Probation Officer Skills in Community Service
| Date | 01 March 1979 |
| Author | Roger Williams |
| Published date | 01 March 1979 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057902600103 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
9
Probation
Officer
Skills
in
Community
Service
ROGER
WILLIAMS
(An
experienced
community
service
organiser
argues
strongly
for
proba-
tion
officers
not
ancillaries
to
be
making
the
major
decisions
in
community
service.)
ON
the
face
of
it,
a
community
service
order
is
a
very
straightforward
affair.
The
simplicity
of
a
specified
number
of
hours
to
be
worked
within
twelve
months
can
create
the
illusion
that
administration
of
the
order
is
equally
simple
and
that
the
professional
skills
involved
may
not
be
of
the
same
level
as
those
required
of
Probation
Service
staff
working
in
field
teams.
The
subject
of
professional
skills
in
community
service
has
not
been
the
subject
of
much
informed
debate,
although
there
have
been
sug-
gestions
that
community
service
orders
should
be
run
by
some
unspecified
force
other
than
the
Probation
Service
and
that
probation
officer
skills
are
not
relevant.
Community
service,
it
is
suggested
by
many,
can
be
administered
in
large
part
by
ancillary
staff,
together
with
the
new
breed
of
super-ancillaries
whose
job-descriptions
rarely
differ
from
those
of
the
probation
officers
in
my
own
scheme.
Since
1973,
seventeen
experienced
probation
officers
have
been
involved
in
Nottinghamshire
Community
Service
and
it
has
never
been
suggested
by
those
officers
that
the
tasks
of
recruitment
of
placements,
representing
the
Service
to
the
community
and
all
the
detailed
work
of
assessment,
placement,
and
follow-up
are
inappropriate
for
trained
probation
officers.
Indeed
the
reaction
is
more
usually
that,
while
the
relationship
with
the
offender
is
different
in
character,
the
tasks
involved
are
nevertheless
satisfying
and
stimulating,
offering
new
opportunities
for
professional
development.
Professional
standards
It
is
my
intention
to
begin
to
elaborate
the
case
for
the
involvement
of
trained
probation
staff
in
community
service,
in
the
hope
that
the
debate
can
be
carried
forward.
The
question
of
whether
professional
probation
skills
are
required
in
large
measure
in
community
service
schemes
is
a
legitimate
and
urgent
one
for
the
Service.
It
may
be
that
some
areas
have
had
to
decide
between
setting
up
ancillary
intensive
schemes
or
no
scheme
at
all,
and
it
is
appreciated
that
I
speak
from
a
privileged
position,
having
been
part
of the
original
pilot
experiment
when
money
flowed
more
freely.
This
does
not
lessen
the
need
for
the
debate
as
central
questions
concerning
standards
of
professionalism
and
quality
of
service
are
at
stake. ’
’
The
argument
presented
here,
therefore,
is not
that
community
ser-
vice
schemes
cannot
be
run
by
ancillaries,
clearly
many
successful
schemes
are
run
in
precisely
this
way.
My
case
is
that
there
is
no
justification’
for
accepting
lower
standards
of
care
for the
offender
in
community
service
than
the
Service
would
accept
elsewhere
and
that
the
decision-making
process
in
administering
community
service
orders’
is
rooted
in
a
context
where
probation
officer
skills
can
be
used
to
great
effects.
’
&dquo;
’ ’
.
’
To continue reading
Request your trial