRESENTENCE 2 . 4 . 3

Source pf Referral:

This states the agent's authority for making the investiga-
tion. It should include the date of referral, the court
and the judge's name, and the chief probation officer from
whom the referral came.

Sources g£_Information:

 

This is a listing of all sources from which information was
obtained. Include pertinent identifying information, such
as the street address and the city. The address of an
agency that is well known which can be found in the teleph-
one directory is not necessary. Example: (1) John White,
Supervisor of Social Service Exchange, Lansing, Michigan.
(2) Mr. Alvin erutejamaki, Al's Service Station, 123
Central Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. (3) Mrs. John Hansen,
mother, 245 Madison Avenue, Jackson, Michigan.

Investigator's Version p£_the Offense:

 

 

This section should present as objective a version of the
offense as the agent can give, using the information he has
gathered from all sources. If it is identical with the
offender's version, so state and do not repeat. Simply say,
"Offender's version is accurate and complete." Start the
section with a statement in layman's language of the of;
fense. Avoid the legal terminology of the information.

103

Cover here the circumstances surrounding the arrest, the
time the man has been confined and if represented by an
attorney. State lesser offense. If on bond, so state

along with the name of the person or firm furnishing it.

Describe other offenses the man has committed, e.g., whether
this breaking and entering was just one or a series of of-
fenses. Make liberal use of quotes and include attitudes
toward the offense and the offender. The practice of using
quotes is good technique and should be used often. Describe
the set of circumstances which led to the apprehension of
this offender. What was his attitude at the time of the
arrest? Did he cooperate with the arresting officer? Was
he ever "trusty"?

Include here whether or not other jurisdictions having
other charges intend to prosecute. Include the amount of
restitution, where applicable. Include also the full names
of codefendants and participants in the offense. Did the
Offender know the defendants, and for how long? What kind
of an association was there between the defendants? Why
were they together? If pertinent, what were their mutual
interests? Explain carefully to what extent the offender
participated in the commission of the offense. It is im-
portant to know what part intoxicants and/or narcotics may
have played in the offense.

Offender's Version pf the Offense: 2.4.3 (2)

 

For purposes of checking future stories of the offender,
enter a statement in his own words, describing just what he
did. Give the offender's point of View, his feelinggtoward
the situation in which he finds himself, his point of view
on the cause of his getting into trouble, andiwhat be con-
sidered to be the motivaEing factors.

 

Previous Trouble:

This section will contain the complete criminal record of
the man as both juvenile and adult. Where it is possible
to get the information, include a brief description of the
previous offenses and the offender's previous adjustment
while in an institution and on parole or probation.

The juvenile court history will be listed first with atten-
tion paid to whether or not his appearances in juvenile
court were official or unofficial. Has there been an
escape record? Next will be the adult record. Include
the F.B.I. and the state police numbers.

 

104

It is not necessary to give separate listings for misde-
meanors. Do indicate the number of misdemeanor arrests.
Check the record assaults, they may be important to an
evaluation. All felony cases should be listed separately
with information on each, including dispositions.

Offender's Personal Histopy:
Family Background and Early Life:

Start this section with a listing of the names, ages, and

addresses of the man's immediate family and any other rel- T
ative who has played an important part in the offender's E
development. Be particularly careful to include the names i
and ages of all siblings, no matter how young they may be. H
List married females as Mary (Mrs. John) Brown. Also, list
step—siblings and half-siblings.

Give a narrative descriptive picture of the offender's
family and his early life at home up to the point where he
permanently left the parental residence or foster home.
Compare the offender's status with that of other siblings
or step-siblings. Discuss the general pattern of living of
the family. Note the parent's aspirations for the offender,
their educational levels, and the criminal tendencies of
other members of the family. What were the moral and
ethical standards and attitudes of the members of the
family toward each other? Significant material relative to
developmental history, particularly symptomatic behavior
such as enuresis, signs of nervousness, temper tantrums,
truancy, etc., should be included here.

Note whether or not there are members of the family who may
be willing and able to help the offender on probation or
later on parole.

2.4.3 (3)
What is the offender's attitude toward his family as a
whole, toward individual members, and toward his early life
at home?

Marital History:

Start this section with a complete history of the offender's
marriage (or marriages), with dates, places, name of wife
(or wives), names and ages of the children in a manner
similar to the "Family" section. Be sure to include ad-
dresses. List each wife and children separately. In case
of divorce or separation, include the dates, reason for the
marriage failure, custody of the children, support payments,
and the like.

105

Include as complete a picture as you can of the total mar-
riage situation. Give the attitude of the marriage partners
toward each other, compatibility, health of children, family
interference, and the degree to which the offender has been
able to assume the role of husband and father. Include the
description of the wife, or wives, her age, educational
level, and an evaluation of her as either a help or hin-
drance to the offender.

Education:

 

This is a history of the offender's schooling and his ad-
justment while in school. Place particular emphasis on the
section when the offender is youthful. Verify the young
offender's school record, including any truancy record,
participation in extracurricular activities and his basic .1
intelligence. Is he interested in trade training? How did 1
he get along with his teachers and his classmates? In some
schools there will be health records. If the school system
employs a visiting teacher, see him regarding the offender.

 

For the older offender it is difficult to verify school
records, but an evaluation of his basic intelligence is
important. Has he shown any interest in furthering his
schooling? Can he read and write? For both the younger
and older offender, the probation officer should determine
if he has any ambition to improve himself educationally or
vocationally.

 

Service Record: 2.4.3 (4)

 

Include here the branch of service, dates, type of discharge,
rank, and where this information is available. Include a
general picture of his adjustment while he was in the ser-
vice and any benefits available to him under the G.I. Bill.
Was he A.W.O.L. at any time, or several times, and for how
long? Why was he A.W.O.L.? Did he spend any time in the
disciplinary barracks? Was there a court martial? Did he
ever have any ambition to make "the service" a career?

Does he receive disability compensation? If so, how much
per month?

Employment:

Give a general picture of his overall employment record.

Be specific as to the job titles; his rate of pay; the
shift on which he works; any advancement in the job, and his
attitude toward his superiors. Indicate, for the last two
or three places the offender has been employed, specific
names, dates, reasons for separation, and the attitude of
those employers and whether or not they would rehire. If

106

he has shifted rapidly from one employment to another, we
should verify back far enough to one place where his em-
ployer knows something about him, and get that employer's
attitude toward him. A chronological listing of all places
worked is not necessary, but an accurate evaluation of the
offender as a worker is important. Does he have any ambi-
tion to improve his skill? Did he have part-time jobs when
he was going to school? Has he attended training classes
while on the job?

Economic Situation:

 

Give an actual presentation of the man's assets and liabil-
ities, listing the family income and indebtedness. In some
cases much of this material may have been covered under the
"Marital History." Look for the balance between the total
income, the offender's indebtedness, and his rate of spend-
ing. Does he carry any insurance? If so, what? Who is
the beneficiary? What is he buying on installment plan?
Does he own a car? How much did he pay down, how much does
he pay on the balance each week, each month? What make and
year is the car? Does he have a driver's or chauffer's
license? Does he have any ambition to improve his economic
status?

Health: 2.4.3 (5)

This section will include a history of both physical and
mental health. A copy of the results of any psychiatric
examination or significant physical examination that the
offender may have had should be included. Use of narcot—
ics, excessive use of alcohol, or any sexual deviation
should be discussed here.

Habits and Recreation:

In this section describe the offender's pattern of living
during his leisure time. Does he use his leisure time in a
constructive manner? How much dependence does he have upon
commercial forms of recreation? How does he get along with
peOple in general? Is he gregarious or a lonely sort of
fellow? More than just a listing of things he does or does
not do is needed. Note the type of people with whom he
usually associates, their cultural and economic level. To
what organizations does the offender belong? What type of
reading does he do? Are his family and wife included in
his outside recreational activities?

It is better to emphasize a positive type of information
than a long list of activities in which the offender does
not engage.

107'

Religion:

Note the denominational preference. The amount of religious
training the offender received in the early part of his
life, his attitude toward this training, and his present
attitude toward church or religious matters must be searched
for and described. Note any priest, minister, or rabbi to
whom he can look for help.

5. lab:
M1 Bit
Earnest
Fluent:

Acne l

MIET‘
m
flu:

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 108

m

@

CORRECTIONS

COMMISSION

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR

v. lobed Cotton, Ph.D., Chairman DEPARTH‘IENT OF CORRECTIONS

.0: fiber,

amen! C. Brooks

ounce I. Crone

STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48926

GUS HAIRI SON, DirecIor

none 1. W090“, MD. October , 1969

”—

Dear

At the suggestion of the Bureau of Field Services we are
evaluating the presentence report form and content as pre-
sently outlined in the Bureau of Field Services' Manual 23
Qperations.

 

We have develOped the enclosed questionnaire which is being
sent to a representative sample of field agents, institutional
counselors and courts. We would appreciate your taking the
time to respond to this questionnaire. Space is provided for
additional comments you may wish to make.

Your questionnaire is anonymous. Please do not put your name
on it. Please answer the questions frankly, no one will know
which answer sheet is yours.

Please do not use specific or extreme cases in responding to
the questions. What we would like are your experiences and
opinions generally.

We h0pe to use the results to simplify and/or improve the pre-
sentence report format. For your response to be included we
should have it back within days if at all possible. Your
assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for
your observations.

Return the questionnaire to the Program Bureau, Central Office.
Gratefully,

5 -, .7 0 Q

[244‘917‘ U.) lJU‘VQ‘B //, 2 .

Henry B. Risley, Jr.
Program Bureau
Graduate Student Intern

  

 

ZRoy Nelson
Deputy Director

APPENDIX B

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Note: Page 112 was sent to probation agents,
page 113 was sent to parole agents
and counselors, both pages
were sent to rural agents.

(1) How many years have you been employed in the field of
corrections?

(2) Ho:?many years have you been employed at your present
30

(3) What is the extent of your formal education? Give your
major field of study.
Associate Degree
B.A. or 3.8. ; or 2 yrs. of college

‘0

 

MOAO' MOSI' MOSOWO ; Other 0

(4) The following is a brief outline of the presentence
report as presented in the Bureau of Field Services'
Manual p£_Qperations.. Please rank the three major
subd1VIs10ns as to which you consider to be the most
important, (1); second most important, (2); and least

important, (3).

 

Part I, the probation agent's summary and
recommendations.

Part II, the face sheet and identifying data.

Part III, the body of the presentence report.

 

(5) The following is a list of the thirteen subdivisions of
Part III of the presentence report. Please check (/)
each item on a scale of one to three, (1-3).

(1) Valuable information and important part of the

report.
(2) Usable but not of major value or importance to you.

(3) Of little value to you, rarely need.

One Two Three

Sources of Information

 

Investigator's Version of the Offense

 

Offender's Version of the Offense

 

Previous Criminal Record

 

Offender's Personal History

 

Marital History

 

Education

 

109

One

Two Three

Health

 

 

Religion

Employment

110

Service Record

Economic Situation

Habits and Recreation

(6) The following is a list of twenty—four items of infor-

mation common to most presentence reports.

In your

role as program planner or in the decision making
process concerning whether to grant, deny or revoke
probation or parole, please rate each piece of infor-
mation on a five point scale as to whether you consider
it necessary information. (Make a (/) mark in the
space.)

appropriate

(1) need to
(2) need to
(3) nice to
(4) nice to

know
know
know
know

in
in
in
in

all cases
most cases
most cases

some cases
(5) not needed in most cases

The category nice to know means that the information is
helpful but it is not really necessary for making the

decisions.

One Two Three Four Five

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

Place of Birth

Family History

Offense

Prior'Record

Interests and Activities
Drug Usage

Religion

Defendant's Statement

 

One

Two

Three Four Five

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(o)

(p)
(q)
(r)

(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)

111

Age

Marital Status

Alcoholic Involvement

Plea

Residence Data
Psychological/Psychiatric Data

Defendant's Attitude (at time
of sentencing)

Education
Family Criminality

Confinement Status (at the time
of sentencing)

Military History
Homosexuality
Employment History
Medical History

Legal Representation

Race

 

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

112

Estimate the average length of the presentence reports
you prepare: (Number of pages)

 

Estimate the

average number of reports you prepare per
month:

 

On the average, how many cases have you had on super-

vision at any one time recently (during the last six
months) ?

Do you feel you know the preferences on presentence
content of the judges for whom you prepare presentence
reports, yes/no ? Please explain your answer

 

 

 

 

Do you feel the guidelines of the Manual of Operations
are unrealistic in allowing you to meet tHEse prefer-
ences, yes/no ? Please explain your answer

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of police records and the offender

himself, which sources do you most frequently refer to
for verifying data about the man?

 

 

 

Would you be in favor of a new presentence report form
which excluded Part III but had an expanded face sheet

and a more extensive probation agent's summary of the
case? (Yes/No)

 

Additional comments you feel to be important may be added
in the space below and on the back of this sheet.

 

113

Check the apprOpriate response.

(1) Do you review the entire presentence report in:

all cases ; most ; some ; none .

(2) Do you review the probation agent's summary and recom-
mendations (Part I) in:

all cases ; most ; some ; none .
(3) Do you review the Face Sheet (Part II) in:
all cases ; most ; some ; none .

 

(4) Do you review the entire body of the report (Part III)
in:

all cases ; most ; some ; none .

(5) Would you be in favor of a new presentence report form
which excluded Part III but had an expanded face sheet

and a more extensive probation agent's summary of the
case? (Yes/No)

 

Additional comments you feel to be important may be included
in the space below.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Chute, Charles L. and Marjorie Bell. Crime, Courts &
Probation. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1956.

 

 

Dressler, David. Probation and Parole. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1951.

 

Fox, Vernon. "Parole and Probation: Theory vs. Practice,"
Crime ip_America, Herbert A. Block, editor. Phil-
osophical Library, 1961.

 

Glaser, Daniel. The Effectiyeness of 3 Prison 3 Parole
S stem. New York: The BObEEPMerriII Company, Inc.,
I964.

 

 

Glover, Elizabeth R. Probation £_Re—Education. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, I956.

 

 

Glueck, Sheldon (ed.). Probation and Criminal Justice.
New York: The MacMillan Company, 1933.

 

Henderson, J. M. (ed.). Michiggn Statutes Annotated.
Chicago: Calaghan and Company, 1938?

 

Higgins, Louis L. and Edward A. Fitzgerald. Criminology
and Crime Prevention. Milwaukee: The Bruce Pub—
Iishing Company, 1958.

 

 

Jarvis, F. V. "Inquiry before Sentence," Criminology in
Transition: Essays in Honor of Herman Mannfieim.
Tadeusz Grygier, et. al., editor. International
Library of CriminOIOgy, London: Tavistock Press,
1964.

 

 

Kay, Barbara A. and Clyde B. Vedder. Probation and Parole.
Springer: Charles C. Thomas, I963.

 

Keve, Paul W. Prison, Probation, or Parole?, Minneapolis:
The University of‘Minnesota Press, I959.

 

114

115

Keve, Paul W. The Probation Officer Investigates. Minn-
eapolis: The University ofIMinnesota Press, 1961.

Levin, Theodore. "Toward a More Enlightened Sentencing
Procedure," The Tasks 9£_Penolo . Harvey S.
Perlman and Thomas B. Allington, editors. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1969.

 

Newman, Charles L. The Sourcebook in Probation, Parole and
Pardons. Springfield: ChaETes C. Thomas, 1961.

 

 

Reckless, Walter C. The Crime Problem. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1961.

 

Rubin, Sol. The Law 9£_Criminal Correction. St. Paul:
West Publishing Company, I963.

 

B. PUBLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT
AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Proba-
tion Division. The Presentence Investi ation
Re ort. Washington: u.s. Government Printing
0 ice (Publication No. 103), 1965.

 

Carter, Robert M. "An Alternative Presentence Report Model
for the Division of Probation & Parole," Research
Report, Vol. II, No. 3, State of Washington, Depart-
ment of Institutions, Division of Research, April,
1969.

Lohrman, Joseph V., Albert Wahl, and Robert M. Carter.
"Presentence Report Recommendations & Demographic
Data," Research Report, No. 5, University of Calif-
ornia, School of Criminology, San Francisco Project,
1966.

 

. "Decision Making & the Probation Officer: The
Pre-Sentence Report Recommendations," Research
Report, No. 7, 1966.

Manual g£_Correctiona1 Standards. The American Correctional
Association. New York, 1964.

 

Manua19£_Procedure. Michigan Department of Corrections,
Bureau of Field Services, 1969.

New Jersey Courts Administrative Office. Manual gn_the
Presentence Investigation 5 Report. Trenton, I964.

 

116

Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission. Penal
Institutions, Probation, and Parole. PhiIadeIphia,
1963.

 

President's Commission of Law Enforcement & the Administra-
tion of Justice. Task Force Report: Corrections.
Washington: v.3. Government Print1ng Office,fil967.

 

 

Probation Committee, New Jersey Bar Association. A Reap-
praisal gf Probation. Trenton, 1963.

 

Standards and Guides for Adult Probation. National Council
on Crime & Delinquency. New York, 1962.

Standard Probation §_Parole Act. National Council on Crime
& Delinquency. New York, 1964.

 

United States Congress, Senate. "Of Prisons & Justice,“
A Selection of the Writings of James N. Bennett.
S. Doc. 70, BB'Congress, 2nd— Sess1on, ‘I9

 

C. PERIODICALS

Advisory Council of Judges, National Council of Crime &
Delinquency. "Model Sentencing Act - Text and
Commentary," Crime & Delinquency, IX (October,
1963), 339- 370.

 

Boldt, George H. "Recent Trends in Criminal Sentencing,"
Federal Probation, XXVII (March, 1963), 3-6.

 

Chute, Charles L. "The DevelOpment & Needs of Probation
Service," Journal of Criminal Law § Criminology,
XVIII (December, 1973Y, 514-521.

 

 

Crossley, Lawrence. "Probation Officer's Report," Justice
of the Peace, CXVII (August, 1953), 537-552.

 

Doyle, Richard F. "A Sentencing Council in Operation,"
Federal Probation, 25(3): 27-31, September, 1961.

 

Evjen, Victor H. "Some Guidelines in Preparing Presentence
Reports," Federal Rules Decisions, XXXVII (April,

 

Fitzgerald, Edmond. "The Presentence Investigation, "
National Probation & Parole Association Journal,
II TOctober, 19561, 32 0- 336.

 

 

117

Gronewold, David H. "Presentence Investigation Practices
in the Federal Probation System," Federal Probation,
XXII (September, 1958), 27-32.

 

Herlands, William B. "When & How Should a Sentencing Judge
Use Probation," Federal Rules Decisions, XXXV
(December, 1964), 497-509.

Hoffman, L. Wallace. "Analysis of a Presentence Report,"
Federal Probation, XIV (December, 1950), 41-45.

Hood, Roger. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Pre— Sentence
Investigations in Reducing Recidivism," British
Journal of Criminology, VI (September, 19 9665, 303-

Houston, John W. "Right Selection of Probation Cases,"
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, XII (Feb-

ruary, 19—25, 577-582. —

 

 

Keve, Paul W. "Professional Character of the Presentence
Report," Federal Probation, XXVI (June, 1962), 51-
56.

Manson, John R. "Studying the Offender before the Court,"
Federal Probation, XXXIII (June, 1969), 17-22.

McFarlane, G. G. "Theory & Development of Presentence
Reports in Ontario," Canadian Journal of Correc-
tions, VII (June, 19647] 201- 225.

 

Meecher, Ben. "Analysis of a Presentence Report," Federal
Probation, XIV (March, 1950), 41—46.

 

Miles, Arthur P. "Wisconsin Studies of the Function of
Probation & Parole," American Journal of Correc-
tions, XXVII (April, 19651, 22- 25. 7’

 

. "The Utility of Case Records in Probation &
Parole," Journal 9: Criminal Law, Criminolo ,‘5
Police Sc1ence, LVI (September, 1965), 285- 93.

 

National Probation Association. "Standards for Effective
Probation Work," Journal of Criminal Law & Crimin—

ology, X (August, 19195, _§3- 293.

 

Parker, Graham E. "Use of the Presentence Report, Legal &
Social Role of the Probation Officer in the Sentenc-
ing Process," The Canadian Bar Review, XLII (August,
1964), 621-635.

118

Parson, James Benton. "Aids in Sentencing," Federal Rules
Dec1s1ons, XXV (December, 1964), 423-159.

 

Rappaport, Ernest A. and Harvey Treger. "Preparation for
Probation Supervision," Corrective Ps chiatr &

 

Journal gf Social Therapy, X (May, , -136.
Rubens, Sol. "Development of Correctional Law," Crime &

 

Delinguency, XI (April, 1965), 192-199.

 

Sims, Leon J. "Pre-Arraignment Investigations: A Partial
Solution to the Time Problem," Federal Probation,
XXVIII (March, 1964), 24-26.

Smith, Talbot. "The Sentencing Council & the Problem of
Disproportionate Sentences," Federal Probation,

Stump, Lawrence M. "Court Investigations & Reports,"
Federal Probation, XXI (June, 1957), 9-18.

 

Taylor, Edward M. and Alexander W. McCachern. "Needs &
Directions in Probation Training," Federal Proba-

Treger, Harvey. "A Meaningful Inquiry into the Life of an
Offender," Crime 3 Delinquency, XI (July, 1965),
249—255.

Wahl, Albert and Daniel Glaser. "Pilot Time Study of the
Federal Probation Officer's Job," Federal Probation,

XXVII (September, 1963), 20—25.

Wahl, Albert. "If I Were a Judge," Federal Probation,
XXVI (June, 1962), 41-47.

Wallace, John A. "A Fresh Look at Old Probation Standards,"
Crime g Delinquengy, X (April, 1964), 124-129.

Wilkins, Leslie T. and Ann Chandler. "Confidence & Com-
petence in Decision Making," British Journal gf
Criminology, V (March, 1965), 22-35.

Younger, E. J. "Probation & Sentence," Los An eles Bar
Bulletin, XXXVIII (August, 1963), 333-332.

 

D. UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

Risley, Henry B. "Analysis of the Time Factor as it Relates
to the Presentence Investigation," Michigan State
University, East Lansing: 1969.

 

FEB 2 7 7.959.