Either Dr. Goddard overlooked this distinction between serious offenders who are often repeaters and the ordinary offenders, or he took the questionable position that the difference was unimportant. On the basis of the tests of cases in the detention home in Newark, which we have quoted, he says that “by actual test 66% of the children in the Juvenile Courts of Newark are feeble-minded.” Again after quoting the results of examinations of delinquents at several _institutions_, he says: “Suppose we take the very lowest figure that any of these studies suggests, namely 25%, and see for a moment where it leads us. Twenty-five per cent. of the children _who come before the Juvenile Court_[A] are feeble-minded. The figures cannot be less than that” (_19_). This paper was subsequently referred to by Dr. Fernald, physician at the Massachusetts Reformatory, as follows: “It has been found by the most eminent research workers in this field that probably not less than 25% of the criminals who come before our courts are feeble-minded and that a _much larger percentage of the children brought before the Juvenile Court are defective_” (_103_).[29] The incorrectness of the assumption that detention home cases show no more deficiency than ordinary juvenile court cases could not at the time be demonstrated. Since then, however, there have been several objective studies. In Minneapolis we found that relatively twice as large a proportion of the serious offenders sent to the county detention home were either three or four years retarded in school as we found among the ordinary juvenile offenders taken consecutively. The data will be presented later under our discussion of the school test. We also found that if we compared the results of Binet examinations at the Minnesota reformatory (_22_) with those at the county detention home, tested deficiency is about five times as common among the older and more established offenders at the reformatory. At Chicago serious deficiency was less frequent among those in the detention home than among more serious recidivists. Bluemel, as we have also noted, found that the frequency of tested retardation was decidedly greater among boys in Denver sent to the State Industrial School than among those only put on probation in that city. The investigation of Stenquist, Thorndike and Trabue shows that serious deficiency is less among dependent boys than among delinquents in the same county. Cornell found less truant boys deficient than delinquent boys, in the Philadelphia House of Detention. In Chicago, Denver and Minneapolis, moreover, less than 10% of the more serious cases in the detention homes were found deficient. This evidence all tends to contradict the assumption that a large proportion of the ordinary children brought before the juvenile court is feeble-minded.