Comment
| Date | 01 September 1971 |
| Published date | 01 September 1971 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057101700301 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
PROBATION
Vol 17 No 3
November
1971
Journal
of the
National
Association
of
Probation
Officers -
20p
Edited
by
Leslie
Herbert,
M.B.E.,
M.A.
COMMENT
No
Take-over
ONLY
last
November
the
Government,
announced
its
plans
for
the
expansion
of
the
probation
service,
and
probation
oflicers,
who
had
suffered
so
much
uncer-
tainty,
heaved
a
collective
sigh
of
relief.
It
is
therefore
very
disturbing
that,
so
soon
afterwards,
the
House
of
Commons
Expenditure
Comniitttee
should
have
been
hearing
powerful
voices
advocating
a
take-over
of
probation
and
after-
care
by
the
local
authority
social
services
departments,
also
that
the
proposed
re-organisation
of
magistrates’
courts
appears
to
some
people
to
suggest
that
this
might
provide
the
occasion
for
such
a
take-over.
One
thing
is
clear:
that
there
has
been
a
very
signilicant
hardening
of
opinion
among
probation
oflicers
in
favour
of
an
independent
service.
It
seems
that
in
recent
months
opinion
in
the
service
has
also
begun
to
harden
on
the
question
of
its
role.
The
argument
between
those
who
leaned
towards
social
work
and
those
who
leaned
towards
the
penal
field
has
petered
out.
The
concept,
enunciated
in
last
year’s
document
on
the
Future
of
the
Probation
and
After-care
Service,
of
a
service
concerned
with
all
social
work
emanating
from
the
courts,
appears
to
have
effectively
unified
the
two
points
of
view.
It
is
a
concept
which
makes
it
possible
to
be
very
actively
involved
in
new
aspects
of
penal
policy
without
losing
identity
as
social
workers.
It
also
emphasises
usefully
the
continual
need
to
bear
in
mind
both
the
good
of
the
delinquent
client
and
the
good
of
the
society
whose
rules
he
has
broken.
To continue reading
Request your trial