ABSTRACT
A program must ultimately be judged by results, what actual benefits it brings, what degrees of mischief it creates. Clearly, one would not wish to slight the motives of the reformers. That something of a gap should have separated the rhetoric advocating probation and the reality of the measure was altogether predictable. The program was so ambitious and optimistic that a dilution and diminution in day-to-day practice would inevitably set in. The measure never did take root in rural areas or small towns. Reformers had national ambitions for their program, but in fact only densely populated areas established probation departments. More important, even in the urban areas, probation officers' credentials, case loads, pre-sentence reports, and post-sentence supervision never approximated the reform criteria. With monotonous regularity observers complained of the inadequate training of most probation personnel. Investigations in other jurisdictions returned similar findings.
