Conflict and Change in Probation
| Date | 01 June 1975 |
| Published date | 01 June 1975 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057502200202 |
| Author | David Mathieson |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Conflict and Change
in Probation
DAVID MATHIESON
Merseyside
IT ~s become increasingly obvious over the past decade that the
Probation and After-Care Service is undergoing a process of quite
fundamental change. Analysis of change is one of the most popular and
important activities in many spheres these days. The American sociolo-
gist, Alvin Tofl3er, in his book Future Shock (1970), graphically
reminded us that we cannot avoid confrontation with change.
There is an uncomfortable truth in some of Toffler’s words. &dquo;Change
is avalanching upon our heads and most people are grotesquely un-
prepared to cope with it. What is occurring now is bigger, deeper and
more important than the Industrial Revolution.&dquo; Tomer also quotes
C. P. Snow, &dquo;Until this century, social change was so slow that it would
pass unnoticed in one person’s lifetime. That is no longer so. The rate
of change has increased so much that our imagination can’t keep up.&dquo;
At a time when the Probation and After-Care Service is feeling the
intense effects of last year’s reorganisation, it is useful to be reminded
that we live in times of change all round. It is futile to attempt to
jump off the roundabout on to firmer ground, for the whole of life
nowadays is a roundabout-and our prime task must be to understand
and cope with the particular changes that are taking place in our own
sphere.
Change is often unwelcome and can be quite uncomfortable even to
those who imagine they are most flexible-and firm ground (if such
there be) is established when the process of understanding and coping
with change is most complete. Human beings have traditionally looked
beyond themselves for security and certainty during times of stress, but
the search for external authority is becoming increasingly fruitless and
the individual must try to find &dquo;firm ground&dquo; within himself. This
realisation makers life more demanding and more fulfilling.
In this context, the Probation and After-Care Service used to be able
to look to the Home Office as its source of external authority, but in
many respects the cord has now been severed-and the Service is
being increasingly allowed and even compelled to search out its own
identity and destiny. The past decade has seen distinct changes with
regard to the tasks of the Service, its ethos and its personnel. These
three areas merit closer attention and appraisal.
It is invidious in a review of the tasks of the Probation and After-
Care Service to select one particular point when significant changes
really. began. For almost a century now, the Service has developed,
albeit haphazardly at times, from its early days as an evangelical mission
to its present role as one of the major social agencies.
But the Service
.
as it is known today really began to be knocked into
shape in 1966, when it was given responsibility for all after-care and
prison welfare departments. It was at this point that the new title of
&dquo;Probation and After-Care Service&dquo; was introduced officially-and this
36
time also saw the beginning of a modern Service which, in less than a
decade, has taken its place on an equal footing alongside the prisons as
the comprehensive non-custodial part of the penal system.
.
Then in 1968, parole was introduced, which was in some respects a
logical development from the recent after-care responsibilities, but in
.
other respects represented a new and more controlling function for the
Service._ This theme was to be repeated again six years later in the
controversial proposals of the Younger Report on young adult offenders.
Parole was also significant in that it took basic accountability from its
traditional location-the main grade officer-and vested it in the then
principal probation officer. This theme, too, has reverberated in other
contexts in subsequent years as the Service has been given more
responsibility in the judicial and penal systems-and some people regret
the steady erosion of the autonomy of the main grade officer and see
the Service of today as an hierarchical and bureaucratic agency...
To continue reading
Request your trial