Pointers for Probation
| Published date | 01 June 1969 |
| Date | 01 June 1969 |
| Author | C. Fishwick |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056901500204 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
54
POINTERS
FOR
PROBATION
C.
Fishwick
Staffordshire
Probation
and
After-Care
Service
MAKING
His
FIRST
Presidential
address
to
the
53rd
Annual
Conference
of
N.A.P.O.
in
1965,
Lord
Hamilton
of
Dalzell
said:
&dquo;... this
is
a
questioning
age;
it
is
therefore
no
use
complaining
when
an
increasingly
educated
nation
starts
to
question
the
inevitable
rightness
of
our
institutions,
even
though
it
would
be
much
cosier
and
more
convenient
if
people
would
continue
to
take
them
for
granted.
Inevitably,
the
law
and
its
administration
have
not
escaped
this
questioning
spirit&dquo;.
For
some
years
past,
and
I
suspect
for
some
years
to
come,
the
questioning
spirit
will
be
with
the
probation
service.
Change
after
change
has
confronted
it
and
the
future
is
not
clear.
It
is
my
aim
in
this
article
to
try
and
clarify
what
I
consider
are
some
of
the
main
conflicts
confronting
the
service
and
to
suggest
possible
approaches
for
coping
with
them.
Is
social
casework
an
art
or
science?
Whichever
it
is,
it
is
a
young
art
or
a
young
science.
Despite
its
rapid
growth
social
casework
has
only
a
short
history,
and
whatever
its
basic
principles
they
are
not
yet
finally
formalised
or
universally
agreed.
The
areas
of
social
casework
theory
which
are
generally
accepted
as
areas
of
principle
can
sometimes
leave
probation
officers
in
particular
still
uncertain
of
their
validity.
Confidentiality-still
a
tender
plant
in
the
casework
garden-is
facing
a
difficult
season.
The
responsibilities
we
now
have
in
relation
to
parole
put
question
marks
against
some
cherished
notions
of
confidentiality
as
practised
by
probation
officers.
Institutional
responsibilities
have
also
thrown
some
dilemmas
over
confidentiality
into
the
open.
Parris,
writing
of the
problems
and
possibilities
for
casework
in
a
prison
setting
says:
&dquo;Confidentiality
has
sometimes
become
a
means
of
keeping
a
professional
relationship
private
and
exclusive.
This
is
not
possible
in
a
prison
setting,
since,
for
example,
the
prison
officer
ought
to
know
if
there
is
a
domestic
crisis
because
he
will
be
the
one
who
must
decide
whether
an
inmate
is
just
being
defiant
or
is
acting
out
his
personal
distress.
The
inmate
cannot
expect
strict
confidentiality,
but
he
ought
to
be
able
to
expect
discretion
...&dquo;
i
Is
this
simply
a
pragmatic
approach
and
the
sacrifice
of
a
principle?
Are
we
faced
here
with
the
conflict
that
casework
principles
are
inappropriate
to
the
prison
situation
and
that
either
confidentiality
or
prison
welfare
work
must
go?
Mature
adjustment
to
this
new
situation
heralds,
I
hope,
a
new
and
fuller
definition
of
confidentiality.
It
is
indicative
of
our
short
history
that
we
have
only
recently
had
a
com-
prehensive
book
on
a
vast
area
of
our
social
casework
practice-the
area
of
authority.2
We
are
indebted
to
Robert
Foren
and
Royston
Bailey
for
their
valuable
contribution
to
social
casework
literature,
at
a
time
when
the
probation
officer’s
authority
role
has
been
highlighted
by
the
introduction
of
parole.
This
innovation
again
threw
into
stark
relief
the
conflict
between
the
probation
officer’s
search
for
professional
identity
in
social
casework
and
his
awareness
of
being
an
agent
of
social
policy.
Again,
it
could
be
asked,
is
the
practical
implementation
of
parole
compatible
with
casework
principles?
My
own
view
is
that
parole
will
reveal
some
of
the
extremely
underdeveloped
areas
of
our
casework
skill,
and
that
the
conflict
will
best
be
resolved
by
bettering
that
skill.
The
move
towards
greater
volunteer
involvement
in
probation
practice
has
regenerated
some
of
the
latent
conflicts
which
have
not
yet
been
satisfactorily
To continue reading
Request your trial