View report page

119
(ii.) That so far as the carrying out of any suggestions made to the Court
is concerned, in all that relates to the provision of institutional care, whether
in the form of schools, institutions for the feeble-minded, or mental hospitals,
London is relatively better off, so that the admission of a child in really urgent
need of such care can be more readily and swiftly secured.
(iii.) That in certain of the cities in America more children are referred for
report, and in some of these the data finally secured are more extensive and
intensive than is the case at present in London. The advantage of more extended
data secured by the social investigator is however to a large extent neutralised
by the apparently less complete co-operation with the education system;
the reports received from the schools appearing to be inferior to those presented
by the head teachers and care committees in London.
(iv.) That in such cities as Chicago, Detroit, Boston and Toronto, really
close studies are made of the children ; but that probably even there the studies
are rather of selected children than of the whole mass of children who for one
reacon or another are brought to the notice of the Juvenile Court Organisation.
Such studies demand opportunities for watching the children over a period
under such conditions that their confidence can really be secured.
Under the London system a child must be brought up for examination
and must be seen at a specified time ; it is only rarely possible to arrange
even for a second interview or for a visit to the place of detention. In
consequence there is a risk that the confidence of the child may not be
gained sufficiently, or that there may be emotional disturbance, while it
is very difficult to secure interviews with parents who might have to make
a financial sacrifice, i.e., lose part of a day's work. A medical officer
available daily can choose favourable opportunities for his interviews
with the child and has chances of seeing the parents when they call at
the place of detention. This point probably but little if at all affects the
certification of a mentally defective child who has already spent a period
in a special school, but materially affects the question of a diagnosis and
treatment of those whose history is but partially known, and who appear
to suffer from disturbance of behaviour without obvious intellectual
impairment.
(v.) That the general methods of mental examination do not differ materially
from those employed in London, and that though in some details there are
useful features that may be incorporated in the London practice there are others
in which the London methods are probably superior.
(vi.) It would be a distinct advantage if those who report on the social
conditions of the children could have their attention drawn specifically to
certain points on which information is particularly useful to those who attempt
to assess the total personality of the child and particularly if they could acquire
what is called in America the psychiatric outlook in these matters. This term
is not quite so technical as it sounds, as it really means noting points which
would affect character as well as those which affect the physical comfort and
well-being of the child. To some extent it already characterises certain of the
reports furnished.
(vii.) That the chief feature of the newer system, which has only been
even tentatively in existence for a few years, is the process of following up
The steady influence of the psychiatric social worker whether attached to a
Court as a probation officer, to a special centre, or to a school, on the family
relationships, and outside activities of the children acts essentially as an
pducative factor which leads to social re-adjustment. It is on this work
that the hopes of those who support the remodelled probation methods
depend.