Beyond Brain
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056601200205 |
| Published date | 01 June 1966 |
| Date | 01 June 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
47
attitudes
expressed
by
probation
officers.
For
instance,
most
oflicers
agreed
about
the
importance
of
providing
psychological
support.
On
the
other
hand,
there
was
a
good
deal
of
disagreement
about
the
importance
of
controlling
probationers
and
about
the
use
of
situational
approaches
which
involve
home
visits
and
other
agencies.
From
the
study
of
treatment,
perhaps
the
most
interesting
example
to
give
is
the
finding
that
more
of
the
probationers
who
had
successfully
completed
their
period
of
probation
had
had
a
pre-trial
enquiry,
had had
more
contacts
with
their
officers,
and
were
said
to
have
received
high
support
and
low
control.
This
does
not
mean,
necessarily,
that
high
support
and
low
control
is
the
kind
of
treatment
most
likely
to
be
successful.
One
possible
explanation
for
this
winding
might
be
that
these
probationers
were
&dquo;good
risks&dquo;
and
likely
to
be
successful
probation
cases,
so
that
their
probation
oflicers
gave
them
low
control
because
little
controlling
was
required.
An
important
feature
of
S.O.M.P.A.
was
that
it
enabled
research
techniques
and
methods
of
obtaining
information
to
be
tried
out,
as
well
as
providing
an
opportunity
for
the
research
workers
to
benefit
from
the
knowledge
and
experience
of
the
probation
officers
in
Middlesex.
On
the
basis
of
both
the
atti-
tude
survey
and
the
study
of
treatment
in
Middlesex,
modified
and
improved
methods
of
data
collection
were
developed
and
have
been
used
in
the
National
Study
of
Probation.
BEYOND
BRAIN
Some
evidence
on
drug
taking
from
probation
officers
THE
Interdepartmental
Committee
under
the
Chairmanship
of
Lord
Brain
published
its
latest
report
on
Drug
Addiction
in
November
1965.
Businesslike
within
its
terms
of
reference,
the
Committee
produced
an
account
of
the
spread
and
treatment
of
heroin
and
cocaine
addiction
in
this
country,
and
dealt
with
the
question
of
medical
prescriptions
for
addictive
drugs.
It
also
referred,
though
only
in
passing,
to
witnesses
who
told
of
West
End
clubs
in
which
it
is
known
&dquo;that
some
young
people
have
indulged
in
stimulant
drugs
of the
amphetamine
type&dquo;,
and
to
the
risk
that
young
people
may
turn
to
cannabis
and
move
on
to
heroin
and
cocaine.
The
Report
suggested
that
this
wider
problem
deserved
further
study.
Meanwhile,
the
Committee
found
that
the
total
number
of
known
addicts
to
drugs
specified
as
dangerous
under
the
Dangerous
Drugs
Act,
1965,
had
risen
from
454
in
1959
to
753
in
1964.
They
fell
into
the
following
age
groups:
The
Committee’s
definition
of
an
addict
was
&dquo;A
person
who,
as
a
result
of
repeated
administration,
has
become
dependent
on
a
drug
controlled
under
the
Dangerous
Drugs
Act
and
has
an
over-powering
desire
for
its
continuance,
but
who
does
not
require
it
for
the
relief
of
organic
disease&dquo;.
All
the
40
addicts
under
20
years
old
were
taking
heroin,
as
were
most
of
those
under
35.
The
increase
seemed
to
be
centred
on
London.
The
major
source
of
supply
was
seen
by
the
Committee
as
being
the
activity
of
a
very
few
doctors
who
have
prescribed
excessively.
To
meet
this
the
Committee
recommended
(a)
a
system
of
notification
of
addicts;
(b)
provision
of
advice
where
addiction
is
in
doubt;
(c)
the
setting
To continue reading
Request your trial