2

intensive social service investigations; 2 were given physical examinations
only upon order of the presiding judge; 10 either refused examination or
were discharged before the psychiatrist could see them; 2 have not yet been
examined.

Diagnoses.—Sixteen per cent of those examined were found to be actively
psychotic and were committed to hospitals for mental diseases. Ten per
cent were found to be mentally defective to an extent warranting commit-
ment to an institution for the feebleminded. An additional 6 per cent were
mentally defective (borderline), but not sufficiently low for commitment.
It happens that heretofore in the majority of these cases our findings of
feeblemindedness have had necessarily to be disregarded by the Court be-
cause of the danger of escape from a hospital for the feebleminded (such as
Dixon or Lincoln), and the offender, if found guilty, sentenced to Pontiac
or Joliet. However, since the establishment of an institution for the de-
fective delinquents and the passage of new laws by the State Legislature
permitting the commitment of such individuals to the Department of Public
Welfare, the defective delinquents, so diagnosed by the Behavior Clinic, are
being committed to the Department of Public Welfare at the Joliet Peni-
tentiary and from there are transferred to the proper institution. Our
findings obviously expedite matters for the Diagnostic Institute at Joliet,
for the psychiatrists there accept our findings without further examination
and dispose of the prisoners accordingly.

About 8 per cent of those patients examined were found to be suffering
from some mental or nervous disturbance or personality defect (psychopathic
personality, drug addiction, neurosis, emotional instability, inebriety,
epilepsy, ambulatory automatism), but not sufficiently serious to warrant
commitment by the Court to a hospital for mental diseases. In most of the
cases treatment has been recommended. The remainder were found to be
negative, that is, no evidences of organic or functional nervous or mental
disease were ascertained.

Sources of Referral——The cooperation of the Judges and every division
of the Criminal Court has not only continued but increased. Despite the
change in the judges sitting in the Criminal Court, orders for examination
originating directly from the judges has increased. In 1932 approximately
35 per cent of the cases referred to the Behavior Clinic for examination were
requested by the judges themselves. In 1933 approximately 50 per cent were
requested by the judges. Most of the judges sitting in the Felony Court
have referred cases to the Behavior Clinic for examination, and several of
the judges from the Boys’ Court. A judge of the South Chicago Court re-
ferred a boy for examination who was being held in the County Jail await-
ing trial in his court. The Public Defender’s office has requested examina-
tions in approximately 16 per cent, and the State’s Attorney’s office about 5
per cent. The public at large seems to have become more aware of the
Clinie’s service for 10 per cent of the private counsels for defense have re-
ferred cases to us as against 5 per cent of last year. Referrals by members
of the patient’s family, or friends, has shown a slight increase from 3 per
eent of last year to 4 per cent of this year. The jail authorities (the
Warden, Assistant Warden, and Jail physician) have referred 6 per cent;
other social agencies, including the Bureau of Public Welfare, Criminal Court
division, Rural Service and Veterans Service divisions, and the Juvenile
Court, about 7 per cent; the Adult Probation Department 2 per cent. In one
instance a Federal Probation Officer referred a female drug addict for ex-
amination; the Parole Officer of Pontiac Reformatory asked for examinations
of two boys on parole whom he had incarcerated in the County Jail for the
purpose of examination. (In both instances the boys were found to be
psychotic.)