Prison Welfare and after-Care: a comment
| Published date | 01 September 1966 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056601200304 |
| Author | R. Conn |
| Date | 01 September 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
93
On
the
positive
side,
I
would
see
priorities
in
what
I
refer
to
as
&dquo;case-work
administration
and
organisation,&dquo;
focussed
increasingly
towards
the
field.
I
believe
that
the
way
forward
at
the
local
prison
lies
in
this,
and
the
concept
of
&dquo;liaison&dquo;
in
its
most
vital
and
realistic
sense.
PRISON
WELFARE
AND
AFTER-CARE:
a
comment
R. Conn
Senior
Probation
Officer,
Prison
Welfare
Service,
Wandsworth
SOME
SECTIONS
of
the
probation
service
do
not
yet
appear
to
have
grasped
the
implications
of
the
A.C.T.O.
report
or
to
see
realistically
what
&dquo;after-care&dquo;
means.
A.C.T.O.
saw
a
body
of
trained
and
specialised
people
working
alongside
others within
a
prison.
Specifically
the
welfare
officer’s
duty
was
to
relieve
anxiety
and
to
find
out
what
urgently
needs
to
be
done.
He
should
take
steps
to
solve
any
social
problems
left
behind
and
to
preserve
family
ties.
He
is
also
required
to
be
in
regular
and
frequent
contact
with
the
rest
of
the
institutional
staff
and
plan
for
the
prisoner’s
re-integration
in
society
upon
his
release.
What
we
do
know
about
recidivists
is
that
they
are
in
the
main
damaged
individuals
in
one
way
or
another
and
the
majority
have
not
responded
to
probation
orders,
hospital
treatment,
etc.
Many
are
rejects
of
society
who
cannot
compete
in
a
highly
organised
society
or
who
cannot
adjust
to
the
&dquo;norms&dquo;.
There
are
also
the
mentally
sick
and
the
addicted
and
so
forth.
There
are
few
for
whom
criminal
activity
is
a
lucrative
proposition.
How
then
can
we
plan
an
after-care
service
without
an
adequate
prison
welfare
service,
since
if
anything
is
to
be
done
at
all
in
influencing
attitudes
towards
society
or
for
treatment
it
can
only
be
done
by
a
concentration
of
effort
within
the
institution?
The
experience
of
the
Inner
London
Probation
After-care
Unit
is
that
the
majority
of
ex-prisoners
seen
there
have been
of
the
one-interview
character
and
there
is
little
opportunity
for
on-going
work.
This
is
no
more
than
large
numbers
of
probation
officers
have
already
foreseen
and
they
are
worried
about
their
future
role
as
dispensers
of
material
comforts.
However,
until
diagnosis
and
the
use
of
all
the
social
work
techniques
is
available
on
the
&dquo;inside&dquo;
then
the
probation
service
i?iust
function
in
this
way,
since
the
understaffed
prison
welfare
service
will
be
unable
to
select
and
work
with
those
who
may
be
worth
helping
and
to
produce
for
their
colleagues
outside
those
men
whose
attitudes
have
been
altered
sufficiently
for
on-going
work.
Neither
can
those
whose
need
is
for
a
treatment
centre
be
appropriately
referred.
We
are
no
further
forward
now
than
we
were
on
lst
January
1966
and
in
fact
the
prison
welfare
service
in
London
is
well
under
strength.
To
meet
this
challenge
some
probation
officers
favour
the
idea
of
working
from
outside
the
prison.
This
is
simply
an
alternative
to
overcome
the
probation
officer’s
aversion
to
work
in
prison
and
not
a
more
effective
way
of
dealing
with
the
problem.
This
would
bring
us
back
to
the
days
of
the
visiting
welfare
officer
to
prisons
which
was
seen
as
ineffective
by
the
C.A.C.A.
and
can
only
be
a
regressive
step.
To continue reading
Request your trial