Joseph T. Byers, now the Secretary of the New Jersey State Charities
Aid and Prison Reform Association, developed, while he was
superintendent of the New York House of Refuge, the parole system of
that institution to a high degree. In his final report to the board of
managers of the House of Refuge he said:
“The most important work of the institution is that of our parole
department. It has been a source of great gratification to me, as I am
sure it has been also to the board, to note the development and success
of this work. Convinced that short parole periods of supervision were
unwise, our work was organized on a basis of supervision that should
last as long as the law permitted, namely, during minority. To those
who would criticise this period as being excessive and likely to work
hardship to the boys, to make them restive and intolerant, I can only
say that close observation during the past five years does not warrant
any such statement. The monthly reports of the boys have been made,
as a rule, very promptly and satisfactorily. They have not shown any
great desire to be released from parole supervision; and I present
as further evidence of the fact that our parole supervision has been
properly adjusted, the more than fifteen hundred visits made to me
during the past twelve months by paroled boys. Three-quarters of these
visits were purely voluntary on the part of the boys. The credit for
this condition of affairs is largely due to the parole officers. They
have been tactful, sympathetic, resourceful and in every way deserving
of the full confidence I have had in their integrity and efficiency.
Two thousand five hundred and five boys have been actually under
supervision. Of these, 914 are still reporting and doing well, and 237
were doing well when supervision expired; 1073 have for one reason or
another been unsatisfactory on parole. Of these 791 have been returned
to the institution (including 56 voluntary returns); 154 have been
committed to other institutions or are now on trial, and in 128 cases
supervision expired with the boys not doing well. In 281 cases out
of 2505 nothing is at present known. This means that 11.21 per cent.
of our boys are out of touch with the institution, having left home,
family moved, or for some other cause. Five hundred and six boys
have attained their majority and have therefore passed from under
supervision. At the time of expiration 237 of the 506 were doing well;
128 were doing badly, or were at the time in other institutions; while
in 141 cases no information was at hand. It is only fair to state
that of this latter number (141), 80 are boys who were paroled before
October, 1905, which was before adequate parole supervision had been
established. Taking only the cases of these 506 boys who have graduated
from our supervision, present records enable us to account for only
46.84 per cent. who were known to be doing well. In making this
statement we are not crediting ourselves with probable satisfactory
cases; any boy concerning whom definite information is not at hand is
placed in the unsatisfactory class.
Short parole periods are a fallacy. Of the 202 boys returned for
violation of parole, 49 were out of the institution more than a year
and 18 of them more than two years.
Thirty-six per cent. of 202 delinquents were returned for crime
(burglary, larceny, forgery, robbery, picking pockets, and receiving
stolen property). Of the total number of Protestant boys on parole
09.26 per cent. were returned for violation; of the whole number of
Catholic boys, 14.04 per cent.; of the Jewish boys 14.66 per cent.