\ L, Mr . gal ”3"“ *1 c523 \ A CONSIDERATION OF MAJOR FACTORS IN RURAL CORRECTIONAL FIELD SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AND A SUGGESTED PROGRAM BY Romine R. Deming AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted To Nuchigan State University College of Social Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Police Administration and Public Safety 1963 Approved fred C. Schnur, Chairman limes“ 0 Mr. George D. Eastman. Member ABSTRACT A CONSIDERATION OF MAJOR FACTORS IN RURAL CORRECTIONAL FIELD SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AND A SUGGESTED PROGRAM by Romine R. Deming Special conditions existing in rural states that are significant to correctional field service administration are examined by the means of seeking support for a hypothesis. The hypothesis is: Urban correctional field service programs do not satisfy correctional objectives under the special conditions existing in rural states. These conditions are: (1) the typical rural law violator's personality differs considerably from the urban law violator's personality; (2) the culture of the rural community differs considerably from the culture of the urban community; (3) rural ecology differs considerably from urban ecology; (4) the rural income from tax revenues is less in rural states on a per capita basis; (5) the difficulty in obtaining qualified personnel poses a greater problem for rural states; (6) the lack of professional community services is greater in the rural states. Results of existing research. although of small quantity, are consistent in support of the hypothesis. Romine R. Deming Based on the examination of the special conditions existing in rural states, suggestions are made for a cor- rectional field service program that will maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages of rural correctional field service. The suggestions are aimed at the most sparsely populated states: Alaska. Idaho, Maine, Montana. Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, vermont, and wyoming. The suggested administrative organization of the field office would be based on the integration of all the correctional field services for both juvenilesand adults. Officers would then be dispersed as much as possible creating small regional offices with sub-offices. Juvenile detention facilities would be administered by the regional senior officer. well qualified personnel capable of executing their reSponsibilities autonomously would be selected through a civil service program from out-of-state if necessary. Means of providing consultation service, advanced training, and a variety of experiences would be present. Suggestions of techniques for improving the relation- ship between the rural officer and the people with which he Romine R. Deming must work are presented. The rural offender, as well as his more law-abiding counterpart, is extremely sensitive to interpersonal relations which places importance on a friendly office atmosPhere. The rural offender recognizes the omnipresent surveillance aspect of the community. With discretion, this can be an important therapeutic tool. Also, the officer may find that transplantation can be an important aid in selected cases. This is greatly facilitated by boarding facilities. Lastly. care must be taken not to permit juveniles to identify with adult offenders because of the contacts through the integrated office. In working in the community the officer must have patience in presenting modern methods of corrections. He must be aware of the importance of personal face-to-face contacts in changing attitudes and realize he will be success- ful only to the degree he is accepted on a personal basis. It is suggested that the probation service be administratively separate from the courts. This can only be successful if the role of the probation service is well defined. Both agencies must realize that the probation- parole office exists to serve the community through the court primarily. Romine R. Deming One important conclusion was the discovery of the paucity of research in rural criminology and corrections administration. The suggested program is based on this research, opinions of authorities and the writer's experiences as a probation—parole officer in a rural state. Because of the paucity of relevant research the suggestions are actually hypotheses that need to be tested. A CONSIDERATION OF MAJOR FACTORS IN RURAL CORRECTIONAL FIELD SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AND A SUGGESTED PROGRAM BY Romine R. Deming A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Police Administration and Public Safety 1963 .- g. ‘ .I. / 1 / II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the state of Alaska, I express my deep appreciation for the experience it afforded me through employment. I am especially grateful to the director of the Division of Youth and Adult Authority of Alaska, Mr. Charles W. Pfieffer, and to my immediate superior, while I was under the employ of that state, Mr. William Meredith. My special appreciation goes to my advisor and major professor, Dr. Alfred Schnur, whose continued encouragement and invaluable assistance has made this treatise possible. I wish, also, to express my gratitude to my wife, Arlene, who has continually encouraged me in gaining the experience, which provides the basis of this paper, often at some discomfort to herself. Her assistance in editing is much appreciated as well. Lastly, my appreciation is extended to Mrs. Edith Starr for typing the paper. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Hypothesis 1 Definition of Terms 1 Evidence to be Used 4 Scope 4 Proposed Program 5 Organization 6 II. DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. REPRESENTATIVE STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Introduction 15 Presentation of Current Correctional Programs 16 California 17 Alaska 17 Idaho 17 Maine 18 Montana 19 Nevada 19 New Hampshire 20 North Dakota 20 South Dakota 21 Vermont 21 wyoming 22 Comparison of Current Programs 22 Salaries of Officers Compared 36 IV. AN EXAMINATION OF RURAL LAW VIOLATORS . . . . 38 Rural Law Violations 43 V. RURAL CULTURE AS IT AFFECTS THE LAW VIOLATOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 iii Chapter Page VI. AN EXAMINATION OF FOUR OTHER PERTINENT .RURAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Rural Ecology 55 Governmental Finance 57 Difficulty in Obtaining Qualified Personnel 58 Lack of Professional Community Resources 59 VII. INTRODUCTION TO A PRESENTATION OF SUGGESTIONS FOR A PROPOSED RURAL CORRECTIONAL FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 VIII. SUGGESTIONS FOR OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING QUALIFIED PERSONNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 The Personnel Desired 68 Means of Recruiting the Desired Personnel 74 Keeping Qualified Personnel and Keeping Them Qualified 76 Summary 84 IX. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Commission 85 Director 87 Staff Advisers 88 Custody 88 X. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Discussion of Basic Assumptions 92 Integration 95 Service to Misdemeanants 98 The Place of the Detention Heme in The Organization of the Regional Office 102 Sub—Office 104 Forms 106 Summary 110 iv Chapter Page XI. THE PROBATION?PAROLE OFFICER'S RELATION TO CLIENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 The Law Violator and the Parole Office 113 Advantages in Supervising the Rural Offender 114 Problems in Rural Supervision 116 Special Assets in Rural Supervision 118 Summary 120 XII. THE PROBATION-PAROLE OFFICER'S RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Summary 126 XIII. THE PROBATION-PAROLE OFFICER'S RELATION TO THE COURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Reasons Against Separation of the Probation Agency and the Juvenile Court 127 Probation Officer's Role to the Juvenile Court 130 Summary 136 XIV. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Table LIST OF TABLES Number of probation officers per state and types of caseloads . . . . . . State-by—state comparison of number of probation-parole officers, number of prisoners, and number of crimes known to police; per 100,000 population States ranked by factors persented in Table 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . State-by-state comparison of number of probation officers per 100,000 and percentage of crimes known to police that resulted in an institutional sentence . . . . . . . . . . . Correction expenditures in detail by states: 1961 (in thousands of dollars) . Current operating expenses for correctional institutions on a per capita basis . Comparison of rural and urban boys . Differentials in treatment . . . . . vi Page 24 . 26 . . 28 . . 30 . 32 . 33 . 42 . . 47 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ' HYpothesis The hypothesis to be tested in this paper is: Urban correctional field service programs do not satisfy correctional objectives under the special conditions existing in rural states. These special rural conditions are: (1) typical rural law violator‘s personality differs considerably from the urban law violator's personality, (2) the culture of the rural community differs considerably from the culture of the urban community, (3) rural ecology differs considerably from urban ecology, (4) the rural income from tax revenues is less in rural states on a per capita basis, (5) difficulty in obtaining qualified personnel poses a greater problem for rural states, (6) the lack of professional community services is greater in the rural states. Definition of Terms Before proceeding, clarity of these terms must be gained: urban correctional programs. correctional objectives, law violators, and rural states. Correctional programs include all the facets which go togehter to form a unit to correct the behavior of individuals who demonstrate nonconformity with the laws of a given geographical area. Programs include administrative structure. Techniques used in changing behavior are program components. Corporal punishment, segregation of the non— conformist, treatment of the nonconformist in the community, individual counseling, group counseling, psychotherapy, education, and vocational training are among these techniques. Personnel who operate and function in the administrative structure to effect a change in the behavior of the non- conformist are contained in the program. The ability, training, behavior, values, attitudes, and morale of the personnel are important factors in the program. The correctional objectives are to restore the law violator who has deviated from behavior prescribed by the majority of residents of a geographical area. It is the goal to rehabilitate the violator so his behavior becomes law conforming, so his behavior is beneficial to the residents of the area and not detrimental to them. For the correctional objectives to be successfully realized, the law violator must desire to conform and not conform only because he is afraid to do otherwise. In this paper, both adults who violate the criminal code or the laws prescribing proper adult behavior and the juveniles who violate the juvenile code, will be included in the term law violator. Traffic violators will not be included in the use of the term. Urban correctional field service programs are programs that are derived from experience and research with rehabilitating offenders in areas characterized by large dense populations. Rural states are defined for this paper as states having less than a million population and not possessing an urban area (an area of 250,000 population with a major city as a core). The result of this definition is a concern with states which are sparsely populated with a small total population. Utilizing these definitions, the hypothesis can be stated this way. Types of personnel, types of administra- tive structure, and types of techniques used to effect law conforming behavior, developed from experience and research gained in areas characterized by large dense populations do not meet the special conditions existing in states with small sparsely distributed populations. on~ ...u n~1 ..,. I “It ~q| In]: (In I” (ll ‘1- .L 5i ‘1' Evidence to be Used The testing of the hypothesis will be based upon the results of the small body of existing research in rural criminology, observations and opinions made by authorities having experience with the problem, and this writer's experience with the problem. The results are an analysis of conditions in rural states that must be considered in planning correctional programs. Sco e Ten illustrative states are presented. They are selected on the basis of this paper's definition for rural states. Each of the ten states does not exceed one million in population nor possess an urban area. The ten states selected using these criteria are Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Nerth Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and wyoming. The purpose of a presentation of these states in this paper is twofold. One is that they demonstrate the current progress made in correctional administration with reference to the use of community treatment, number of field correctional agents, means of selection of these agents, and salary of the agents. To better illustrate this progress, the representative states will be compared with one of the most urbanized states, California. The second purpose is to present concrete examples for illustrating the type of states which are the concern of this paper. This serves to make the discussion less abstract, especially valuable when making suggestions for a model rural correctional program. Because of the writer's primary concern with correctional field service programs, only passing reference will be made regarding correctional institutions in rural states. The reference which is made regarding correctional institutions indicate where they fit in the administrative structure of a proposed program. Proposed Program Based upon the results of the analysis of the special conditions existing in rural states, a presentation of suggested practices are presented. The practices are presented to maximize the advantages and minimize the dis- advantages of rural correctional field service. The suggestions are aimed at the ten representative states with the desire that the suggestions are general enough to apply to each of them with a minimum of modification. One set of suggestions will be concerned with ways of obtaining qualified personnel and maintaining them as qualified personnel. Another set of suggestions will be directed toward the improvement in the administrative structure and a third set of suggestions will be concerned with the relations of the correctional field agent to the rural milieu. The last two sets of factors are, of course, based on the possession of qualified personnel. These last two sets of factors are also difficult to separate even for the purpose of discussion, but when this separation is possible, the effort will be made. Organization The material will be organized in two parts. The first part will be an examination of the major factors that contribute to the need for special correctional programs for rural states. First, a general discussion of the problem will be presented. A description of existing correctional programs and some of the results of these programs for the ten representative states will be presented. These will be in the form of a comparison with a distinctly urban state. Examination of the six sets of reasons which create the need for rural correctional programs to be designed for rural states based on rural research will be presented. They include an examination of the rural law violator, rural culture, rural ecology, rural income from tax revenues, difficulty in obtaining qualified personnel, and a lack of professional resources. The second part will contain suggestions for a rural correctional program with primary reference to the field services. First, suggestions for obtaining and main— taining qualified personnel will be presented. Following this there will appear suggestions for the administrative organization. Then, suggestions for the correctional agents relations to the rural client, the rural community, and the courts will be presented. The paper will terminate with a summary, conclusions, and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM. The general area of rural correctional field service has been of interest to the writer for a number of years. This interest predisposed him to take a position as a probation officer with Alaska shortly after it became a state. Soon after, the writer received the provisional appointment to acting chief probation officer in charge of providing correctional field service to one of the state's regions. This resulted in the direct involvement in the practical problems of providing service to a very sparsely distributed population. A new correctional program was launched in Alaska with the advent of statehood. The program was going through a period of trial and error in an effort to arrive at the best program for the conditions. The writer became involved in this experimentation. The facets of the program were derived from utilizing portions of urban programs, intuition, the experience of the staff which was fundamentally urban, and just plain guessing. Many of the resulting facets of the program proved successful, others not so successful. IA VOC-I -.. ‘V. b.. \JJ v ‘6 ‘~ w. .1 I! "C Then successful facets, also, tended to adversely affect the successful. If there had been a body of relevant research results, collection of experiences of previous authorities, or an existing pilot program for rural states, much of the expense and effort could have been eliminated. Why cannot an effective program for rural states be based on appropriate research which has general appli- cation to all rural states? For the simple reason, there has not been enough relevant research conducted. Rural crime has been a consistently neglected area of criminology. In 1944 Marshall Clinard reported, ”The rural offender has been largely neglected in criminological research."1 In 1944 nearly half of the population lived in rural areas. In the intervening years, the rural population has declined and through the mass media and the automobile the rural population has become more urbanized. Perhaps these factors have contributed to a continued lack of interest by criminologists in rural crime. In 1956 William Lentz stated: FAlthough the idea of rural-urban differences has been incorporated into sociological theory, such concepts 1Marshall B. Clinard, FRural Criminal Offenders,” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 50 (July, 1944), p. 38. 10 are lacking in modern day studies of juvenile delinquency."2 Both authors maintain that there has been too much generali- zation from urban studies to rural lawviolations and vio- lators.3'4 When glancing over articles appearing in the professional correctional journals, one will notice that the predominant number are involved in urban corrections. In addition to this, it is noted that only one of the twenty—seven members of the committee on the National Probation and Parole Association's Standard Probation and Parole Act has his work station in one of the representative states. Besides the fact that rural areas are becoming less populated and more urbanized and because most of the progressive correctionalists are from urban areas; there are other reasons for a lack of concern with rural crime. One reason seems to be that there is less crime reported for rural areas. Another reason perhaps is that rural and 2William P. Lentz, "Rural-Urban Differentials and Juvenile Delinquency,9 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 47 (September-October, 1956), p. 331. 31bid . 4 . . Clinard, o . c1t., p. 38. 5The Standard Probation and Parole Act (New YOrk: National Probation and Parole Association, 1955), p. vii. 'Ip‘ 11 small-town residents are not as concerned with the problem and fail to realize that there is a profession concerned with the problem. As Dr. Loomis states, VIn rural areas, there is a tendency to believe that good horse sense and a soft heart' qualify one to be an effective public servant."6 A combination of the above factors contribute to a lack of funds devoted to the study of rural crime and rural criminals. Although rural populations are small and have smaller crime rates, they do have law violators. In 1960 the ten representative states had a total of 37,840 crimes known to the police.8 The ten representative states institutionalized a total of 2,507 adult violators in state prisons in the same year.9 The figures for the individual states are not very large, but when taken as a whole they present a large enough figure to receive some attention from criminologists. 6Charles Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, Rural Social Systems (New YOrk: Prentice—Hall, 1950), p. 767. 7Walter Redkless, The Etiology of Delinquent and Criminal Behavior (New YOrk: Social Science Research Council, 1943), Bulletin 50, pp. 159-160. 8U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States. Uniform Crime Reports -- 1960 (Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961). 9 . . United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Prisoner StatisticngNo. 24, 1960 (Leavenworth: U. S. Penitentiary, 1961). 12 There is a quantity of observations and experiences regarding rural correctional field service administration existing in professional literature. Hewever, these data are located in various volumes ranging over a number of years which does not encourage its use by the busy administrator. The opinions of these authorities are valuable, nevertheless. The administrator could, no doubt, profit from the experience of those colleagues who faced the problem of rural correctional field service administration earlier. If there were a successful state rural correctional field service program in existence, the other rural states would have little trouble in adapting it to their special conditions. If such a rural state is in existence, it has not been well publicized. This is to be expected, for thena are two very important problems that must be faced in establishing such a state program. one problem comes when defining the term "successful." Another problem is the finding of the basis for the program. At the present time, it could only be based on the major research results and experiences of authorities. The relative success of a state established upon the meager data that are in existence could be determined by comparing it with the efficiency with which rural states utilizing urban correctional field service programs had in rehabilitating offenders. Each of 13 these two states could in turn be compared with the states with no planned correctional field service programs. Another method of determining the success of a rural correctional field service program is to establish a program where an urban program previously existed and compare the efficiency in rehabilitating offenders before and after the advent of the program. If a state rural correctional field service program which was established upon the results of relevant rural research existed, it would be possible to test the hypothesis of this paper quantitatively. Because this type of state does not exist, to the writer's knowledge, the testing of the hypothesis must be based upon qualitative data. This data will be provided by the results of the major relevant research which exists and the experiences of authorities who have been concerned with the problem. Testing the hypothesis of this paper will accomplish the following goals: it will focus attention on areas where research is needed. It will summarize the results of the existing research in rural criminology. The testing of the hypothesis will result in the collection and summary of the opinions and experiences of authorities on the subject. From the research results, the opinions of authorities, and the writer's experience, suggestions for 14 a rural correctional field service program will be presented. The suggestions are only as good as the evidence on which they are based. Most of this evidence has not been properly put to the test of scientific experiment. In essence, the suggestions are hypothesesin themselves and should be Scientifically tested when they are utilized. CHAPTER I II REPRESENTATIVE STATES Introduction The selection of representative states is not random. An interest was in selecting states that were faced with the difficult problem of administering correctional field service programs to a sparse and well distributed pop- L11 ation with a small total population. Therefore, using the 1960 census reports, a selection was made of states which did not have an urban area (populations of over 250, 000 wi 1:11 a city as its core). Secondly, the criteria of having prulations less than one million was arbitrarily established and the representative states had to have less than this prulation to be selected. Ten states were obtained that "Qt these criteria: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, .QW Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and W 3—"Qming. These states can be nicely grouped into two Q é.~":egories, according to population density as well as 1United States Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census E>‘::> N I.IJlation: 1960 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government lhting Office, 1961). 15 —__‘ -Ifiu..-—__ ..-—- t .- ‘v-\ ....--- - s ..|t-- I. ‘ nay-q. .- O'.-~v . unvo- “Vi-Ivy v...u._ ' l Uh -Uh «A,"‘ v..._. M..-_ ‘.N~l‘ Pa n, My ‘R s. \ IN“ 5“ 16 location. The three New England states have a higher density. The western states have a lower density but are quite close together geographically, except Alaska, which also has the lowest total population. To provide a better perspective, these states are compared with California, wh ich is reputed to have one of the best correctional programs in the United States but which, of course, because of its large dense population has primarily an urban c O rrectional program. Although the suggestions for a rural correctional f ie 1d service program which will be discussed later is primarily for these representative states, it is feasible t O conceive of some of these suggestions readily adaptable t9 states with large sparsely populated areas, but which 3‘ thude also large metropolitan areas that would preclude th em from being used in this study as representative states. Presentation of Current Correctional Programs A state-by—state summary of the correctional programs, b ch for adults and juveniles, is presented here. \ 2Ibid . 17 California The superior courts function as juvenile courts vv:i:th exclusive jurisdiction over minors under eighteen_and with concurrent jurisdiction over minors under eighteen to twenty-one. Probation officers are normally nominated by 21 <2cmmdttee of citizens in each county and appointed by the judge of that county. Adult probation is on a county basis with the juvenile probation officers service ex officio £3.=53 adult officers in the smaller counties. Parole is a S tate function with the youth authorities supervising -j ‘ulfiVreniles and the adult authorities supervising adults. Alaska The district magistrates have jurisdiction over Ir‘”:i~3r)ors under eighteen. All probation officers supervise bgth juvenile and adult parolees and probationers. They ESL 3t=‘€a selected from a civil service roster by the director IIEF the D1v151on of Youth and Adult Authority.4 Idaho If a juvenile commits a felony, he may be handled \ 3National Probation and Parole Association, Probation 5§~“‘~§L1_¥Parole Directory of the United States and Canada, 1957. 4Alaska State Personnel Directory. 0-“ nun: u..- .- Iv .n. in. In (I! In. IA. 5" .(4, {u 18 in criminal court. Otherwise, the county probate court has jurisdiction over minors under eighteen. The probate court appoints probation officers with the approval of the county commissioners. The youth rehabilitation section in the Division of Mental Health provides a consulting service to the officers. Juvenile probation officers may be called upon to supervise adult probationers, but the State Board Of Corrections has the duty to supervise adult probationers a 8 well as adult parolees. Juvenile parolees are supervised by staff members of the juvenile institution.5 Maine In Maine, the municipal courts and the trial justice c ourts have jurisdiction over minors under seventeen years 0 :5 age. Probation officers are appointed to the courts by the governor; also agents of the Department of Health and WQ lfare may assist in investigation and supervision and also may appoint probation officers. In Cumberland County, the j udge appoints the officers. These officers may also be Q a:Lled upon to supervise adult probationers. Juveniles on DelaTole are supervised by two state parole officers. Other 8 1: ate parole officers supervise adults.6 5Ibid. 6Ibid . 19 Montana The Montana district courts have jurisdiction over j uveniles under eighteen and the judge appoints a chief and deputy probation officer for the respective districts. Adult probationers and parolees are supervised by officers of the Board of Pardons. Juvenile parolees are supervised by the juvenile institution with the assistance of the county juvenile probation officers. Nevada' In Nevada the district courts have exclusive 3:"SEESErional jurisdiction over minors under eighteen except if charged with a capital offense. The judge has discretion 1:'<::’ handle minors between eighteen and twenty-one charged ‘C'.:i—‘t:h felonies other than a capital offense as juveniles. flE-jlilnee district court appoints one probation officer per C: QUnty in its district with the approval of a board czf‘::>fir)sisting of the governor, state superintendent of public jL‘th‘HEBtruction, and the district superintendent of schools. Osficers appointed by the State Board of Pardons and IP‘EE..J:. . . (ales superv1se adult probat1oners and parolees. There Ii.§53 . . . . Iao provision stated for the superV131on of juvenile 1;.EE JEPCDlees.8 7Ibid. _I_b_i__d_. In" -1 n- A. '(l '1} fl) n._. 20 New Hampshire In New Hampshire the municipal courts have juris- diction over minors under eighteen. Probation officers are appointed by the State Baord of Probation. However, the municipal court may appoint them and if the area has a population over 50,000 they shall appoint them from an approved list provided by the Board of Probation. The Board also provides rules for the local officers. These Officers also supervise adult probationers. Juveniles on probation are supervised by one separate officer. Adult parolees are supervised by one of two state adult parole O f :lficers.9 North Dakota In North Dakota minors under eighteen are under the J urisdiction of the district courts. The district courts lay appoint referees who act also as probation officers. E hey may also appoint volunteer juvenile officers. The hild Welfare Division for Children and Youth of the State 1:. ublic Welfare Board cooperates in supervision. Adult 1“! ‘ . . . lsdemeanants and those conv1cted of first felonies are Q - 3‘ lgible for probation and are supervised by state parole 9Ibid . 21 officers who are attached to the penitentiary staff and who also supervise adult parolees. Juvenile parolees are supervised by officers attached to the juvenile institution. South Dakota Minors under eighteen are under the jurisdiction of the county probate courts. Probate judges appoint volunteers it). counties under 15, 000 and salaried parole officers may be appointed in counties over 15,000. The Department of Probation and Parole supervises (no investigations) adult first offenders. A special state officer of the juvenile institution supervises juveniles on parole with the help of the county probation officer. State officers of the DeI>artment of Probation and Parole supervise adult parolees. vermont In Vermont the municipal court, or in counties with 11.3 municipal court a justice of the peace, is designated by the governor and has jurisdiction over minors under a ixteen, except in capital offenses. The Department of SQCial Welfare supervises girls and boys up to twelve. The D:i~‘7:ision of Probation and Parole of the Department of Institutions supervises juvenile boys between twelve and \ lOIbid. llIbid. 'IIL . "- , --Al v ‘._. d-‘iu - no... u - -._,‘ ‘u‘n “Va ~- - ‘A. u,fl ‘ I!" ‘fiol ‘- ‘O (I) t " LL? I Y '(J n; 22 sixteen, as well as adult probationers. Juveniles on parole are supervised by the supervisor of the juvenile institution. Adult parolees are supervised by state officers of the Department of Institutions. Wyoming The district courts in Wyoming have jurisdiction over boys eight to nineteen and girls eight to twenty-one, except in Cheyenne where a juvenile court has been set up under municipal charter. The Board of Pardons appoints officers who supervise juveniles and adults, both PrObationers and parolees. There are only three officers, however. 13 Comparison of Current Programs A tabulation of the probation and parole officers and the type of caseloads they carry is presented in Table l for each of the above listed states. It is assumed that these officers are under salary. The reference makes no statement to this effect, however. Only three of the representative states have inte- gra”Zed correctional systems which supervise both adult paITOlees and probationers as well as juveniles. They are \ 12Ibid. 13140.14- .nv“ w.- v -o-- _ 'I‘- .... .4. u.-. c ‘v-, 5". . 23 Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming; with Wyoming having only three officers for a population of 330,066. In Vermont juvenile parolees are not supervised by the state officers of the integrated system. Five other states, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Dakota have integrated state adult probation and parole offices which is advocated by the National Probation and Parole Association according 14 . . to the Standard Act. In Idaho, however, juvenile probation officers may be called upon to supervise adult probationers. In Maine and New Hampshire the locally appointed juvenile Probation officer may be called upon to supervise adults. In these states, also, only adult parole is a state function. California's program is characterized by the cor- J:‘ectional program distributed over many governmental units whiCh is not much of a handicap to most of the state. Most of the state has a dense enough population that there will be little travel involved by any agency to make contacts V7 ith its client. As the reader no doubt is aware, crime statistics are insufficient and totally lacking in many areas. How- EE‘rer, the 1960 reports of crimes known to police obtained filter: The Uniform Crime Reports covered 100 percent of the \ 14The Standard Probation and Parole Act, op. cit. JI.\.ID' ‘3 ‘I I UL v — ‘ ~AI' ah‘i u a Win NR‘V MSAIV 1* 0 1.. CH-h-dz V1.8 ‘ Aw“ HINDWF .pao .mo .sOADmaoommm maoumm 0cm coeumnoum amcoHUMZM macuomaamo mama mmma mm ma Hmm m m mcflfio>z ma ma ucoEHm> ma Ha s muoxma Spflom Hm cm a muoxmn Sunoz am e h m ma muanmmem 3oz em Hm m mom>mz mm mm s mcmucoz mm ma 0 mafia: mm N ma Ha osmpH NH NH mxmma¢ uaoom maoumm 0cm maco memo 0cm haco hand maflcm>sb Dazed maeco>5b coflumnoum maonmm coflumnonm Hmuoa mumoflmmo Hmooq mumoemmo wumum mmsmum .m m. m U OHmmMU MO mmmhu USN mumum “mm mHOUHMHO COHUMQOHL .HO HOQESZ .H bench n-F‘ '.uu .D‘ ouv "a u... "I In 'n‘ -3 ,c. \D l I 25 population. The National Prisoner Statistics are also complete. There is a lack of any form of statistics for tzlue number of probationers and parolees permitting a state- kofig-state comparison according to the National Research and Information Center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency . Statistics of juvenile courts exist and are presented 3t>§y the Children's Bureau of the United States Department of lEIkealth, Education and Welfare. However, they are very Zi_]ncomplete for many states, with three of the representative AES'tates, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming not reporting at all. The relevant statistics that do exist which permit ESL state-by-state comparison are presented in Table 2 to ‘IZD-etter illustrate some of the salient features of the JEI‘epresentative states. In discussing Table 2 certain extraneous variables Intrust be pointed out. One variable is that the columns draw EEStatistics from different years; column one, 1957; column ‘tzwo, 1959; and column three, 1960. Column two is based on 1:he 1950 census and columns one and three are based on the JL$360 census. The differences in years, however, may be tliaken as constant errors due to the numbers indicating :1?Eitios. The comparisons between states would be very -.._ -.-,I y u:- 'u- 3“ a“. U“- a: ll..- 26 {Deable 2. State-by-state comparison of number of probation parole officers, number of prisoners, and number of crimes known to police; per 100,000 population. No. of No. of No. of State probation prisoners crimes known parole receivedb to policec officersa Alaska 5.31 not available 1, 031.1 Zlicflaho 4.20 40.5 704.3 Ileaine 2.95 46.8 539.9 IMIIDntana 4.30 62.4 982.3 ISIeevada 7.44 89.3 1,993.1 ISIdew Hampshire 5.11 12.2 342.1 ISIiorth Dakota 3.32 21.3 375.4 S<>uth Dakota 2.20 59.1 565.9 Vermont 4.62 67.7 541.2 :yoming .009 86.8 863.8 C alifornia 10.36 39.9 1,976.5 \ aComputed from: U. S. Census of Population: 1960 and National Probation and Parole Association, Probation and L!E?arole Directory of the United States and Canada, 1957. bComputed from: U. S. Census of Population: 1960 ‘Eilnfl United States Bureau of Prisons, National Prisoner Statistics #2332. 24, 1960 (Washington, D. C.). cComputed from: U. S. Census of Population of 1960 Eilld Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports-- 41;§2_6_(_)_(Washington, D. C.). .«v - uaq (II I. '- n‘. I” (I! A... 5“ S." ‘v y \ H“: I... 27 erroneous if any of the states drastically increased or decreased their number of probation and/or parole officers between 1957 and 1960. Some other factors one should keep in mind are that tzlae number of probation and parole officers include officers serving parole caseloads only, probation caseloads only, adult caseloads only, juvenile caseloads only, or any degree of integration of the above and any number of the services. Whereas, the number of prisoners received refers to only adults and the number of crimesknown to police do not i mclude those acts which can be only acts of juveniles, such a s truancy and habitual running away. Another factor Q onsists of the lack of knowledge of the percentages of Q ffenses cleared by conviction. This is assumed to be 31‘ elatively constant for each of the states under study. If this be the case, it can be assumed that the differences between the number of prisoners received is a function of the sentencing practices of the various states. In order to better compare the states in respect to the three columns of Table 2, the states have been ranked according to the number of probation officers employed and listed also are the appropriate ranks for the other two factors, number of prisoners received and number of crimes known to police. 28 {twable 3. States ranked of factors presented in Table 2 (l = lowest, 8 = highest). Rank of No. of probation Rank of crimes parole prisoners known State officers received to police per 100,000 per 100,000 per 100,000 population population population Wyoming 1 8 7 South Dakota 2 5 5 .LZIJEi.jLne 3 4 3 Next}: Dakota 4 2 2 Irz‘fi‘Eiku) 5 3 6 Montana 6 6 8 g ‘EalETInont 7 7 4 New Hampshire 8 l l \‘ Alaska is excluded from this comparison due to L E‘Qik of statistics for all the columns. Nevada is excluded éi‘7aL'EEE to being extremely atypical. As noted in Table 2, it rIUEE“=53‘ the highest number of probation officers, the highest lfiljkz‘lrtfber of prisoners received, and more than twice as many Q In: imes known to police as the rest of the sample states. Of course, it is not safe to draw many conclusions :EETZCTCJm.the above data. HOwever, it is interesting to note ‘t::l‘iat WYoming has the highest number of prisoners received ,.. 29 per 100,000 and the next to the highest number of crimes known to police per 100,000 population, and by far the least number of probation and parole officers. New Hampshire i 5 just the opposite. It has the highest number of probation the least number of prisoners received, and the o f ficers, .ZL e ast number of crimes known to police. If one were fortunate enough to be able to take this data at face value, ruling out any other variables, it would be easy to say that the higher the number of probation officers, the J— Q‘Ner the number of prisoners sentenced to institutions and the lower the crimes known to police. However, there are E a): too many variables that cannot be isolated which pro— .“ ibits this generalization. To make this generalization a little safer, although 8 - t 111 very unreliable, Table 4 has been compiled to compare th Q percentages of crimes known to police that resulted in Db- :l.soners sent to institutions with the number of probation a. hQ parole officers per 100,000. This comparison implies t hét the number of probation officers is the only variable hVolved in determining the percentage of crimes known to ; QZlice that resulted in institutional sentence. Needless EQ say. there are many other variables, such as type of Erimes characteristic of the area, success of law enforce— IT‘ent agencies, state laws, etc. 30 Table 4. State—by-state comparison of number of probation officers per 100,000, and percentage of crimes known to police that resultedin an institutional sentence. No. of probation and parole Percentage of crimes known to police that State officers per resulted in insti- lO0,000 tutional sentence Alaska 5.31 data not available Idaho 4.20 6% Maine 2.95 9% Montana 4.30 6% Nevada 7.44 4% New Hampshire 5.11 4% Nbrth Dakota 3.32 6% South Dakota 2.20 10% vermont 4.62 13% WYoming .009 11% California 10.36 2% Here the states with the greatest number of probation and parole officers per 100,000 population have the lowest percent of individuals sent to correctional institutions of crimes known to police per 100,000 of population. comparison. California is especially outstanding in It tops the representative states in the number 31 of probation and parole officers per 100,000 by almost three for Nevada and tops the remainder of the states by twice as many. Yet California has two percent less than the lowest sample state in the percentage of crimes known resulting in prison sentence. Of course, it must be remembered that the greater difficulty in crime detection in urban areas affects the rate of crimes closed by arrest. In California there may be a much lower percentage of crimes known to police cleared by arrest. Table 5 presents a breakdown of correctional expenditures by each state. It would not be proper to compare the states' expenditures due to the local government's paying for probation services in many of the states. Hewever, the current operational costs for the correctional institutions can be compared because they are state-supported and administered in all the representative states but Alaska. Alaska's figure includes the cost of operating the local lockups and excludes the housing of long-termers in federal institutions. To make this comparison a little more meaning- ful, Table 6 has been constructed. Part of the difference in the varying amounts of the expenditures may be due to a difference in the quality .muamEGHm>om Hmsuo mo mcowusuflumafl CH mumcomflum mcflcflmu ICHmE mo umoo mmUSHUcH .mmfiufiaflomm vmumH0QOImumum haze mmUDHUGH .mwaflcm>5n paw mcomnmm pwuofl>coo mo coauowuuoo paw pawfimsamcoo map How mcoflpsuflumcfl mumum Hmsuo paw .cofluomnnoo mo momsos .mmflnoumfinommn .msomflnm mumumllmcowu5#flumcH HMGOHuomHHoo .mmflpfibfiuum maonmm cam .coaumnoum .cocumm cam .3ma map umcammm mmmcmmmo mo Umuofl>coo muocfle 0cm muHSGm mo cofluomunoo cam ucmfimcflmsooIIGOHuomnuov umCOHUHCHme .mm .m .Ammma .woflmmo mcfiucflnm usmficuw>ow mmumum pmuflnb ”.0 .Q .coumcflnmmzv Hmma ca mmocmcflm ucmficum>ow mumum mo Efiflpcwmfioo .msmcmo may no smousm .mUHmEEOU «0 pcmfiuummwa .m .Dm 32 II: 0 mg mow me bwm mcfifioxm, III we mma hmH.H mmm.a hwv.a ucoahw> In: mm mm «mm mmo.a ooa.a muoxmn npsom III mmH.H mm mmH.H oam.a mmm.m muoxmn nuuoz 1-- mmH vmm arm mNH.H mom.H muanmmEmm 3wz III gm mom mam ¢@H.H mvm.a mpm>oz Ha Haw mm omm.a amo.~ Hem.m mcmucos III hmm Hmm Noo.m mmm.m omm.m mcflmz III oma up mom mvo.a mmm.a OSMCH wom.m mvm.ma mmo.m www.mv mmmlmm Hmo.on mecuowflamo b mma moo.a mg woa.a mom.a mxmmam Hmsuo mmapso Hmsuo mcoflusuflumcfl .mo ucmnusu mGOHuumHHoo mumum Hmuflmwo Homoeuomunou dance Hmuoa m.AmumaHop mo mpcmmoocu cflv Homa "mmumum an Hflmuwo cw musuflpcmmxm coauomunoo .m magma 33 Table 6. Current operating expenses for correctional institutions on a per capita basis. State State Current Current population operational operational expenditures expenditures for correctional institutions institutions per capita Alaska 226,167 $data not comparable $ Idaho 667,191 968,000 1.45 Maine 969,265 2,062 2.13 Montana 674,767 1,996,000 2.97 Nevada 285,278 918,000 3.22 New Hampshire 606,921 871,000 1.40 North Dakota 632,446 1,158,000 1.83 South Dakota 680,514 952,000 1.40 Vermont 389,881 1,197,000 3.10 Wyoming 330,066 896,000 2.71 California 15,717,204 45,967,000 2.21 of the institutions provided. However, realizing that California provides one of the best set of institutions in the country, and they are doing it for $2.21 per capita, it is difficult to see why a state needs to spend more. It is true, of course, institutions than large ones, that it is more expensive to run small but it must also be remembered 34 that urban areas provide a greater percentage of professional criminals which require greater security at a greater expense. Then the assumption is made that a greater use of probation accounts for a great deal of savings to the taxpayer. It is also assumed that the states with the greatest number of officers are using probation more and at least have a better opportunity to provide a pre-sentence investigation. Again emphasis is made that the above statistics are in the realm of descriptive statistics and conclusions drawn from comparisons should only be made if the limitations are firmly kept in mind. In a descriptive manner, the data demonstrate a great disparity between the states. Remember- ing that the states are very similar in kind, it is difficult to see the need for this disparity. It perhaps will be of interest to present a synopsis of the probation laws in our sample states in 1940. These are presented in order to show the novelty that probation is to the representative states. In 1940 the following jurisdictions had suspension of sentences without supervision: Nevada, South Dakota, and WYoming. Jurisdictions having suspended sentences and supervision without paid probation officers were Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota. Jurisdictions having probation ll.-‘ .O-a \'.- - IVA p- u..-‘ '1) . u-q on... “b "ve v Q.‘ We sh" (I) r— (ll ’_1 KL‘ .1" -. ( He 35 with supervision by paid probation officers were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Alaska under the federal probation code. According to Sol Rubin, in 1957 all of the sample states had parole laws. The following states had these exclusions from parole, however: New Hampshire, life termer or habitual criminal; North Dakota, second felony offender; Montana, prisoner who had served a previous term; Nevada, prisoner previously convicted four or more times and who had served a previous term; wyoming, life termer or a prisoner who committed assault with a deadly weapon in prison, or participated in an attempt to escape.16 It is also interesting to note that according to Sol Rubin, "In North Dakota a prisoner must deposit a sum of money up to $100 to defray the expenses of his return in the event of a violation of the conditions of parole."17 It is felt that the pre—sentence investigation is the backbone of a good correctional program. Therefore, 15Gilbert Gosulich, Adult Probation Laws of the United States (New York: National Probation and Parole Association, 1940; second edition), pp. 18-20. l6Sol Rubin, Adult Parole System of the United States (New York: National Probation and Parole Association, 1949; Supplement, 1957). P. 27. 17Ibid., p. 51. 36 it is important to point out again that according to the National Probation and Parole Association Directory of Probation and Parole Officers in the United States and Canada, in South Dakota probation officers do not investigate, but just supervise adult cases. Also, probation is limited in the following states: North Dakota, misdemeanants and those convicted of first felonies; South Dakota, first offenders.l Salaries of Officers Compared The salaries paid rural correctional workers are low compared to the nation's average. The national average for individuals working with adults in correctional work is $7,500 per annum.19 The representative states do not come near this figure, even at their highest increment (excluding Alaska which is atypical because of its twenty- five percent higher cost of living). The sample states show up rather poorly with the following salaries being paid to state officers: Alaska $7,800 Idaho $4,200 18National Probation and Parole Association, op. cit. 19National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Standards for Selection of Probation and Parole Officers (6 pages, mimeographed). 37 Maine $4,888 to $6,084 Montana $4,200 to $5,000 Nevada $5,052 to $6,132 New Hampshire $4,591 to $5,546 North Dakota $5,400 South Dakota $4,680 to $5,400 Vermont $4,146 to $4,976 Wyoming $4,200 to $5,400 California $8,196 to $9,948. By comparison, the perspective probation-parole officer can start out at $6,390 and work up to $7,465 as a probation—parole officer for the federal government.20 0National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Salaries of Probation and Parole Officers and Juvenile Detention Staff in the United StatesLyl962—1963. CHAPTER IV AN EXAMINATION OF THE RURAL LAW VIOLATOR Although there is insufficient information about the rural law violator, the material that is available consistently suggests that rural law violators are different from urban law violators in significant ways. The recognition of these differences is exceptionally important when planning correctional field service programs for rural states. The investigators are not only consistent in showing differences between rural and urban violators, they are also consistent with each other. This is important because the investigators gained their information from different types of samples, at different times, and in different geographical areas. In studying "The Rural Criminal," Marshal Clinard states that, "In several cases the first criminal behavior was not related to any association with others. A set of unusual circumstances coupled with a general personal irresponsibility appears to have been involved in the difficulties."1 He also found that the rural offenders in his sample manifested "no characteristics of a criminal 1 . . Clinard, op. c1t., p. 42. 38 39 social type" based on the criteria: (1) they lacked an early start in crime; (2) they lacked progressive knowledge c>:tf (criminal technique and crime in general: (3) crime was :r1<:>=t: their sole means of support; and most important; (4) they IL acked a self—conception of being criminal. The author noted that forgery, larceny and auto— t: Irlseaft were especially poorly engineered. The forgers rt1ZIT<>duced a portion of the members in his Prison Community :r1L<:>1:es similar phenomena. He notes: The occasional crime that occurs in this county, and in others like it, follows no set pattern. A hired man on a farm may steal twenty dollars from his employer. A share-cropper may steal three sheep from a farm ten miles away. . . . The petty predatory crimes, if they happened in a city, would never call for penitentiary placement, but the states attorneys, for a number of reasons including their desire to be a ”convicting prosecutor? send men to prison in whom criminality is no more advanced than in the average Fsharp? business man, if as much so.5 Joseph Lagey found a few factors significant to this Lba-Eber in data obtained from Venaange County, Pennsylvania, 13% tween the years 1954 and 1956. He ascertained that rural 1: delinquent boys in Wisconsin for his milieu. He found 'tZJIULait rural delinquents from small towns, villages, or farms ‘VV'Ssanxre apprehended at an earlier age, were slightly behind the urban delinquent in school, and had a little lower I.Q. . JHL;JL,£30 rural boys had a higher rate for breaking and entering 1335:3’11: nominal purposes and general misconduct. Itemized the sarJtTWCDups compare as shown in Table 7. In general the post commitment adjustment of the 21:7‘51:ral delinquents was better. They spent less time in the j‘1'7lstitution; did not return as often: parole adjustment was TIt‘<:>::re successful; more were granted early discharges; and the D3=ognosis was more apt to be favorable. When rural offenders \ . 6Joseph Lagey, "The Ecology of Juvenile Delinquency JLII the Small City and the Rural Hinterland,9 Rural Sociology, Vol. 22 (Sept., 1957), p. 233. 42 Table 7. Comparison of rural and urban boys.a .J. - Typical sex offense was an occasional rape or attempted rape of a small girl, indecent exposure, or sodomy with animals. 23 .. Preferred to steal from r e l atives . ‘33 ._ Committed 1.7 kinds of o f fenses. ‘éL'- 52% lone offenders. 55‘ - 22% were known members of d e l inquent gangs. ‘55 <- 12.3% showed they were Skilled in crime. 1. Typical sex offenses were frequenting houses of prosti- tution or Vgang shags." 2. Preferred to steal from strangers. 3. Committed 3.0 kinds of offenses. 4. 16% lone offenders. 5. 87% were known members of delinquent gangs. 6. 66.3% showed a great deal of skill in crime. '77 «- 60% were from deviant 7. 43% were from deviant 3EEVEEIJuai1ies. families. \ aLentz, op. cit. a ‘53:}:e returned to the institution, it was usually for the ssuzsllnne kind of offense, while the urban offender's subsequent t<:=‘1:‘was more likely to be of a more serious nature. The author stressed that the above findings did not I):N63:fute urban explanations, but did demonstrate that they 6 id not wholly explain the rural situation. \“\~‘ 7Ibid. 81bid., p. 337. 43 To summarize this section, the descriptions of the rural law violator are combined into a composite picture. The rural offender is a loner or became involved, fortuitously, with an acquaintance residing some distance from himself, in a poorly engineered act of irresponsibility more than of a c rime. He knows little of crime and is generally ignorant to skilled technique. He does not think of himself as a criminal, but rather as a little wild. He prefers to steal from his relatives rather than strangers. His relatives are often deviant also. His offenses are usually of one type. Rehabilitation is usually more successful than for his urban counterpart. If he does recidivate he usually commits the same type of violation. Rural Law Viol at ions With specific reference to the rural law violator's '1t:¢3C?ansgressions, the following are summaries of studies of JET‘KJLral crime and its distribution. P. Wiers in studying FJuvenile Delinquency in Rural :h*lechigan,? compared delinquency in Wayne County (Detroit), Zj~lndustria1 counties, southern non-industrial counties, and I:llpstate counties. The southern non-industrial counties are Eagricultural and the upstate are cut-over lands and vacation Spots. Year-around residents are not too affluent in this 44 area. Wiers found delinquency rates per 1,000 population varied between counties with Wayne County having 9.9, industrial counties 8.7, southern non—industrial counties 3 - 9, and upstate counties having 6.0. It is interesting to note that many of the southern non—industrial counties are next to or sandwiched between industrial counties and this <3 id not seem to affect delinquency rates in them. John Useem and Marie Waldner in studying FPatterns of Crime in a Rural South Dakota County," found the follow— ing factors which are helpful in the present paper. In S tudying the crime rates in Hutchinson County in southeast South Dakota between 1890 and 1940, they found that the crime rate increased faster than the population. Crimes of violence dropped from 52% to 7% and crimes against the public went up from 22% to 65% (mostly misdemeanors). There were no professional criminals and only 13% were Qanicted before. Only 24% had accomplices.:L0 FEconomic Depression as a Factor in Rural Crime,9 was studied by Herbert A. Bloch. He found that habitual \ 9Paul Wiers, "Juvenile Delinquency in Rural Michigan, " gournal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 30 (July—August, 1939): pp. 211-22. 10 . . . John Useem and Marie Waldner, ("Patterns of Crime in a Rural South Dakota County," Rural Sociology, Vol. 7 (June, 1942). p0 184- bu 45 offenders often arouse during the depression due to a lack of secondary controls and faith 'in the primary controls which are sufficient in normal times. Due to this lack, the individual's criminal tendencies are not curbed after his first offense.:Ll In summarizing the few studies presented above rural crime is increasing per 100,000 population; however, the rate is less in the rural areas. Crimes against the public are increasing while crimes of violence are decreasing. crimes committed by professional offenders are nonexistent. However, habitual offenders arise, especially during abnormal times such as depressions. 1Bloch, o . cit., p. 47. n‘h co: CHAPTER V RURAL CULTURE AS IT AFFECTS THE LAW VIOLATOR Attention is now turned to the community in which the rural violator lives and to some extent is a product. The rural law violator, as noted before, receives a more Severe treatment from the courts of a rural area than he would if his case was disposed of in a large city court. More data to support and explain this observation is pre- sented here. Although the general study of rural sociology 5— 8 not within the scope of this paper, some of the more 8 alient factors affecting the law violator are considered here as well as some of the general characteristics of the rural community. William Lentz presents the following data (Table 8) bégarding treatment differentials administered to juvenile G alinquents by the courts. This demonstrates exceptionally well that the rural QQurts are less tolerant of the delinquent. Almost all Q2E the rural delinquents were sent to the institution on their first or second appearance before the judge, while 1:he urban delinquents on the whole were sent to the 46 reformatory on their third or fourth appearance, some not even being sent until their tenth appearance before the court. This, of course, demonstrates that the urban courts are much more tolerant and not so ready to throw in the sponge, so to Speak. Table 8. Differentials in treatment.a rural delinquents urban delinquents l. 15.4%.were previously on probation before being insti- tutionalized. 2. 95%.were before the judge only once or twice before being institutionalized. 1. 70.3% were previously on probation before being insti- tutionalized. 2. Nearly 1/2 of the group were before the judge three or four times and 20%»were before him five to ten times. aLentz, op. cit. Wiers, in the study previously discussed, found that a greater percentage of Tunofficial cases? were handled by the juvenile courts in the rural area. This was due to the Idack of other more appropriate agencies. Also, in the rural aifleas the courts dismissed a lower percentage of cases and Pliaced a higher percentage in institutions and on probation. HOVVever, the probation periods were shorter.1 l . . Wiers, op. c1t. 48 John Useem and Marie Waldner found, FIn most [rural] communities, condemning and forbidding are deemed adequate techniques for securing conformance of individuals. The delinquent is thought to be inherently perverse and in no way the product of community life." They also note that law enforcement was provided by poorly trained, poorly educated, and poorly paid individuals. Differential treat- ment was administered to the various offenders. And lastly, there was no recreation provided for the younger people and no attempt to provide any. We would like now to comment on the seeming severity of dispositions imposed by the courts as mentioned by the above authorities. The authorities have done little to explain the causes of the severity. In comparing rural and urban responses to crime, one will see the smallest crime getting the maximum of news coverage and discussion in the rural area and not the slightest mention in the larger Imiban area. One of the reasons for this is the attitude CH5 the general citizenry. Because the citizens in the nlufal area often know both the offender and the victim it .is common for them to take sides. Or perhaps they even Inuevv the offender when he was a fiwild kid.9 For twenty \ 2Useem and Waldner, op. cit. 49 years the offender may have led a responsible life, but his neighbors cannot forget his adolescent days and they link them with his present transgressions. Or the offender might have been someone who did not pay his bills or hired help and subsequently happens to get involved in a sexual relation with his step-daughter who is under sixteen. The citizens link the two types of behavior and attempt to ”get him,9 at least verbally. They subordinate the knowledge that the step-daughter had been having promiscuous affairs with many of the male members of the community. They may not have much interest in avenging the step-daughter, but use this as a means to avenge themselves for the offender not paying his bills. Also, the mere provincialims of a small town or rural area may be enough to build up a crime out of its actual proportions.3 Talk about VTom Jones getting it for Stealing chickens from Old Man Higgs? makes for good gossip. And the listener adds, ,"Well, it's about time. He's been swiping chickens for years. I hope they rack him good ‘tliis time.? Actually, he might have stolen the chickens dturing his adolescence which happened to be a number of Smeaars previously. This interest in crime gossip is even \_ 3Albert Blumenthal, Small Town Stuff (Chicago: Un:Lversity of Chicago Press, 1932), p. xii. NV: v.. f) ['71 50 greater when the offense is a sexual aberation.4 A fear of contagion of crime is another factor underlying the magnification of an offense. The individual may fear that the offender will recruit accomplices from the law-abiding youth. Often, however, an individual may fear a particular kind of contagion. An insecure mother may be somewhat anxious about her child-rearing ability and may fear that her adolescent offspring might become involved with the erong people.9 Being acquainted with the victim, generally makes the impact of the crime more pronounced to the rural resident. Thusly, he fears a real, present offender. He is not just cognizant that crimes exist because he has read about them in the newspaper. The magnifying of an act is usually great if the act is unique and unusual. The fear of the unknown seems to magnify the actual importance of an act. An individual acmused of a homosexual act is usually the object of much Shossip. The gossips will admittedly state that they do ncat understand it, but in the same breath will say, "Isn't it: horrible, so—and-so is 'funny.‘ They ought to send him U3 prison for life or maybe to a nut house.? The mere 4 J. H. Kolb and Edmund De S. Brunner, A Study of 3252331 Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), p. 57. -Afi' .- ‘vvi 7“~‘ -' u «,-~- J'vv' an-w - an; iv HF IA One- ’9 “If: '1 (D ¥.‘. EI (C 51 accusation is usually enough to ruin a person for life, regardless of guilt. This type of incident actually occurred in a town where the writer was employed as a pro- bation officer. The accused was a promising young attorney accused of a homosexual act which caused a great furor. The individual committed suicide stating that his heart could not take the pressure, but he maintained his innocence. The reader is also referred to the great play Children's .593; for an excellent example of this.5 The relative lack of tolerance in the rural resident is demonstrated by Samuel A. Stouffer. He found that residents of small towns and farms were appreciably less tolerant in regard to questions of communists, atheists, socialists, and suspected communists. .The authors proposed that the more opportunity one has for travel and new experience, the more tolerant he will be.6 These findings Should be applicable to demonstrate an intolerance of law Violators. The attitudes expressed above of the rural resident alre also generally reflected by the rural police officer. 51t is now a popular movie. 6Samuel A. Stouffer. CommunismL Conformity and Civil Eééasgrties: A Cross-Section of the Nation Speaks Its Mind (Qifirden City: Doubleday and Co., 1955), P- 118. 52 As John Useem and Marie Waldner found, the rural officer in their study was poorly trained, poorly educated, and poorly paid.7 In addition, he is usually a lifelong resident of the community, thus assuming its beliefs. He may be interested in finailing? the offender who gave him a hard time before he joined the police department. Or, he may be out to get an individual who is accused of a minor charge but who, he feels, has slipped out of serious charges. allegedly committed years previously. Of course, there is always a cocky kid or two in the neighborhood who gives a particular officer a hard time and, in turn, is laid for by the officer. The mere novelty of making an arrest is often a factor in making a disaster out of a crime and a monster out of an offender. This was illustrated to the writer who was responsible for making court reports on both juvenile and adult offenders, when one day a city officer of the snnall community asked how the writer was coming with rhis Zn:y.? The writer automatically began thinking in terms of ffialons. When the officer gave the name of the individual, it turned out to be a twelve-year—old boy who did a little Sh<>plifting of marbles. Relative to the officer's record 0f «arreststhis was a pretty serious case. \ 7Useem and Waldner, op. cit., p. 47. 53 Prosecutors areusually subject to the above beliefs plus usually being in an elected position with an expressed goal to please the public. As a result for the need to continue in office, they attempt to build a record of convictions. The judges, especially those who are elected, wittingly or unwittingly often react to the public opinion of the community. Also, in many rural communities the juvenile judge does not have to have a law degree or any degree for that matter and, therefore, lacks sufficient training for the position. These factors plus the influences which result from primary relationships with the district attorney, the police department, and the citizenry are factors which tend to make the rural jurist more severe in his dispositions as compared to the city jurist. In conclusion, these are some of the factors involved in the disparity of sentences between rural and urban <>ffenders. It is quite natural for an individual comparing 'the sentences received by the two groups of violators, the LLrban and the rural, to be alarmed at the greater severity if! the sentences received by the rural violator. Paradoxi- CEilly the rural violator who would profit most from a SL1-‘3pended sentence or probation receives the severest of 54 sentences. The rural residents do not compare the two groups of violators. They compare the rural law violator and his violations with the behavior of the law-abiding residents of their community. CHAPTER VI AN EXAMINATION OF FOUR OTHER PERTINENT RURAL CONDITIONS Rural ecology, the spacing of people and institutions; rural governmental income and expenses: difficulty of obtain- ing qualified personnel; and the lack of professional community resources are obvious conditions which make urban correctional field service programs inappropriate for rural states. HOwever, these conditions seem to be often over— looked. The conditions are briefly discussed here with the effects they have upon correctional field service programs. Rural Ecology Probably the most glaring problem is the sparseness of population in rural states. A probation officer needs to drive many miles to see a client. Presently, in all but three of the representative states, three or four different ‘workers criss-cross the same remote areas of the state, each supervising or investigating a particular type of case, Either probation (adult or juvenile) or parole (adult or ju‘fienile). Also, it is much‘more difficult, if not 55 56 impossible, for clients to make the long journey to the regional office when in need of counseling. Therefore, if the client is to be supervised, the worker has to do the traveling. The rural worker then spends more time behind 'the wheel of his car than the urban worker, who even though <2arrying a specialized caseload, works in a small area ssurrounded by many clients. In the urban area, there is ITO difficulty for the client to take a bus, taxi, or even vvalk to the probation office. On the other hand, H. P. fused notes, FIn a survey conducted a short time ago it “Has found that one officer had to cover ten large counties. fie was spending more than 40 hours a week in travel! Irrterviews and other basic duties of the position were Carried out entirely in his 'leisure' time.," To keep the transportation cost down and the worker Clxose to his clients, the officers should be dispersed to ‘tfue center of their territory, thus creating small offices aIni sub-offices. This poses a personnel supervision Problem of too many chiefs and not enough Indians and the Crhiefs quite isolated. Practically, each officer needs to be an administrator. Keeping the regional personnel in on \ 1H. P. Reed, ”Caseloads,? National Probation and W Association Journal, Vol. 3 (April, 1957), p. 147. on“ ho:- a?! v1“ .VE -n (D .__.. 57 the know with the administrative office presents a major problem which alsois involved in transportation. The supervisor also must spend a great deal of time on the road. Governmental Finance The financial element is another factor which is a disadvantage to rural corrections. The rural areas lack the big revenue makers such as heavy industry and other large enterprises. Also, just as in business, the larger the program to a point the greater the efficiency is in the use of the allotted funds. Institutionalization of 300 inmates is more costly than institutionalization of 1,500 inmates on a per inmate basis everything else equal. In addition, the legislators tend to be conservative in their appropriations. They want to be sure that the monies eaxpended are doing some good. As a result, they may stick tn: the old ways of doing things, using 9common sense? rarther than experimenting. They are too often hesitant tC> hire the best personnel, but would rather limp along Pafizing a smaller salary and getting a smaller employee. 2Paul W. Keve, fiThe Probation Officer Who Works AlC>Ile,f' Federal Probation, V01. 19 (June, 1955): PP. 3-7. ...-.. c- ‘- RH; Ht 58 As elected politicians, they are interested in showing a minimum of expenditure to the public. Perhaps this savings is penny wise and pound foolish. Difficulty in Obtaining Qualified Personnel The population size, the need for correctional field agents with initiative and administrative ability, and governmental finance contribute to a problem of obtaining qualified personnel. The state institutions for higher learning find it impractical to train students in corrections when the state only needs one or two a year. Also, under the present systems of hire in eight of the ten representative states, the individuals are hired locally either by the judge, boards of supervisors, or the governor for at least one of the correctional field service functions. The best prerequisite for employment is often an acquaintance with the hiring official, if not a political supporter of him. Even if a civil service program were used, the state would probably be reluctant to hire out-of-state.3 Then, too, if out-of-state hire were permissible, Litjperhaps would be difficult to entice qualified personnel 3Clarence M. Leeds, ”Probation Work Requires Special TTainning,V Federal Probation, Vol. 15 (June, 1951), pp. 25—28. 59 due to their hesitance in leaving their home states, lack of advancement opportunities, and low salaries. However, these problems perhaps are surmountable, but they are problems of the present in most of the representative states. This, compared to densely populated states with large total populations, is a point of disadvantage. They have need for a greater number of workers and certainly it is profitable for one college or university to provide specialization in correctional education. Paradoxically, many of these same states are permitted to hire from outside the state including both California and New York. Lack of Professional Community Resources Community resources also present a problem in rural correctional work. Recreational programs, for the most part, are nil. Many other important professional agencies are lacking or are few and far between. And the ones that do exist are often operated by poorly trained individuals. Especially important, are the lack of mental hygiene clinics. The rural probation—parole officer is <3ften called upon to provide the missing service as best Ins can although lacking the specialized training. Or, when the agency exists, but is staffed by unqualified Personnel, the correctional field worker will be 6O forced to rely on uninformed and poorly trained allies. Needless to say, the above disadvantages are not all present and to the same degree in all the rural states. Nor does it mean that they do not also occur in urban areas. It means that the disadvantages are more typically rural, however. CHAPTER VII INTRODUCTION TO A PRESENTATION OF SUGGESTIONS FOR A PROPOSED RURAL CORRECTIONAL FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM The foregoing chapters of this paper have analyzed Ithe pertinent rural conditions which are the reasons for the inappropriateness of urban correctional field service programs for rural states. Ample evidence seems to exist to support the hypothesis of this paper. Urban correctional field service programs do not satisfy correctional objectives under the conditions existing in rural states. The analysis of the above conditions stressed mainly the negative aspects of rural conditions for the development of a correctional field service program. There are, however, positive aspects to some of these conditions. The positive aspects are stressed here. There is a decided advantage to working with the rural offender as compared to the urban offender. The rural law violator is less sophisticated in criminal ‘technique and crime, in general, than the urban violator. Inki, he is more likely to be a loner. He does not conceive Of 11imself as a criminal nor his offenses as crimes. His 61 62 acts are more likely to be acts of irresponsibility and rehabilitation is usually more likely. If the rural violator is a much better candidate for community rehabilitation then there is less need for correctional institutions or as much security in the ones that are necessary, which is a great financial savings to the state.‘ The offender's characteristics make it easier to supervise him in the community. In addition the rural community culture provides an advantage in supervision. It is much easier to supervise an individual where everyone knows everyone else's business and thus keep tabs on the worker's client even, of course, if this is not the goal. However, this factor is an incentive for the offender. He is well aware that the probation-parole officer knows all about his behavior. As a result, there is less interest on the client's part to deceive. Positive factors which have bearing are the offender's primary group ties, the relatives and friends who encourage him to walk the straight and narrow. Also there is not the amount of fast living available to the rural offender as offered in the large city; therefore, the offender does not have the temptation to Clive it up.” 1Barton Palmer, 9The Techniques of Rural Parole SHP€217vision,9 The welfare Worker, Dec., 1951 issue, p. 5. 63 Naturally, not all of the rural offenders are of the above type. And the converse is not true of the urban area. However, the above depicts the typical rural offender. It would be difficult not to find an occasional pyromaniac, sex deviate, psychotic murderer in the rural area. The smaller population and lack of diversity makes possible for the rural probation—parole officer to know his area well. This provides an opportunity for him to know the inhabitants and the culture. Quite often he will know the offender or his family through other associations before the individual violates a law. The rural officer may not have as many community resources as the urban officer, but he certainly has an opportunity to know the resources better and the individuals involved in their operations. Develop- ment of a little black book of prospective employers is a simple matter. The officer not only can easily get the names and addresses of prospective employers, but he can obtain information as to the prospect's personal likes and dislikes, and thereby better fit an offender to the employer. If the advantages are properly maximized and the (iisadvantages are properly minimized, correctional adminis- tration in the rural areas would be much easier and much less expensive as compared on a per capita basis with the 64 densely populated states. A greater number of offenders would be returned to society to contribute to the betterment of themselves and their communities and thus to the state. The remainder of the paper is a presentation of suggestions to accomplish the goal of rehabilitating law violators in rural states. Based on the analysis of the special rural conditions, three sets of suggested practices are presented. They are aimed at providing a program suit- able to the ten representative states. However, some of the suggestions are applicable to other states with large areas which are sparsely populated. The suggestions are based upon research findings, the experiences of authorities already discussed and some additional data of this nature which will be initially presented with the suggestions. In addition, many of the suggestions grew out of the writer's experience with the problem. The suggestions are based, to a great extent, on common sense and impressions. They have not been put to the experimental test. Some of the suggestions definitely need testing to determine their validity. These suggestions, as they are presented here, serve as hypotheses that need to be tested. There are three sets of suggestions for a rural carfirectional field service program presented. One set of 65 suggestions is concerned with obtaining qualified personnel and maintaining them as qualified personnel. Personnel are the backbone of the program. Without proper personnel, even the best administrative structure will be ineffective. A second set of suggestions deals with the administrative structure. The basis of the structure is to obtain the maximum efficiency in the use of the personnel. The last set contains ideas to improve the relationships between the personnel and the people they must work with in the rural states. The Standard Probation and Parole Act will be the guide as a statute. However, it will be necessary to go beyond the Standard Act into the administrative procedure of a program due to the generality of the Act. Departure from the Standard Act will be only when necessary because of the special conditions of the rural states. Due to the generality of the Standard Act this seldom occurs. The suggestions here presented are completely consistent with the goals of the Standard Act. Only the ways of achieving these goals vary some because of the special conditions existing in the rural states. The goals of the Standard Act are: This act shall be liberally construed to the end that the treatment of persons convicted of crime shall take into consideration their individual 66 characteristics, circumstances, needs, and potentialities as revealed by a case study, and that such persons shall be dealt with in the community by a uniformly organized system of constructive rehabilitation under probation supervision instead of in correctional institutions, or under parole supervision when a period of institutional treatment has been deemed essential, whenever it appears desirable in the light of the needs of public safety and their own welfare.2 2Committee on the Standard Probation and Parole Act of the National Probation and Parole Association, Standard Probation and Parole Act (New York: NPPA, 1955): P. 1. CHAPTER VIII SUGGESTIONS FOR OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING QUALIFIED PERSONNEL The best of organization has little value if the functions are not executed by knowledgeable personnel with integrity. This chapter will focus on the probation-parole officer. Of course, much of what is desired in a rural probation-parole officer is identical with that which is desired in the urban officer. However, it seems important to stress certain areas heavily here, due to the fact that residents of a rural community are less likely to be as concerned with high-caliber individuals and more interested in the personality of the officer. A program is only as good as its personnel and there is no substitute for well- trained, devoted men and women of integrity from the top administrative position to the field officer. Therefore, that which is desirable in personnel, how to obtain them, and how to keep them functioning at the desired level 'will be discussed. 67 68 The Personnel Desired Mr. Henry P. Chandler's statement made in the year of his retirement as director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts sums up that type of personnel required. Probation officers need a wide range of qualifications which I would summarize as strong character, understanding, and patience. I put character first because with a probation officer as with a parent, example counts for the precept. A probation officer must have learned to manage hiw own life successfully before he can hope to help others manage theirs. In his character, strength and unselfishness must be combined. He must have in his personality the quiet force that commands respect. He must have an inclination, not to say a passion, for helping others, that leads him to put forth the utmost efforts without counting the cost. He must not yield to seeming reverses, but have the patience and persistence to surmount them. He must give the financial compensation a very subordinate place in his thinking, because like teachers and ministers his greatest rewards will come in the opportunities that the work brings of serving his fellowmen. In fact, the best probation officers are those who like ministers have an inward call to the work. This is far from the attitude of the man who takes or is given a position of probation officer as just another way of earning a living, and I would make it a prerequisite for appointment. But the best intentions without understanding of the conditions encountered are not enough. A probation officer needs to have knowledge of the factors in personality and particularly of the motives of action and how to call them forth. He needs to be acquainted with the community, its industries, its schools, its health and character building agencies, and its churches. He needs to 69 know where to go for help and how to get it. He must have a disposition that wins cooperation. This is personal service on a high order and in addition to natural ability it calls for education and experience. Because of the nature of the rural community, special attributes in the rural officer are needed. An individual is needed who can identify with the community in a personal and friendly way, but who can also maintain his identification with his profession and agency. He needs to express a warm friendliness toward everyone. Tact is of primary importance in maintaining confidentialness of records yet not appearing to be rude to the inquirer. Nor should the officer respond offensively when rebuked for recommen— dations made to the court. The very nature of the probation-parole officer's work brings him in contact, sooner or later, with practically everyone in the community and, in fact, this is to be encouraged and better sooner than later. Mere contact is not enough, however. In a small community the relation- ship is expected to develop from contact to personal relationships. Professors Loomis and Beegle observed, FThe pattern of social work that has grown up in the cities, lHenry P. Chandler, FMr. Chandler Retires,“ Federal Probation, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Dec., 1956), pp. 3-5. 70 having most of the features of the contractual Gesellschaft, is often ineffective and disliked in areas. Rural life has famialistic Gemeinschaft features which a professionalized . . . ,2 and impersonal welfare serVice fail to meet.' Louise Armstrong observes the situation from the perspective of the rural social agency. She states: If any social workersused to the big city setups should happen to read this record, it may occur to them to think that ours was a very informal office. . . . Insistence upon strict formality would have been regarded by our clients and other local citizens as Thigh hat? and we could not have won the confi- dence of our cases with such technique.3 Everything is done at a slower pace than in the large urban area. If one does not stop occasionally to talk to the judge's secretary, he will be considered uppity, resulting in the loss of a valuable ally. For the probation—parole officer to be sincere in his personal relations in the community, he must identify with it. As Joseph Evans states, VTo be effective, the worker must have identification with the community whom he serves as an agent. The community gives life and sanction to the agency and his professional self and delegates to 2Loomis and Beegle, op. cit., p. 762. ,3Ibid., p. 532, citing Louise V. Armstrong, We Too Are People (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1938), p. 468. 71 it and him authority and responsibility.”4 The officer must think in terms of we residents of, say, Centerville, and not I and those residents of Centerville. Because of the strong identification the residents have for their community, they are suspicious of the outsider or the Vcity slicker.P Hewever, it is a dangerous tendency for the officer to over-identify with the community at the expense of identification with his profession and his agency. It is a strong temptation to recommend probation because the offender is well liked in the community when your professional training and experience tell you the offender is a poor risk. It is especially difficult when the officer knows that his personal friends will perhaps rebuke him and he is unable to defend his recommendations to them because of his need to protect the confidentialness of his findings. As Jane Ives states, PPressures for leniency and for punishment as well make it necessary for the officer to have confidence in his own competence to deal with probabilities."5 More will be stated later as to the means of helping the rural 4 . . . Joseph P. Evans, "A Profile of the Practitioner in a Correctional Setting,” Federal Probation, September, 1961, pp. 43-490 5Jane K. Ives, VThe Essential Task of the Probation— Parole Officer,? Federal Probation, March, 1962, p. 43. 72 officer to maintain a balance of identity. Because of the personal nature of the community, there are certain demands made on the rural officer's personal life. As implied, there is no hiding anything from the community. VEveryone knows everything about everyone else in a small town,? states Albert Blumenthal in Small Town Stuff.6 It is assumed that the urban officer would be an upstanding individual who would have nothing to hide. However, if he did possess a particular quirk, he could conceal it from his superiors and clients. This is not possible in the rural community; the officer's personal life is as carefully scrutinized as his professional life. Therefore, an emphasis must be placed on the portion of Mr. Chandler's statement that says, VA probation officer, must have learned to manage his own life successfully before he can hope to help others manage theirs.9 Many would—be rural officers actually have nothing to hide, but are of the nature that they resent being continually under public scrutiny. Besides the personal attributes that are required of the rural officer, he must also be extremely well trained ‘with a broad background in corrections. This added need ‘ 6Blumenthal, op. cit., p. 101. 73 for perfection in the rural officer is due to the integration of so many functions under one program. In discussing the organization of the rural integrated program, it will be stressed that the various functions are not incompatible and one individual adequately trained in one area would be sufficiently exposed to the others. Hewever, respect will also be paid to the fact that specialization through repetition improves ability. If the officer is not well trained, we can hope to improve him by having him continue the function until, with advice, he will become a master. In the integrated regional or sub-office with so many varied duties, the officer will find it difficult to repeat a function at close enough intervals to become the master. He need not be the Vjack of all trades, master of none,9 but he needs to get his training in all trades the easy way, in institutions of higher learning. There is little time or room to learn from one's mistakes in the rural office. This is especially important when one considers the decentralized nature of the integrated office which permits less supervision on all levels. Also because of the dearth of allied agencies, the rural officer may be called upon to perform functions that would be handled by a separate agency in an urban setting; therefore, he must.be a person of the highest caliber. 74 Means of Recruiting the Desired Personnel Although the rural states need the best all-around individual as a rural probation-parole officer, they do not usually get him. Under the existing programs of most of the sample states, it is little wonder. Remember that only one of our sample states employs civil service procedures for the selection of officers. The salaries are not con— ducive to obtaining the most qualified. Also, because of the separate administrative groups, there is little incentive for the ambitious, well-trained individual. In a county administrated office there is no higher position to attain. Lastly, the resident laws which require the hiring- of legal residents prohibit the procurement of those quali- fied individuals from other states. Thus, the above short- comings prohibit the rural state from providing probation and parole service that in the long run would save it money.7 By the process of integration on a state—wide basis, with state control, it is possible to eliminate some of the drawbacks in obtaining competent personnel. Goals. Shave been provided for the ambitious prospect to move into jobs of greater responsibility, greater fulfillment of 7Ben S. Meeker, VIn-service Training for Probation Officers,? National Probation and Parole Yearbook, 1952, P. 170. 75 creative desires, and higher salary. In the proposed program, the correctional system would be placed under civil service to provide some security to the prospect as well as to provide a fair means of selecting him. The resident requirements would have to be eliminated due to the representative states'inability to train correctional workers on a practical basis. Methods could be worked out, however, where regional cooperation of universities could provide a specific program for the correctional field. It is felt justified to select qualified state residents when possible, but the emphasis should be on obtaining qualified individuals wherever they may be found. Needless to say, financial compensation should be sufficient to compete with the urban areas. There should, however, be no attempt to attract individuals from the urban areas on the basis of salary alone. But, by the same token, the rural states should not lose candidates who ‘would prefer to work in the rural areas, but who also prefer an adequate standard of living for their families. There are many compensations which will attract many competent individuals to rural correctional work. There are those individuals who like the slow pace and personalness of the 76 rural area. There are those who like to dabble in agri- culture or are hunting enthusiasts, or who believe the country to be "a great place to raise kids." There is also the individual who aspires to teach corrections, or the individual who aspires to administrate corrections on a high level. They desire the experience afforded in the integrated office which continually exposes them to a wide perspective of correctional problems. With some improve- ment the rural states would be able to get their qualified personnel without having to beg. Keepingpgualified Personnel and Keeping_Themqgualified There are several means of holding good personnel and holding them as good personnel. There is little value in obtaining competent individuals if they leave shortly after arrival, disillusioned and dissatisfied. Also, the individual who remains, but carries these attitudes is even more damaging to the program. Of course, there will be those who outgrow a state and are capable of handling a much more responsible position than is available at a given time. If this individual can obtain such a position elsewhere, they should be encouraged to do so; but these individuals are not a detriment to a program, for they are 77 capable men who have done an excellent job up to the end. They have learned a great deal from the particular state and have contributed equally. One of the most important elements in maintaining a staff and maintaining its proficiency is good supervision. The literature is full of supervision methods. They vary in the kind and degree desired in a correctional agency. A certain type of supervision will be advocated here based on the special characteristics of a sparsely populated state with a decentralized and integrated correctional program. First, and foremost, there must be an exceptionally knowledgeable supervisors,especially the director. He needs the same attributes that a field officer needs, plus an understanding of all the functions of the department. It is not to say that he needs to have operated a jail or have been an institutional counselor. waever, he needs to be sufficiently learned in these areas to enable him to set up major policy and evaluate decisions of his subordinates. He also needs to be able to delegate authority and responsi- bility to his subordinates which calls for faith in their ability. He needs the same faith in his own professional ability in order to call a spade a spade and stand by his decisions. But above all, the supervisor needs to under- Stand the unique problems of rural corrections. In addition: 78 Administrators must above all be able to give inspiration and effective leadership to the department and be able to maintain good staff morale. They should have the vision and personal qualities which will enable them to promote the program of the department with governing bodies and the public and to partici- pate in community welfare programs.8 The goal of the regional supervisors and the administrators should be as E. Silverman suggests, ”The object of casework supervision is to develop the probation officer's creative capacity to carry on a rehabilitative process in behalf of the offender,”9 it may be added, in behalf of the community. wa is this to be accomplished? The administrators, both the director and the regional senior probation-parole officers, must get out in the field where their subordinates are located. This is no small task in a decentralized program in a sparsely populated state. Having the director as directly superior to both the jail supervisor and the senior probation-parole officer makes this a little more economical as well as creating closer cooperation. The senior officer will be in a little better position to supervise the officers in the sub-office, due to the frequent 8NCCD, Standards for Selection, . . . op. cit. 9E. Silverman, ”Surveillance, Treatment and Casework Supervision,? National Probation and Parole Association Journal, V61. 2 (Jan., 1955). 79 use of the detention facility being located in the major city with the regional probation office. In regions where the need for sub—offices does not exist, of course, super- vision will be no problem, due to all the subordinates being located under one roof. Even though the personnel have been procured with special interest in their ability to think independently, they must never be left out on a limb or feel cut off from the rest of the program. wa does the rural supervisor supervise without destroying the individual's ability to act independently? This goal should be achieved even when a supervisor is available at all times, but even more so when the supervisor is in some other community. As Paul Keve suggests in his article FThe Probation Officer Who Works Alone,f ?every one of us needs a mentor who, because he is detached and disinterested can hold up a mirror to us and let us see our effective talents and our occasional follies in their proper perspective,"10 The daily demands of the position, plus the continued exposure to the community culture may tend to cause the individual to lose sight of the "forest for the trees.? In her discussion of ’Supervising the Experienced WOrker,? Mary Peters maintains: 10Keve, op. cit., p. 4. 80 The same building of strength to cope with the situation, the same readiness to suggest resources or alternatives, the same attentive interested listening to the presentation, the same clarifying questions and suggestions are needed in the worker supervisor conference which were needed in the client worker conference.11 It must be remembered that the relationship of superior to subordinate is a two-way learning process. The supervisor learns valuable information which can provide a basis for teaching other subordinates. The worker must be aware that he is a contributor of ideas. Although his ideas may not be used, he must be made aware that they are appreciated and the reason for not using them should be made known to him to further his insight.12 The main point is for the supervisor, although an administrator, to sell himself as a helping person, helping others who help. He must make the worker feel he is for him.13 Roy Russell believes, ”Regular visits to each district office are important and they give these regional supervisors confidence and inspiration to be able to discuss their individual cases and their peculiar problems with this llMary Overhold Peters, ”Supervising the Experienced Worker,” Social Casework, Vol. 30, No. 5 (May, 1949), p. 195. 2Sidney S. Eisenberg, ”Supervision as an Agency Need,” Social Casework, Vol. 37, No. 5 (May, 1956), p. 235. l31bid., p. 236. 81 executive officer of the commission."14 Then, the super— visor should play the role of a counselor's counselor. Along with the above method of assisting the sub— ordinate to grow and to keep a proper identity with the agency and his profession, there should be at least a semi- annual staff meeting so that all the senior probation-parole officers and administrative advisers can meet together with the director. These staff conferences serve to increase the esprit d'corp of the agency by helping the individual to identify with the greater whole. It is a fine time for the various regional senior probation-parole officers to iron out problems which might have come up between them in exercising their duties. The in-service training program provided for the new employee should be discussed. It is during this period that the new employee snould be made to feel part of the organization. As Ben Meeker points out in his discussion of in-service training for the federal probation officers, ”Because probation officers frequently work in isolated communities, they appreciate an opportunity for early fellowship with their colleagues.”15 Because of 14Roy Russell, ”Combined Probation and Parole Services in Operation,” National Probation and Parole YearbookL_l949 (New York: NPPA, 1949), p. 178. 15Meeker, op. cit., p. 173. 82 the size of the program in rural states, there need not be an elaborate training program. However, there must be an adequate orientation for the few new members received each year. In-service training should not be considered as a substitute for professional training, but rather a means of relating an individual to specific tasks of a specified job.l6 In order to accomplish these aims, it is suggested that the attachment of the new employee to the regional office in the city in which the administrative office is located be made. First the neophyte should be given a chance to become acquainted with the administrative rules and the laws of the state. Then he should be given a week's experience in the administrative office becoming acquainted with its functions as well as the structure of the entire organization. This will be the time for him to get acquainted with the director and the converse. This would also be a fine time to acquaint him with the adminis- trative offices of allied agencies. The next step would be to arrange for him to visit the remaining regional offices, jails, correctional camps, and the interstate correctional institution. He should then end up at his own work station, where he will be introduced to the local allied 16Ibid., p. 172. 83 agencies, as well as his co—workers. He will be given, of course, more supervision in his first few weeks, until he gets to know the "hang of things.” Remember, this individual is professionally trained and needs only assistance in applying his broad knowledge to the specific and unique means of operation which vary from state to state and from region to region. There are a few remaining measures to assist the individual to grow on the job in both interest and ability. A voluntary rotation program should be permitted after an individual has been in a particular area for at least two years. This will assist in preventing an individual from over-identifying with a community or getting bored on the job. This privilege should be extended to all personnel, the junior probation-parole officers, and the jail staff, as well as the senior probation-parole officers. The remaining means are: the provision for scholar- ships, educational leave, directed study courses provided by the administrative office and/or universities, time granted to attend conferences of professional organizations, provision for utilizing a departmental library, and above all, recognition and credit for participating in the above activities. 84 Summary An organization is only as good as its personnel. The rural state needs as good, if not better, personnel than do the urban areas. Above all, they need professionally trained individuals with a personality that not only suits them for service to a community, but also conducive to serving and enjoying the rural community. Means of out- of-state hire, civil service security, opportunity for advancement, and adequate salary must be instituted to attract the desired personnel. Probably the most important factor in keeping the personnel and keeping them interested, is adequate supervision; supervision by individuals who see themselves as counselors of counselors, to assist subordinates in their role as community servers. The field officers must be made to feel as part of a larger body, all working with the one goal of community service, the community being the state in which they are employed. CHAPTER IX SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION To put the correctional field service program in proper perspective in relation to the entire rural correction— al program, passing reference is made here to the custody service and the upper levels of administration. Commission The alternative to Section III, Article II of the Standard Probation and Parole Act is recommended as the basis in selecting and governing the correction commission. However, due to the small population of the representative states, three commission members should be sufficient. And, they should be paid per diem as well as travel allowance. Summarized, Section III provides that members be appointed by the governor, ”The Commission shall exercise general supervision over the administration of probation in all courts of the state . . . the Commission shall submit to the governor . . . a report with statistical and other data of its work, including research studies Which it may make of probation, sentencing, or related functions, and a 85 86 compilation and analysis of dispositions by criminal courts throughout the state.”1 The Commission should be responsible for the entire correctional program, not just the probation service as it is in the Standard Act. The size of the program would not merit a separate commission for each service. The Commissioner would appoint a state director as outlined by Article III, Section VII entitled Employees as set forth in the Standard Act and substituting ”Commission" for the term ”Board.” It is stated: The Board shall appoint a state director of probation and parole, hereafter referred to as the director, who shall appoint with the approval of theBoard, a sufficient number of assistant directors, probation and parole officers, and other employees required to administer the provisions of this act. The director and all other employees of the Board shall be within the classified service of the civil service, or public personnel system.2 The selection of the director and his subordinates would not be restricted to residents of the state, but qualified personnel from any state would be considered. Funds would be provided for moving the selected personnel from other states to the state of hire. However, if the employee did not stay two years, he would have to reimburse the state. lStandard Probation and Parole Act, 1955, QB. cit., pp. 6_7o 2Ibid., p. 13. 87 In addition, the Commission would select two individuals to serve with the director as parole board members to consider adult cases. Director The director would have the duties outlined by Section IX of Article III of the Standard Act: The director shall be the executive officer of the Board. He shall be responsible for such investi- gations and supervision as may be requested by the Board or the courts. He shall, subject to the approval of the Board, divide the state into districts and assign probation and parole officers to serve in the various districts and courts, and shall obtain office quarters for the staff in each district as may be necessary. He shall assign the secretarial, bookkeeping, and accounting work to clerical employees, including receipt and disbursement of money. He shall direct the work of the probation and parole officers and other employees as assigned to him: shall formulate methods of investigation, supervision, record keeping, and reports; shall conduct training courses for the staff; and shall seek to cooperate with all agencies, public and private, which are concerned with the treatment or welfare of persons on probation or parole.3 In addition, he will be a member of the Regional Correctional Institution Board. Agreements would be made with other states to house adult offenders, young adults, and juvenile offenders in need of maximum security. 3Ibid., p. 15. 88 The director would serve as chairman of a three— man parole board. The representative states received from 71 in New Hampshire to 420 in Montana prisoners in 1959. It is a fair approximation that they released about the same number and with good probation service there would, no doubt, be less serving time and, therefore, fewer individuals being released.4 With this in mind, the three-man parole board with the director as chairman should be adequate for the task. Staff Advisers The number of staff advisers would be flexible depending on the need. Advisers would be specialists in the various areas of corrections. It is suggested that at least three be employed: specialist in youth services, specialist in adult probation and parole service, and a specialist in institutional and statistical services. These individuals would be administrative assistants to the director, as well as advisers. They would have no management duties. Custody The custody supervisors of the regional jails, adult conservation camp, and the youth conservation camp would be 4United States Bureau of Prisons, op. cit. 89 directly subordinate to the director, these supervisors receiving the same salary as the senior probation—parole officers. The above-discussed structure is here diagrammed for easier comprehension. Although the structure should remain constant, a high degree of flexibility would be permitted in the number of personnel, taking cognizance of cases handled, size of geographic area, locality of courts, and locality of institutions. 9O mEom 080m wEom coaucowmn soaucmuon coflucmumn Hmcofl om mm. s, w . moflmmo ooflmmo woammo now Dom 95m Illlllb demo QEMU mEmu MHOO demo HMCOHmmm1 cusow “duos HMCOHmmm . . a! ;. moflmmo mum moflmmo mum, moflmmo mum 1 onmom coHusuHumcH 1 HmCOApoonnoo HMCOHQO Houomnfin oumom maonmm HwGOHmmHEEOO msowuuonuou mumum —H0cnm>ow_ CHAPTER X SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE The regional office is the backbone of a state correctional program. The better the field service program, the greater will be its use, resulting in less use of institutions at a greater financial savings to the public and providing equal if not greater protection to the public.1 In most states there is not one regional office, but many. These, of course, are better called local offices. In the state of Michigan in the average sized city, one will find, a probation office under the Bureau of Probation, a parole office under the Bureau of Parole (both bureaus being in the Department of Corrections); a municipal probation office and a Children's Division Service Office attached to the Probate or Juvenile Court:and a detention 2 . . . home, also under the court. Each office has suff1c1ent 1William M. Maltbie, ”The State, the Courts, and Probation,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbook, 1939 (New York: National Probation and Parole Association, 1939), PP. 266-278. Saginaw, Michigan. 91 92 caseloads to have a full-time staff to supervise the cases in the immediate locale. In the representative states there are similar arrange- ments. As you will remember, there were only three states which combined the adult parole and probation service with the juvenile. Five other states had at least combined adult probation and adult parole. In two others the probation service for adults and juveniles had been combined. Discussion of Basic Assumptions Before beginning a discussion of the integration of correctional services, some major assumptions taken from the Standard Act will be reiterated. 1. Use of probation and parole is preferable to institutionalization of offenders consistent with protection of the community. 2. These services to be effective require sufficient amount of face—to-face contact. 3. A state-administered program is best for our sample states. 4. Modes of the community, its culture and resources are an important adjunct to crime prevention and control. Assumptions one and two require little discussion 93 for they are generally accepted principles in corrections. However, an argument for a state administered program may be needed. Mr. McGee, in discussing this topic, states "Here we need to be practical. In the smaller states where no really adequate probation has been developed, there is every reason to develop probation under the direct control of the State Department of Corrections.”3 There are other reasons, including: centralizing statistical gathering, standardizing procedure for easy transfer of clients from one area to another, providing standardized and capable supervision, providing civil service programs for selection of employees, providing probation and parole service to smaller counties and districts who would be unable to provide full—time probation officers.4 Frederick Ward aptly stated the situation, ”Even in New England where the tradition of home rule is most fiercely defended, three states have found the state-administered plan to be the only practical solution 3Richard A. McGee, "Planning a State Correctional System,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbook, 1947 (New York: National Probation and Parole Association, 1947), p. 9. 4Ralph Hall Ferris, ”Integrating Probation Service on a Statewide Basis,” National Probation and Parole Association YearbOOk, 1939 (New York: NPPA, 1939), pp. 218-32. 94 to the problem of reaching all communities."5 And, of course, state administration is a prerequisite for combining pro- bation and parole service. This paper would concur with Mr. Landis when he emphasized the need for social agencies to work with the community for the improvement of economy.6 The correctional worker must ally himself with the other social agencies in improving the entire community, for as Arthur WOOd states in discussing the economic factors of a rural community, ”When folkways of living break down, such political influence, legal procedure, and religious activity fail to provide the anticipated satisfactions, the population ceases to believe the basic system of values of honesty, hard work, thrift, democracy, and the religious values of their society; the population becomes amoralized and a high crime rate is the result." Because the rural residents are accustomed to personal relationships, they expect and almost demand 5Frederick Ward, ”Extending Adult Probation Services to All Communities,” National Probation and Parole Association YEarbook, 1951 (New York: NPPA, 1951): P. 35. 6Paul Landis, Rural Life in Process (New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Bodk Company, Inc., 1948), p. 533. 7Arthur Wood, ”Social Organization and Crime in Small Wisconsin Communities,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 7 (February, 1942), pp. 40-46. 95 personal contacts with anyone who would be effective. The formal social worker is treated with suspicion and lack of cooperation.8 However, dealing with the community on a personal basis is extremely time consuming. But, it must be done as Paul Landis comments on the problem, "Too often the rural welfare worker must be not only a jack-of-all- trades in his practice, but must spend much time and . . "9 energy conv1nc1ng others., Integration Probably the greatest disadvantage in providing correctional service in rural states is the sparseness of population. Therefore, it is advocated to integrate the correctional field services in the representative states, as did Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. The integration of correctional service may be questioned by the reader, doesn't specialization lead to efficiency and perfection? Doesn't the individual who specializes in doing pre- sentence investigations become more proficient in this pursuit than the individual who also supervises probationers and parolees? Yes, but the individual who has to drive 100 miles a day to do a pre—sentence investigation is only 8Loomis and Beegle, op. cit., p. 532. 9Landis, op. cit., p. 532. 96 gaining proficiency in automobile driving. There should be little interest in training truck drivers in corrections. Of course, financially, integration provides a great savings. It would be a great expenditure of funds to specialize to the extent suggested by the above questions. Why should a juvenile worker go into a remote area once a week to see five clients and an adult officer drive the same distances the following week to see five other clients? The only answer would be that the work each individual is engaged in is so specialized that they must be kept separate. It is difficult to see the evidence for this. Two systems which could very easily specialize their services due to exceptionally large caseloads and densely populated areas are Los Angeles County and Minnesota. However, they choose to integrate juvenile and adult services. Also in support of this, it is remembered that the National Probation and Parole Association, the title connoting adult work changed this title to The National Council on Crime and Delinquency, connoting an equal interest in adult crime and juvenile delinquency. The journal of this organization, as well as the periodical, Federal Probation 0 . . . . National Probation and Parole Assoc1ation, Probation and Parole Directory, . . . op. cit. 97 publish articles of equal interest to adults' workers as well as juvenile workers. The institutions training ”the new breed” of correctional workers are exposing them to work with both groups. Granted, there is a difference between the two areas. It would be a catastrophe to have an individual trained pply_in adult work placed in a position to serve juveniles. However, it is maintained that anyone trained adequately in one area will be sufficiently exposed to the other to function in it successfully. By integrating, dispersion of officers to the various areas can be afforded. By so doing, the travel time and travel expense is decreased and the officer is placed closer to his work so he can be in a better position to make personal contacts with clients and become better acquainted with the community to educate it and be educated by it. The integrated office would provide pre-sentence investigations in all felony cases, pre-hearing investi- gations in all juvenile delinquency cases, pre—parole investi- gations for the parole board in adult parole; the regional office would also coordinate the return of juvenile offenders from institutions with the institutional superintendent. And, the office would supervise all adult and juvenile probationers and parolees. 98 Service to Misdemeanants Some discussion is needed in regard to adult misdemeanants. Ideally, it would be suggested that a pre- sentence investigation be done on each misdemeanant. However, this is an impossibility. Most courts cannot afford to have the offender in court twice, once for the hearing and once for the sentencing. The waiting period needed to compile a report in many cases would be longer than the sentence normally imposed for the offense. The public would be hesitant to pay the cost of a pre-sentence investigation for the petty offender whose total crimes may not cost the community one-fourth the expense of a pre- sentence investigation.l At the other extreme is no pre-sentence investi- gation or supervision. Under this system, a chance to assist many individuals who could profit from the help of the probation service would be missed. How can a screen be put in the jailhouse drain? How can the salvageable be screened out? To bring better light on this problem, the differences between the misdemeanant and the felon and their offences llDon Sanson, ”Probation and Parole for the Mis- demeanant,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbook, 1949 (New York: NPPA, 1949), pp. 186-193. 99 must first be discussed. The felon is viewed as a severe threat to the community. In considering him for probation, the judge must place him on the scales to determine if the danger of him recidivating is too great a chance to take in considering him for rehabilitation in the community. In considering the sentence for the misdemeanant, the danger to the community is greatly diminished. Then, what should the question be? It seems that the only question left can be, is the chance of rehabilitating the individual worth the expense to try? The factor of being in a rural area gives the probation officer and the court a decided advantage in answering this question. In many cases, the probation officer and/or the court know enough about the offender to be able to answer the question sufficiently without going into a long, detailed investigation. There are also some rules of thumb that are important in considering such cases. These are young first offenders (more important), first offenders in their mature years, family squabblers, and various others who are generally more amenable to rehabilitation. If by chance a mistkae is made in the initial disposition, there are two ways of undoing it. If the offender cannot begin to live up to the conditions of probation, an easy and efficient way to undo the error 100 is to petition the court for a revocation of probation. This petition provided with a written report would be sufficient to bring the offender before the court and make an equitable disposition. At this hearing, the judge, with the violation report plus the initial case history compiled when the offender was placed on probation, would be in a better position to make the disposition than when placing the offender on probation. If the judge initially sentences a deserving individual to jail, the jail super- intendent is in a good position to find this out through contact with the offender and/or his family. It should be remembered that this jail is in a rural community and is relatively small contributing to abundant personal contact. It is then an easy matter for the superintendent to advise the probation officer of this situation. The officer, in turn, can make a preliminary investigation and advise the judge. However, an amended judgment is only possible because the statute will have provided for an amended judg- ment within sixty days after sentencing following the Standard Probation and Parole Act. It states: ”The court may modify a judgment within 60 days after it is imposed."12 In giving reasons for this provision, it states, ”The 2Standard Probation and Parole Act, op. cit. 101 provision permits a reasonable period of time, not so much for the correction of legal error as for further consider- ation by the court as to the social wisdom of the sentence imposed.”13 Now to make the expense less for serving mis— demeanants, but the quality high, it is suggested that as thorough as possible a case history be gained as soon as the defendent is placed on probation. A strong effort should be made to find out what the defendent's assets and liabilities are and then a concentrated effort should be made to maximize the assets and minimize the liabilities. In misdemeanant cases, the offense usually is committed shortly before conviction as the result of some current thwart that has been placed in his path. He may have just found out that his leg injury is such that he will never be able to follow his, say, logging vocation. Knowing that his wife is pregnant and wondering how he is going to support her and the new baby, he wanders down to his favorite bar and proceeds to get intoxicated. He runs out of money so writes a ”bum check.” It is suggested the misdemeanants receive plenty of attention in the beginning and petition for early 13Ibid., p. 25. 102 release of custody as soon as their thwarts are removed.1 To continue with the above example, immediate referral of the offender to the state office of vocational rehabilitation perhaps will be sufficient to remove the thwart. They per- haps will train him in typewriter repair so that his crippled leg will be of little disadvantage. He again has a vocation and can support his wife and newborn baby. This thwart may be completely removed or at least in the stages of removal soon after being placed on prObation. This treatment procedure one would hesitate to recommend to large cities who are unable to be as familiar with the individual case before the individual is released on probation and where it would be difficult to continue to keep familiar with the case after probation begins. The Place of the Detention Home in the Organization of the Regional Office Although detention home administration is not within the scope of this paper, it is important to describe it in relation to the regional office. In most jurisdictions detention homes, when they exist, are under the juvenile court and supervised by the Director of Children's Services l4Russell, op. cit., p. 184. 103 or his equivalent.15 Of course, when there are no detention homes and children are placed in jail, the county sheriff is the responsible figure. A third possibility would be for a detention home to function autonomously. Any one of these arrangements would be possible in the representative states, except that children would not be held in jail. However, the superintendent of the jail could also supervise the detention home. This last arrangement suffers from one of the same drawbacks as placing children in jails. In other words, the detention home would be considered a juvenile jail. As anyone knowledgeable about detention home administration will state, there is a big difference.16 Of course, it is implied here that the superintendent of the jail would generalize the philosophy of jail administration as a working philosophy in supervising the detention home. A specific illustration of the logical extension of jail administration would be in the concept of solitary confinement. In adult jail programs, solitary confinement is considered as complete isolation. If this logic were applied to juvenile detention 15In California the Juvenile Halls are equivalent to detention homes and are administered by the Chief Probation Officer. Herman Stark, ”Standards for Juvenile Halls,” Federal Probation, March, 1960, p. 36. 16Ibid. 104 to the same degree, the minor would be prohibited from having . . . l . . ViSits from his own parents. 7 The writer privately feels that solitary confinement of this nature has little place in adult corrections, needless to say, as well as in juvenile detention. Mr. Stark's presentation of a portion of the California Standards for Juvenile Halls is concurred with. The juvenile court is responsible for establish- ment of detention policy. This policy should be developed and administered in close cooperation with the probation officer and the probation committee. The juvenile hall superintendent, under the supervision of the prdbation officer, is responsible for its internal management. Sub-Office Although the regional offices will be placed in the primary city or village of the judicial district, sub- offices may be located wherever there is the need. The goal in employing sub-offices is to go one step further in placing the probation-parole officer in the community with which he must work. In advocation of dispersed regional offices, Roy Russell, Administrative Assistant, Florida Parole Commission, comments, .. . . that the courts may be 17This actually occurred in the community where the writer was employed, resulting in a suicide attempt by the minor. 18Stark, op. cit., p. 37. 105 properly served the state is geographically divided into districts, the same areas served by the courts, thus giving true local aspects to the ever increasing problems of community control and treatment of crime.”19 Sub—offices give the program a flexibility needed. Some regions may not need any sub—offices due to the ease and economy of reaching all the areas in the region from the regional office. Other regions may need many. Not only may the number of sub-offices vary, but also the number of personnel attached to them may vary. However, if the need is for more than three persons, it would perhaps be better to give the sub—office regional office status, for a detention home in this community would no doubt be desired. In the one-man sub-office, stenographic work would be more economically accomplished at the regional office with material mailed. With a little ingenuity and a great deal of humbleness, receptionist arrangements can be made. The arrangements may not be as satisfactory as having a full-time receptionist, but the little inconvenience is worth the financial savings. Detention for minors would be provided by the regional detention facility; however, the local probation 19Russell, op. cit., p. 179. 106 officer of the sub-office would have the delegated authority from the court to decide if detention is to be used in a given case, basing his decision on the intake policy of the judicial district. Forms In all social agencies there should be an interest in keeping forms simple, pertinent, and of value. This is especially important in integrated offices which have up to six functions. In many bureaucracies, forms seem to have a way of multiplying like rabbits without anyone questioning their value. The administrator may require the judicious filling out of a form which has been almost totally replaced by a new one. There must be a continued questioning of the value of each form and each sentence on each form. Each individual form should be made to accomplish as many purposes as possible. For instance, a petition for a revocation hearing for the Superior Court, First Judicial District, printed on it is restricted to use in that court only. How- ever, if this title is left blank to be typed in, the form could be used for both Lower Court and Superior Court petitions for revocation. This, of course, makes for more inexpensive printing, less expense in storing, less chance of running out of a particular kind of form, and less chance 107 of filing an improper petition. Each form cannot be discussed here, nor is it warranted, but it is important to emphasize that the inte- grated office can easily and needlessly get bogged down in filling out forms. Just because the integrated office has six functions does not mean that it needs six times as many forms. Many forms can be logically used in two or more functions with little rewording. It behooves the director to be continually interested in this area and keep an ear open to his subordinates for suggestions in order to assist in keeping the field personnel in a helping role and not a paper-shuffling role. That one format covers more than one area is especially important in report writing. It is especially significant in the integrated office where one individual may be writing a pre-parole report, a pre-hearing report, a pre—sentence report, and a post-sentence report on a misdemeanant, all in the span of two days. Using four different formats requires the writer to shift gears, so to speak, needlessly when going from one case to the other. It is exceedingly logical to use the same format in the latter three cases. Paul Keve states in his recent bodk The Probation Officer Investigates: A Guide to the 108 Presentence Report. ”For pre-hearing reports in juvenile cases, it is suggested that essentially the same format be followed (as in presentence reports) except the offense and prior record headings be changed to more casual language such as present problem and previous problem.”20 Not any format, however, which will work for one function will automatically work for another. With a little effort in visualizing the needs of the integrated office, a suitable format can be devised that will provide as good a presenta- tion of the material as special formats, however. There are the added advantages of permitting the reporter to become proficient by repetition. This facilitates ease for the judge in becoming familiar with a uniform style. It must be remembered in the sparsely-populated states, one judge may have jurisdiction over both adult and juvenile proceedings. Mr. Keve suggests the following format, ”Offense, Prior Record, The Family, The Residence, Education, Religion, Employment, Interests and Activities, Health, 21 Resources, Summary and Plan.” It is recognized that the emphasis will vary between 20Paul W. Keve, The Probation Officer Investigates: A Guide to the Presentence Report (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960), p. 54. 21Ibid., Chapters 7—18. 109 juvenile and adult cases, also between adult cases when one is a pre-sentence and the other is a post-sentence report. For instance, the juvenile report will attend more to the education section and less to the employment section, more to the family of procreation, there not being a family of association. However, this is to be expected and con- sistent with the philosophy of individualized treatment. Every report may vary in emphasis. It is also quite likely that the contents of a report of a youth just past the age of majority will resemble a pre—hearing report, but this is desirable. Ideally, the reports should reflect the individual, not the court in which he will appear. It should also be noted that a format for a pre- sentence report in a state which makes the report public will necessarily be different than for a state which keeps the report private. In the proposed program for rural states, the report, of course, will be private due to following the Standard Probation and Parole Act.22 Mr. Keve's format noted above, is also for pre-sentence reports that are private.23 It goes without saying that the remaining reports, 22 . . Standard Probation and Parole Act, pp. c1t., p. 10. 23 . . . Keve, The Probation Officer Investigates, . . op. cit., p. 10. 110 by the same method of construction, can be made to adequately cover more than one function. For instance, one's super— vision summary format can cover all the supervisory cases, adult and juvenile, probation and parole. Summary The goal is to have one state administered, function- ally integrated program. It is desired to place the regional office, the backbone of the correctional program, out into the community which it will serve. The decentralization of regional offices is advantageous for economy of operation and mutual education and assistance to the community. Integration and state administration combined with the assets of local services, provide state-wide uniformity of service. To be the backbone of the correctional program, the field services must be a unified spinal column and not separate and disjointed. For integration to be effective, certain procedures and structures must be considered. The difficult problem of extending field service to misdemeanants dissipates in our representative states because of the very nature of the sparseness of population and the familiarity with the residents. A detention home would also be dispersed and placed under the general supervision of the senior probation- 111 parole officer to give continuity to the principle of the juvenile code and a logical consistency in the delegation of authority by the juvenile court. An extension of the philosophy of decentralization is the establishment of sub-offices. The key, here, is flexibility by varying the number of sub-offices in the various regions and varying the size of staff in relationship to the need, emphasizing the value of having the probation-parole office in the clients' community. The process of integrating functions should not be conceived as bringing the paperwork of the various functions to the integrated office and placing each form in a separate drawer. The paperwork should be integrated also and, in fact, the integration of paperwork is an important reason for the integration of functions. This lends itself to ease of integration at a financial savings to the state. CHAPTER XI THE PROBATION-PAROLE OFFICER'S RELATION TO CLIENT If the probation-parole officer is to adequately serve the community, he must, of course, be able to restore the offender to his place in the community as a self- respecting, law-abiding, contributing citizen, one who obeys the laws because he wants to. The special characteristics of the rural offender place an emphasis on certain techniques, needed in his rehabilitation. These will be discussed in this chapter. The reader should remember, however, that it is not suggested that these techniques are or should be excluded from urban work. Reviewing briefly, the rural offender usually commits his offenses alone or occasionally with an unsophis- ticated individual like himself. His crimes are poorly engineered; he does not think of himself as a criminal, but only as being a little wild; he prefers to keep his acts in the family; the prognosis for his rehabilitation is good, and he holds little resentment toward the public or authority. In general, the rural offender can be considered 112 113 more irresponsible than criminal. The Law Violator and the Probation Office The rural law violator shares the same sensitivity to personal relations as the general rural community. Per- haps he is more sensitive, due to the fact that he usually comes from a deviant family which has received the scorn of the "better class” residents. He expects poor treatment by the community. Therefore, when he walks into the probation office, he expects a condescending attitude from the staff. If, however, he meets the opposite treatment, he will probably be bowled over. In some cases, it seems that this unexpected treatment with respect and dignity is all it takes to change an offender's self-concept so that he will strive to be responsible. It is easy to be irresponsi- ble when no one cares or even expects one to be responsible. The importance of the atmosphere of the probation office is stressed by Edmund Burbank and Ernest Goldsbough when they state, ”The most important thing about a probation office 1 is its spirit, its atmosphere, the morale of its staff." John Milner suggests how this may be achieved in his article 1Edmund G. Burbank and Ernest W. Goldsbough, ”The Probation Officer's Personality: A Key Factor in Rehabili- tation,” Federal Probation, Vol. 18 (June, 1954): P. 12. 114 "Personal Factors in Correctional Work.” He states: ”Atmosphere is essentially established by the easy give-and- take relationship among staff members themselves and staff members with those being helped."2 The need for warm office atmosphere places a primary emphasis on having a warm understanding receptionist. Because of the smallness of the community, important also is for the clerical staff to have immaculate personal lives, and needless to say, they must have a reputation of respecting . 3 confidences. Advantages in Supervising the Rural Offender The rural offender, on the whole, is more trust- worthy than the urban offender. He has learned to respect the informal media of communications. He knows that if he makes a false statement, this will be found out eventually, for everyone knows everyone else's business. The juvenile client who is given permission to purchase a pair of shoes of a certain price and charge them to the agency, does exactly like he is told, much to the dismay of the officer John G. Milner, ”Personal Factors in Correctional Work,” Federal Probation, vol. 16, No. 3 (Sept., 1952), P. 23. 3Jane L. Brewer, ”The Clerk Also Has An Important Part in Probation,” Federal Probation, V01. 19 (Dec., 1955) pp. 6—9. 115 from, say, Los Angeles. However, this very same boy might have committed burglary in the night time. There is much less need for the rural officer to spend his time in surveillance, as Mr. Blumenthal observes. ”The dominance of 'intimate face-to-face associations' in the small town naturally entails as one consequence the almost absolute surveillance and control of the individual by the community.”4 This ability to place trust in an individual is, of course, an excellent therapeutic aid as well as making it possible to recommend more offenders for probation. The possibility of gradually increasing an individual's area of self-responsibility evaluating the resulting progress exists. There is the advantage with the rural offender of not having to change a strongly entrenched value system that is supported by identification with a subculture which is equally antisocial. The rural offender lacks any identifi- cation typically. However, this is not necessarily the result of his own desires. He most often desires to be a part of the community, but feels excluded. Nonetheless, he has a great deal of attachment and respect for it. Then the officer's job is to help the individual to fulfill his 4Blumenthal, op. cit., p. 111. 116 desire of adjusting to the community and being accepted by it. One does not first have to make the offender dis- satisfied with his present values and identifications, which is often the case when working with a professional urban offender. This presents a strong case against institutionali- zation of the rural offender who is not a strong threat to the community, especially in states that also have a large metropolitan area within its borders. The reason for this is the possibility of the unadjusted rural offender associat- ing with and identifying with members of a criminal sub- culture contacted in the institutional setting. By institutionalizing this type of offender, the state only assists in recruiting professional criminals. Problems in Rural Supervision The lack of referral sources is probably the biggest problem in rural supervision and the lack of mental health clinics is especially important. The rural officer may be called upon, as the only alternative, to counsel individuals whose crimes are only symptoms of greater psychogenic difficulties. The well—trained officer will know enough to be aware that this is not his rightful area of help. He will, no doubt, feel guilty about feebly counseling an individual whom he knows is in need of a deeper therapy 117 adequately provided only by a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist. He may also be called upon to do marriage counseling. Of course, he should have some training in this area. How— ever, with his heterogeneity of other functions, he will be unable to be as proficient as a specialized marriage counselor in a family guidance agency available to urban officers. In this area, the rural officer is like the old rural doctor. He has to be a ”specialist” in all fields. However, as with the doctor, the conscientious rural officer yearns for the assistance of the specialist. In the integrated office, where both adults and juveniles go to fill their appointments, the problems of the juveniles conceiving of themselves as adults, is a danger. As we know, adolescents make a strong bid to become adults. The possibility for them to make the bid to be adult criminals is too easy. The fact that they have been branded delinquent as the adult has been branded a criminal, gives them a socially defined means to identify with the adult criminal. It is easier for them to become adult criminals because they conceive of themselves surmounting half the obstacle, that of committing a crime. The fact of going to the same office, and the same probation officer, may be enough for them to completely surmount the 118 obstacle and entirely identify with the adult criminals. The officer understanding the philosophy of the juvenile court and adolescent psychology must work with ability in not permitting the juvenile to make this identity. The goal is to show the juvenile that he more closely resemblesthe law-abiding adult; this, of course, is very easy to accomplish in the light of the juvenile court philosophy that strives to also establish this identity. Special Assets in Rural Supprvision The great pressure a rural community can bring for a particular disposition has been alluded to. A community may ”cry for blood” of an ignorant father who commits incest or a young individual convicted of petit larceny whose father was shiftless and never paid his bills. And, then there perhaps is an alcoholic offender who has spent the last ten years in a larger city in the state where he had gone to lock for work. Not finding it, and unable to adjust to the impersonalness of the city, he becomes an alcoholic and is afraid to return home to the rural community because of his pride. Investigation discloses that although poor, he was well liked in the rural community. Lastly, there is the bachelor exhibitionist of the small rural community who 119 is in need of psychiatric treatment which is unavailable. All these offenders, the layman would say, must be institutionalized because they cannot adjust to the given community or the community will not have them. This appears quite so, but none are of much danger to the community. As a substitute for institutionalization, it is suggested, in cases of this type, probation and transplantation. The incestuous father could be placed in another community until he was rehabilitated and the community had cooled off. The son of the shiftless father could be placed in a community where he rose or fell on his own merits. The alcoholic could be placed in his home town with assistance to readjust. The exhibitionist could be placed in a larger city where psychiatric treatment would be available. Of course, transplanting cannot be a rule of thumb. It calls for good predisposition reporting and the utmost of cooperation between offices. The transplanted individual will need much assistance, generally. Adjusting is difficult for the transplant, but it is easier and much more healthy than transplanting him to a correctional institution. A transplant needs extra care when moved from one location fto another, but with the added initial care soon regains its :Eooting and continues to grow, whereas if thrown out on the C:ement would soon wither and die. The statement should also 120 be made that transplanting is financially less expensive than institutionalizing offenders. The foundation for transplanting is found in Article II, Section VI of the Standard Probation and Parole Act: The board may establish and maintain residence facilities for the housing of probationers or parolees or may contract for such housing and facilities approved by it. . . . In commenting on this section, the committee states, An important requirement for successful probation and parole is satisfactory living conditions for those under supervision. Not all transplants will need such facilities, but they should be available to those who do need them. Of course, these facilities will not be used exclusively for transplants. On the contrary, they are needed in any supervisory program, urban as well as rural. However, they are an important adjunct which makes transplantation possible. Summary The rural officer is primarily concerned with helping his rural client to be more responsible, rather than changing the client's value orientation, due to the rural offender's particular value attitude configuration. To do ¥ 5Standard Probation and Parole Act, pp. cit., p. 11. 121 this, however, he must be acquainted with the idiosyncracies of his client. Perhaps the biggest is the offender's sensitivity to social relations, which puts a premium on a friendly office. The rural law violator recognizes the surveillance which is a natural part of the rural community. Therefore, he is less deceitful. He recognizes that he lives in a fish bowl. This nature of the community and its effect on the offender is an assistance to the officer who can place relatively more faith in his client. How- ever, the lack of referral services forces the rural officer to supervise cases that need counseling from a specialist. Also, the integrated office may be an agent to assist the juvenile to identify with adult criminals if care is not taken. Certain cases may profit from transplantation and should be transplanted in lieu of institutionalization if the predisposition investigation indicates it. This is facilitated by boarding facilities available for clients in need. CHAPTER XII THE PROBATION-PAROLE OFFICER' S RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY As was discussed earlier, the rural community is quite different from the urban community. Conclusions were drawn that the rural community is more severe on its offenders than the urban community. It condones probation less, but has a higher percentage of good candidates. For a probation officer to recommend probation, he must at least have the community somewhat warm to the idea. What is needed, then is good public relations and public re- education. This has, of course, been a concern to profession- als in corrections for quite some time, especially in the urban areas where corrections have progressed the greatest. So now is the time to move the education of "modern penology” to the rural area. However, cognizance must be taken of the uniqueness of the rural area. The Gallup P011 in a recent survey found ”The more education a person had, the more inclined he was to emphasize rehabilitation and to deplore prison 122 123 for punishment's sake."l Quoting “fancy" statistics in a newspaper will not cut much ice in the sentencing of "Tom Jones who has been asking for it for ten years.” Quoting the opinions of experts will not persuade a hanging jury who knows that all ”a feller needs is horse sense” to understand the problems of sentencing. The attitude which McSally states is prevalent in a parole agency is even more prevalent in the rural community. He states, ”Education more often than not is still a dirty word and the guy with it may be just tolerated along with being suspected by his contemporaries or supervisors.”2 The anti—education attitude, although not as pro- nounced as ten years ago; the reliance on personal relations; and the confidence in their own ability to handle their own community problems make a difficult task in educating the rural residents to a progressive way of handling their criminal law violators. Some measures to overcome these difficulties will now be discussed. The basis of organization is to place the officer in or near the community which he serves. That is, lEditors, Federal Probation, vol. 19, No. 3 (Sept., 1955), p. 68. 2Bernard F. McSally, ”Whats So Good About Parole," Federal Probation, No. 4 (Dec., 1961), p. 22. 124 as a resident in the community. Another means is to employ workers who like working in rural areas and who understand them. The goal in these measures is to give the worker as great an opportunity as possible to know his area and for the residents of his area to know him. But, the community must do more than know the officer; they must accept him as part of the community. This normally takes a long time. However, the probation officer has an advantage. He is in a position to come into contact with a great number of residents in all social strata and in varying occupations. His training will make him sensitive to the culture and properly responsive. The officer should, of course, be humble, and yet confident. With this demeanor in his early months, he should make an exceptionally large number of collateral contacts when conducting predisposition investigations. This will serve as a means to understanding the culture of the com- munity and its attitude toward the particular offender. Equally important, however, it provides a vehicle for the community to know the officer and what he beleives in. This is a subtle means of educating or changing the community . 4 . . . attitudes. In other words, the officer becomes a miSSionary 3Blumenthal, op. cit., p. 121. 4Landis, op. cit., p. 523. 125 presenting an idea through the medium of his own personality in an informal way. Mr. Blumenthal stresses this in his statement: ”Approval and disapproval of conduct, likes and dislikes of persons play correspondingly a tremendous part in social life, in business, in politics, and in the administration of justice.”5 From this informal type of education, the officer upon invitation can present his message through a more formal means to a greater number of people through talks at church meetings, Farm Bureau meetings, service clubs, etc. Through acceptance at this level and other means, it is to be expected that the officer will be invited to be a member \ of various boards. Through these organizations, he may be called upon to suggest ways to cut down delinquency and crime. In response, he may be able to suggest means that the cemmunity had not thought of either from a lack of knowledge or just not being able to see the forest for the trees. One should be reminded, however, that although the officer implants the idea, he should do everything in his power to give the community the credit for it. This will make the achievements more enduring. As in counseling his clients, the officer must know when to advise. Advice 5Blumenthal, op. cit., pp. xii-xiii. 126 will only be accepted to the degree that he is accepted. It is suggested that the officer keep a log in which he notes factors of the culture of the area that are not readily available. In this log, he should note unique community resources, such as an understanding employer who will readily hire an offender, or a public servant who is obviously prejudiced. These notes will prove invaluable for an officer's replacement and for future reference. Summary The uniqueness of the rural community creates a need for a unique means of public relations. The need is great to educate the rural community in the modern ways of dealing with law Violators. The senSitiveness of the residents places a premium on education or the changing of attitudes through personal relations. The officer's success in this realm is based upon the degree to which he is accepted. IVNO mumps. Skit: .5 E “fir—23:5. 24:33.2... 2 .I trig: .: ... ... T. re: «s. It >/.—: C}.\.< x; ~.< 7.3. _ _ 1.;rvl afiflsinua in an In nN «a .n ON 0. I— ~— 3. f— C—n— 6. .—°— 0 I s O a Q n h a .. A _.$ ._ ofigflh ¢N p909 Oh In nu 6N. ON. ON nu fin an sh ON Sh Ch Rh 66 pk °~ a. con—G—a— t. w 96: lwh—D- a. C. n—N-—.°pil~ n.Na'—fl...h . ocn~. w sacs a. .. .— 53—1‘. CHAPTER.XIII THE PROBATION-PAROLE OFFICER'S RELATION TO THE COURT The importance of the field worker as an officer of the court is paramount in a discussion of rural correctional field service programs. Most of the following discussion will be concerned with the officer's relation with the juvenile court. The emphasis here is based on the juvenile court philosophy and the concept of Parens Patria. The relation of the probation officer to the juvenile court is quite controversial. There seems to be little argument that adult courts can function with an administratively autonomous probation agency. Of course, much of what is said here in regard to the relations between the juvenile court and the probation officer is also applicable to the relation between the adult court and the probation office. Reasons Against the Separation of The Probation Agengy and the Juvenile Court Previously in this paper the aspects of having the probation service under state control and combining it with 127 128 the parole function and combining both adult and juvenile services have beei discussed. In rural areas, however, this form of structure can very easily cause a great deal of difficulty, possibly making the whole process ineffective. This has reference, of course, to the discussion of problems which can arise from separating, administratively, the court and the probation office, especially the juvenile court. All of the assets of having a separate state-controlled probation agency, minus the drawbacks of lack of cooperation between the juvenile court and the probation agency which can arise from the separation is desired. The advantages of state control, as well as the advantages of local service, plus a smoothly cooperative program between the juvenile court and the probation office is desired. Roy Russell sees the problem: ”That the courts may be properly served, the state is geographically divided into districts, the same areas served by the courts, thus giving true local aspects to the ever increasing problems of community control and treatment of crime."1 As, Holland Gary points out, the judge has the responsibility to the community of providing the excellence in staff and policy. He believes that the judge has the responsibility because he is usually the elected official. lRussell, op. cit., p. 179. 129 Thus, the community holds him responsible for the function of his office, which includes probation service which Mr. Gary believes is an integral part.2 He also relies on the statement of Mr. Charles Chute which stresses the historical fact that probation has been a court service. Mr. Chute also stresses local autonomy and interest, and the education of the judge by the prdbation staff as other factors support- ing the attachment of the probation staff to the court. Mr. Gary quotes Mr. Chute, ”As courts are constituted today, the granting of probation must be a function of the court, it cannot be separated from it. So it has been argued, the worker should be an officer of the court an appointee of the judge.”3 Other arguments extended by Mr. Gary are: fear of the officer of a multiple program agency shirking his responsibility to the court, belief that the judge can get more adequate financing if he controls the probation staff, better coordination of probation staff who are more responsive to the judge's wishes, and lastly, court control with a better 2Holland M. Gary, ”Division of Responsibilities between the Juvenile Court and welfare Agencies,” Federal Probation, No. 2 (June, 1961), p. 9. ‘ 3Ibid., citing Charles L. Chute, ”State Participation in Probation work,” The National Probation and Parole Year- bookL_l93l (New YOrk, NPPA, 1931). 130 guarantee that court orders will be carried out as desired. There is little argument that the goals desired by Mr. Gary are important to the relationship between the probation officer and the juvenile court. However, exception can be taken with the argument that the probation office must be directly under the administrative control in order to obtain the desired goals. Of course, adminis- trative attachment of the probation service to the court guarantees that the court's desires will be fulfilled. This a judge can insure by only hiring individuals in agree- ment with his policies and firing those who get out of line. This means of administration does not guarantee good pro- bation service. It only guarantees service that is synonymous with the judge's wishes. Probation Officer's Role to the Juvenile Court The main element in this discussion, it appears, is the definition of the probation officer's role by the court, as well as the officer. It is quite obvious that the probation officer who is administratively attached to the court will know his role. He is hired, fired, and supervised by the judge; as well as being in the same facilities. But an 41bid., pp. 8-9. 135 officer can also, if properly trained and supervised, see his role as an officer whose function is to serve the court even though he is not administratively attached to it. Equally important is for the court to recognize the role of the probation officer as a servant of the court. State policy should dictate this role and emphasize it to both the court and the probation agency. State policy should be flexible enough to permit flexibility of local procedure. Any question over handling of specific cases should be worked out between the probation officer and the judge and local procedure should be worked out with the senior probation—parole officer and his judge, which also includes juvenile detention procedures. With this role defined, the probation officer can just as easily serve as the court's adviser and maintain the strong relations necessary between the court and the probation staff. The probation officer will cooperate just as much and be as equally responsive to the wishes of the court if he knows he exists to provide the court with probation service, even though he gets hired and fired by the State Department. ' The fear that a multiple program agency will shirk or postpone the duties to the court seem unfounded. The 136 probation-parole officer functions to serve the community, working through the courts, the parole board, and by any other means. To be effective, he must work through the court which has a primary function to serve the community. In other words, the court's function and the probation officer's function are the same, the latter working through the former. Having the same goals, how is it possible for the latter to shirk its responsibilities? Summary In summary, it is felt that the goals desired for the court can be as easily attained by administratively separating the courts and the probation service. Perhaps even better, because a state administrated program provides for selection of a better qualified individual. H0wever, both agencies must realize that the probation—parole office exists to serve the community through the court. CHAPTER.XIV SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Criminologists contributing efforts toward the study of rural crime and criminals comprise a very small group. Therefore, a great deal is unknown about these subjects. However, the data that does exist indicate that crime does exist in the rural areas and it is increasing. The folk methods of control seem to be failing in success. There is less crime in rural areas and crimes committed by professional criminals are nonexistent. However, crimes committed by habitual offenders do exist. Ten representative states were selected for the purpose of focusing attention on the most rural end of the continuum and illustrating a need for improvement. All meet the criteria of not possessing an urban area and not having a total population greater than one million. They include Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and WYoming. These are compared with California, a representative of the most urban end of the continuum. There are only three of these states that have an integrated correctional program, all 137 138 correction and delinquency control services under the state administration. One of these states has only three officers for the entire state. The sample states vary with .009 to 5.11 probation and parole officers per 100,000 population, excluding Nevada with 7.44. These are compared with California with 10.36 probation and/or parole officers per 100,000 population. Remember also that the rural officer has more traveling to do. However, there perhaps is less need for probation and parole officers in the representative states as they now exist. The representative states vary in the receipt of prisoners per year from 40.5 to 89.3 prisoners per 100,000 population, excluding New Hampshire with 12.2 and North Dakota with 21.3. These are compared with California having received 39.9. These rates are taken for the year 1959. Although there is not a large number of investi- gators concerned with the rural criminal, they are consistent in their findings, drawing from different samples over a wide range of time. They find the rural offender an occasional or accidental offender who is unsophisticated, not conceiving of himself as a criminal, and often a member of a deviant family. He holds little resentment toward authority or the public and he is a good candidate for rehabilitation. However, as presented by the authorities 139 concerned with the rural criminal, he consistently gets a very harsh treatment from the courts. A much harsher treatment for like crimes than his urban counterpart. Paradoxically, the rural offender who could profit more from probation, receives a long prison sentence. Some of the reasons for this is the provincialism and conservatism which results from isolation. Condemning and forbidding is deemed an adequate deterrent. When this fails, the community resorts to severe punishment ”to teach the guy a lesson.” The severe sentence is often levied out of exasperation. The rural community has greater knowledge of the total individual, which may also be a factor in the severity of sentences. There may be a desire to sentence an individual for the acts which he did not get caught for. The lack of variety in the rural area also makes an occasional crime a good topic of conversation, perhaps throwing it out of perspective. Personal acquaintance with victims tend to heighten the desire for retribution, which is also an important factor. The officials being members of the small communities are often subtly influenced by the personal relationships in the community and act in accordance. One of the biggest difficulties in providing probation and parole service to sparsely populated states is the amount of traveling required. It is quite possible for the rural 140 probation—parole officer to spend most of his time behind the wheel of his car. This, of course, can be extremely expensive and not return adequate community service. To overcome this drawback, one can place the officers out in the center of the areas of the state which they service and combine as many functions as possible under one agency. But, this creates a need for well-trained individuals who can function autonomously. This type of personnel are expensive and must often be hired from out of state. The rural areas are somewhat careful with their money. They often will stick to the old ways of doing things, rather than risk being extravagant and experimenting with new methods. The rural states, however, have a right to be concerned about money, for they lack the good source of revenue in heavy industry. Also, the small programs are inefficient, as the member units increase, the cost per unit decreases. It costs more, for instance, on a unit basis to house 300 inmates than 1,500. The conser- vatism of the populace may also be frustrating to the individual probation officer in attempting to work out probation or parole plans for a particular offender. The almost total lack of community resources such as organized recreation and mental health units can be exasperating. Of course, the above disadvantages do not exist in the 141 same number and to the same degree in all areas. However, they are quite common. Advantages in rural corrections are abundant and important. The greatest advantage is the amenability of the rural offender to community treatment. Supervising the rural offender is much easier because of the community's knowledge of the offender's status and the officer's interest in him. The greater amenability of the rural offender suggests that those who have to be sent to insti- tutions, because of community indignation or some other reason, require less secure facilities which are a financial saving to the state. The smallness of population and lack of diversity of an officer's area permits him to know its culture and resources extensively. This often affords him an opportunity to prevent crimes before they arise. The analysis of the above rural conditions support the hypothesis that urban correctional field service programs do not satisfy correctional objectives under the special conditions existing in rural states. The authorities state that rural criminals are different from urban criminals. Authorities find that the rural community varies from the urban community in important ways, including a more punitive attitude. Also, demonstrated was that rural ecology differs considerably from urban 142 ecology. The income from tax revenues is less in the rural states on a per capita basis. The difficulty in obtaining qualified personnel poses a greater problem for rural states. The lack of professional community services is greater in the rural states. With the hypothesis established the following pro- gram for rural states is suggested based on the analysis of the special conditions existing in rural states. Personnel are the backbone of the program. Without proper personnel, even the best administrative structure will be ineffective. Therefore, great care would be used in the selection of personnel. Civil service procedures would be utilized and out-of-state hire would be permitted. Special emphasis would be placed on selecting individuals who could function autonomously and who understand and enjoy rural life. However, adequate supervision of a consulting nature would be provided to the senior probation- parole officer by the director and to the junior probation- parole officers by the senior. Means of providing advanced training and experience would be present. In regard to administrative organization, a three— man commission would be responsible for the entire correction- al program. The commission would select a director to be the administrator of the department. The commission would 143 also select two individuals, in addition to the director, to comprise the parole baord. The director would have staff advisers who would be specialists in the various fields and serve as administrative assistants to the director. They would be selected through a civil service program. Subordinate to the director would be the regional senior probation-parole officers, the jail supervisors, an adult correctional camp supervisor, and a juvenile camp supervisor. The director would be a member of a multiple state correctional institution program. The regional senior probation-parole officer would administer the regional office, the juvenile detention facility, and the sub—offices in his region. The emphasis in the regional office would be to stress community treatment of the offender with face-to— face contact between the officer and the client. This is believed best accomplished through state administration. Extensive service to misdemeanants would be provided as specific deterrents and crime prevention. All correctional field services for both adults and juveniles would be inte- grated in the one state agency. Special techniques in the relationship of the probation-parole officer to his client are discussed. The rural officer is concerned with changing the attitude and value configurations of his client to help him be more law 144 abiding. The rural offender, as well as his more law- abiding counterpart, is extremely sensitive to interpersonal relations which places importance on a friendly office atmosphere. The rural offender recognizes the omnipresent surveillance aspect of the community. With discretion, this can be an important therapeutic tool. Also, the officer may find that transplantation can be an important aid in selected cases. This is greatly facilitated by boarding facilities. Lastly, care must be taken by the rural officer not to permit juveniles to identify with adult offenders because of the contacts in the integrated office. The officer must be cognizant of certain unique features of the rural community, if he is to work effectively in it. He must have patience in presenting modern methods of dealing with offenders, but must seek to present them. He must be aware of the importance of face-to-face contacts in changing attitudes and he will only be successful to the degree he is accepted on a personal basis. There has been some discussion of the feasibility of the probation service being administratively separate from the court. To the writer there is relatively little support for the probation services administratively attached to the court compared with the many advantages of a state 145 operated, administratively separate service. The main factor, however, is for the probation officer and the court to see their commonness of purpose, that of community service with the probation office accomplishing this through service to the court. It is felt from the data that is available that the proposition set forth in this paper is supported and that the general program suggested from this is justified. However, these are all based on a somewhat precarious position. If anything for certain has been established in this paper, it is the need for a greater amount of systematic studies in the area of, shall we say, rural criminology and correctional administration. This paper presents a summary of the evidence which does exist, but a great deal of personal and professional inference was used in planning this suggested program. The administration of urban programs has had the advantage of a great deal of research results to draw from. However, this does not mean that the results of urban research is suited to programs in the rural areas. It can be argued that there should be little con- cern with the rural areas for they soon will be urbanized. Perhaps this is true, but in the meantime a lot of waste will incur because of continued utilization of ineffective 146 and inefficient methods or indiscriminate implementation of methods which have proven successful in urban states. There is the possibility that the rural area might provide an ideal laboratory for the study of criminology, which with care might be generalized to urban areas or rural areas in less urbanized counties. These reasons seem to amply justify concern in rural corrections, even though the rural areas are becoming urbanized. Because of the paucity of research in rural criminol- ogy and correctional administration, the suggestions made in the latter part of the paper are actually hypotheses that need to be tested. An important piece of research would be to compare a group of urban violators with a group of rural violators regarding types and number of law violations committed before coming to the attention of the authorities, the type of treatment received, and the response each group made to the treatment. The certainty of detection, if this does exist in the rural areas, perhaps is all that is needed to rehabilitate the majority of rural offenders. Studies on the success of specific treatment techniques as trans- plantation and probation for misdemeanants would be valuable. An analysis of the rural offender's reaction to institution— alization would be profitable in planning correctional institutional programs. 147 Needless to say, there are many more areas where additional research is needed. The studies presented in support of the paper's propositions need redoing to determine the generality through space and time. It is truly hoped that either through positive or even negative impression we have developed a concern in this area, a concern for a greater concentration of and a concern for critically considering the acceptance of programs successful in urban states for rural states. More and varied studies in the difference between rural and urban offenders would be valuable. Up-to-date studies in the attitude and treatment of the offender by his community would be advantageous. Also, studies of a more rigorous nature comparing the ease of presentation of approved practices in the two types of areas would be important. The classic study, of course, would be a before and after comparison of a program similar to the one presented in this paper instituted in one of the sample states. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska State Personnel Directopy. Bloch, Herbert A. ”Economic Depression as a Factor in Rural Crime,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 40 (Nov.-Dec., 1949), pp. 458-70. Blumenthal, Albert. Small Town Stuff. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Brewer, Jane L. ”The Clerk Also Has An Important Part in Probation,” Federal Probation, V01. 19 (Dec., 1955), pp. 6-9. Buehler, Roy E. ”Our Professional Responsibilities in the Field,” Federal Probation, V01. 24 (Sept., 1960), pp. 11—15. Burbank, Edmund and Ernest W. Goldsborough. "The Probation Officer's Personality: A Key Factor in Rehabilitation," Federal Probation, V01. 18 (June, 1954): pp. 11-14. Chandler, Henry P. ”Probation and Parole Officers: The Importance of their Work," Federal Probation, V01. 20 (March, 1956), pp. 9-14. Clemmer, Donald. The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1958. Clinard, Marshall. ”Rural Criminal Offenders,” The American Journal of Sociology, V01. 50 (July, 1944), pp. 38-45. Cole, Arthur and Karl W. Bigelow. A Manual of Thesis- Writing. New Y0rk: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1935. Dressler, David. ”Some Criteria of an_Effective Parole System,” National Probation Association Yearbook, 1939. New Y0rk: The National Probation Association, 1939. 148 149 Eastman, Harry L. and A. N. Cousins. ”Juvenile Court and welfare Agency: Their Division of Function," American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 37 (July,l952), pp. 575-77; 623. Eastman, Harry L. "The Juvenile Court Judge's Job," National Probation and Parole Association Journal, Vol. 5 (Oct., 1959), Pp. 414-22. Editors. ”Prisoners Should be Given New Start in Life, Says Gallup Poll,” Federal Probation, Vol. 19 (septa; 1955). p- 68. Eisenberg, Sidney S. ”Supervision as an Agency Need,” Social Casework, V01. 37 (May, 1956), pp. 233-37. Esselstyn, T. C. ”The Social Role of the County Sheriff,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, V01. 46 (July-Aug., 1953), PP. 177-84. Evans, Joseph P. ”A Profile of the Practitioner in a Correctional Setting,” Federal Probation, V01. 25 (Sept., 1961), pp. 43-49. Ferris, Ralph Hall. ”Integrating Probation Service on a Statewide Basis,” National Probation Association Yearbook, 1939. New York: The National Probation Association, 1939, pp. 218—32. Fuller, Lon L. and John D. Randall. ”Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference,” American Bar Association Journal, V01. 44 (Dec., 1958), pp. 159—1162; 1216-18. Gosulich, Gilbert. Adult Probation Laws of the United States. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1940. Gary, Holland M. "Division of Responsibilities between the Juvenile Court and welfare Agencies,” Federal Probation, V01. 25 (June, 1961), pp. 8-12. Gronewold, David H. ”The Probation Officer as a Helping Person,” Federal Probation, Vol. 20 (Dec., 1956), pp. 5-10. 150 Hair, S. M. "Delinquency Thrives on Community Indifference," Federal Probation, Vol. 24 (March, 1960), pp. 28-31. Hardman, Dale G. ”The Function of the Probation Officer," Federal Probation, Vol. 24 (Sept., 1960), pp. 3-11. HaWkins, E. R. and W. Waller. ”The Cost of Crime," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, V01. 26 (Jan.-Feb., 1936), pp. 679—94. Hennings, Thomas C., Jr. ”Effectiveness of the Juvenile Court System,” Federal Probation, V01. 23 (June, 1959), pp. 3-4. Heyns, Garrett. ”Selling Corrections,” National Probation and Parole Yearbook, 1949. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1949, pp. 193-206. Ives, Jane K. ”The Essential Task of the Probation-Parole Officer,” Federal Probation, Vol. 24 (March, 1962), pp. 38-43. Kahn, Alfred J. ”The Policy Vacuum and Delinquency,” Federal ProbationL Vol. 24 (Sept., 1960): PP. 32-34. Kelly, Francis F. ”The Delinquent Child: Whose Responsi- bility?,” Federal Probation, V01. 25 (Dec., 1961), pp. 24—29. Keve, Paul W. The Probation Officer Investigates: A Guide to the Presentence Report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960. '. ”The Probation Officer Who Works Alone," Federal Probation, Vol. 19 (June, 1955), pp. 3—7. Kolb, J. H. and Edmund De S. Brunner. A Study of Rural Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952. Konopka, Gisela. ”Co-Ordination of Services as a Means of Delinquency Prevention," Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 322 (March, 1959): PP. 19-29. 151 Krimmel, Herman E. ”Interesting the Community in the Juvenile Court," National Probation and Parole Yearbook, 1949. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1949, pp. 206-14. Lagey, Joseph C. "The Ecology of Juvenile Delinquency in the Small City and the Rural Hinterland,” Rural Sociology, Vol. 22 (Sept., 1957), pp. 230-234. Landis, Paul. Rural Life in Process. New York: MCGraw— Hill Book Company, Inc., 1940. Leeds, Clarence M. ”Probation work Requires Special Training,” Federal Probation, Vol. 15 (June, 1951), pp. 25-28. Lentz, William P. ”Rural-Urban Differential and Juvenile Delinquency,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v01. 47 (Sept.-Oct., 1956). pp. 331-39. . ”Rural-Urban Differentials and Juvenile Delinquency." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1954. Loomis, Charles P. and J. Allan Beegle. Rural Social Systems. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1950. Lottier, Stuart. "Distribution of Criminal Offenses in Sectional Regions," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 29 (Sept.-Oct., 1938), pp. 329-44. McGee, Richard A. "Planning a State Correctional System," National Probation and Parole Yearb00kL 1947. New Y0rk: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1947, PP. 1-13. McSally, Bernard F. ”Whats So Good About Parole," Federal Probation, Vol. 25 (Dec., 1961): PP- 20—24. Mac Kay, William N. ”The Juvenile Court as a State Responsibility,” National Probation and Parole Yearbook, 1951. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1951, pp. 114-24. Maltbie, William M. ”The State, the Courts and Probation,” National Probation Association Yearbook, 1939. New York: The National Probation Association, 1939, pp. 66-78. 152 Mason, Thomas P., Jr. "Delinquency and Juvenile Courts: Confusion and Diversity,” Federal Probation, V01. 25 (Dec., 1961): pp. 47-52. Mead, Laura L. "The Juvenile Court and Child Welfare Services,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbook, 1949. New Y0rk: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1949, pp. 224-32. Meeker, Ben S. ”In-service Training for Probation Officers," National Probation and Parole Yearbook, 1952. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1952, pp. 169-85. Milner, John G. ”Personal Factors in Correctional work," Federal Probation, Vol. 26 (Sept., 1952), pp. 19-23. Editors. "Mr. Chandler Retires,” Federal Probation, Vol. 20 (Dec., 1956), pp. 3-5. Newman, Charles L. ”Concepts of Treatment in Probation and Parole Supervision,” Federal Probation, Vol. 25 (March, 1961): pp. 11-19. Oldigs, William. ”Probation in Misdemeanant Cases,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbook, 1952. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1952, pp. 76-86. Palmer, Barton. ”The Techniques of Rural Parole Supervision,” The Welfare Worker (Dec., 1951), pp. 5; 10. Peters, Mary Overhold. ”Supervising the Experienced Worker," Social Casework, V01. 30 (May, 1949), pp. 188-95. Probation and Parole Directory of United Stgtes and Canada. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1957. Reed, H. P. ”Caseloads,” National Probation and Parole Association Journal, Vol. 3 (April, 1957), pp. 142-48. Rubin, Sol. Adult Parole Systems of the United States. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1949 with 1957 supplement. 153 ”The Standard Probation and Parole Act: Fifteen Years Later,” Federal Probation, Vol. 19 (Dec., 1955), pp. 9-14. Russell, Roy w. "Combined Probation and Parole Services in Operation,” National Probation and Parole Yearbook, 1949. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1949, pp. 178-86. ”Salaries of Probation and Parole Officers,” New York: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1962-1963. (Mimeographed.) Sanson, Don. ”Probation and Parole for the Misdemeanant,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbook, 1949. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1949, pp. 186-92. Shannon, Lyle W. ”The Spatial Distribution of Criminal Offenses by States,” Journal of Criminal Law, CriminologyL and Police Science, Vol. 45 (Sept.- Oct., 1954), PP. 264—73. Silverman, E. ”Surveillance Treatment and Casework Super- vision,” National Probation and Parole Association Journal, Vol. 2 (Jan., 1956), pp. 22-26. Smith, Mapheus. ”Tier Counties and Delinquency in Kansas," Rural Sociology, Vol. 2 (Sept., 1937), pp. 310-22. ”Standards for Selection of Probation and Parole Personnel," New York: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (6 pages, Mimeographed.) Stark, Herman G. "Standards for Juvenile Halls,” Federal Probation, V01. 24 (March, 1960), pp. 35-41. Shireman, Charles. "Probation, Parole, and the Community," National Probation and Parole Association Journal, V01. 2 (Jane; 1956): pp. 51-57. The Standard Probation and Parole Act. New York: National Probation and Parole Association, 1955. Stouffer, Samuel A. Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties: A Cross-section of the Nation Speaks its Mind. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1955. 154 United States Bureau of the Census. U. S Census of Population: 1960. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. . Compendium of State Government Finances in 1961. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1962. U. S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Uniform Crime Reports-- 1960. Washington, D. C.: United States Printing Office, 1961. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. National Prisoner StatisticsL No. 24, 1960. Leavenworth: U. S. Penitentiary, 1961. Useem, John and Marie waldner. ”Patterns of Crime in a Rural South Dakota County,” Rural Sociology, Vol. 7 (June, 1942), pp. 175-85. Van Vechten, C. C. ”Differential Criminal Case Mortality in Selected Jurisdictions,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 7 (Dec., 1942), pp. 833-39. Vaughan, Charles B. ”Getting Facts into Figures,” National Probation Association Yearbook, 1939. New York: The National Probation Association, 1939, PP- 203—17. Vold, George. ”Crime in City and Country Areas,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 217 (Sept., 1941), pp. 38-46. Vuilenmeir, J. F. ”A Comparative Study of New York City and Country Criminals,” Journal of American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, V01. 11 (Feb., 1921). Ward, Frederick. ”Extending Adult Probation Services to all Communities,” National Probation and Parole Association Yearbodk, 1951. New York: The National Probation and Parole Association, 1951, pp. 31-41. Weber, George H. ”Conflicts between Professional and Non- professional Personnel in Institutional Delinquency Treatment,” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, V01. 38 (June, 1957): PP. 26-43. 155 Wiers, Paul. "Juvenile Delinquency in Rural Michigan," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 30 (July—Aug., 1939). pp. 211-22. W00d, Arthur Lewis. "Social Organization and Crime in Small Wisconsin Communities,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 7 (Feb., 1942), pp. 40—46. "I7'1111111111111111S