probation forum
| Published date | 01 March 1968 |
| Date | 01 March 1968 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455056801400108 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
20
probation
forum
WHO
NEXT??
’
(The
following
letter
from
a
probationer
was
sent
to
us,
with
his
permission,
for
publication
here
as
it
gives
the
probationer’s
view
of
an
all-too-common
problem.
The
letter
is
reproduced
as
written
except
for
the
removal
of
names
which
might
have
led
to
the
identity
of
the
writer.
Editor.)
Dear
Mr.
A.,
A
few
years
ago
I
got
into
trouble
with
the
LAW.
They
decided
to
put
me
on
probation.
And
so
it
was
that
I
met
Mr.
B.,
who’s
office
was
in
A......
About
a
year
later
I
broke
my
two-year
probation
order
and
was
put
on
probation
again.
This
time
to
Mr.
C.,
who’s
oflice
was
in
B......
A
year
later
he
left
and
my
P.O.
was
changed
to
Mr.
D.
Soon
after,
the
office
moved
to
C......
This
time
I
finished
probation
and
was
given
a
welfare
officer,
whose
office
was
near
D......
The
oflice
later
moved
to
E......
The
welfare
officer.
later
left
because
for
some
reason
or
other
she
was
pregnant.
My
next
welfare
officer
was
a
man,
but
he
left
also.
So
I
was
given
another
female
officer,
but
I
couldn’t
stand
her,
so
my
next
officers
was
Mr.
E.
He
later
went
to
another
area.
So
my
next
officer
was
Mr.
F.
But
then
I
got
into
trouble
again
and
Mr.
what’s-his-name
took
over
as
probation
oflicer
in
F......
But
I
later
moved
digs
to
G......and
so
it
was
that
Mr.
G.
came
down
the
road.
But
now
he,
too,
is
leaving
and
my
new
P.O.
will
be Mr.
H.
I’ve
heard
of
him.
He’s
supposed
to
be
a
&dquo;
nice
bloke &dquo;.
The
funny
thing
is
that
I
still
have
another
five
months
to
go
before
my
order
ends
and
I
(still)
expect
to
see
another
P.O.
before
I finish.
You
can’t
blame
me,
can
you?
X.
Y. Z.
IS
THE
PROBATION
SERVICE
TO
DIE?
THIS
ASSOCIATION,
which
aims
at
the
promotion
of
the
probation
method
and
throughout
its
existence
has
featured
in
penal
reform,
looked
with
interest
at
the
Kilbrandon
Report.
Members
could
see
there
an
encouraging
declaration
of
the
need
for
education
and
the
enlightened
treatment
of
the
juvenile
delinquent.
It
contained
some
refreshing
de-bunking
of
stuffy
tradition
and
cut
cleanly
through
red
tape
which
had
long
frustrated
probation
officers.
There
were
some
less
wise
assumptions
but
Scottish
members
seemed
to
feel
that
while
in
some
respects
the
Report
was
unrealistic
and
presumptuous,
it
included
an
adventurous
presentation
of
modern
thought
which
was
useful
in
the
learning
process
of
discussion.
When
the
Government
indicated
its
interest
in
the
main
proposals
of
the
Kilbrandon
Report,
the
Association,
with
good
reason,
became
disturbed
because
of
the
threat
that
untried
and
partially
considered
ideas
might
be
put
into
practice.
Reassuring
promises
were
made
that
nothing
would
be
done
without
the
fullest
discussion
and
that
a
White
Paper
would
be
issued
as
the
basis
of
that
discussion.
The
publication
of
the
White
Paper,
Social
Work
and
the
Community,
in
1966
did
nothing
to
allay
anxiety
by
announcing
plans
to
abolish
the
posts
of
children’s
ofhcer
and
probation
officer
and
to
set
up
social
work
departments
under
local
authority
control
with
responsibility
for
all
age
groups,
a
mixture
of
welfare
and
penal
service
and
some
field
services
and
institutional
services.
These
departures
from
practice
were
not
upheld
by
published
reasoning,
and
serious
objections
from
probation
officers
were
brushed
To continue reading
Request your trial