Social Work Education and the Identity of the Probation Officer
| Author | Hugh Barr |
| Published date | 01 December 1976 |
| Date | 01 December 1976 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455057602300402 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Social Work Education and the
Identity of the Probation Officer
HUGH BARR
Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
IT is almost five years since the Home Office and the Advisory Council
for Probation and After-Care relinquished responsibility for the training
of probation officers to the Central Council for Education and Training
in Social Work. Since then there have been growing indications of anxiety
within the Probation Service about the new arrangements for training.
I start from the assumption that a measure of tension between educa-
tion and practice is not only inevitable, but also desirable. Social work
education must constantly react to the changing demands of practice as
agencies assume additional duties and adopt new approaches to old ones.
Education itself should be an agent of change, initiating critical re-
appraisal and new approaches to established practices. Caught in the
middle is the newly qualified worker, trying to reconcile these tensions
within himself and to establish an integrated approach to the demands of
practice without jettisoning what he has been taught.
Three causes for concern are frequently mentioned in probation circles:
that the Service has effectively lost control of its training; that the new
style of &dquo;generic&dquo; training gives insufficient emphasis to the provision of
specialist teaching essential to competent probation practice; that the
newly qualified worker is ill prepared to assume the full responsibilities
of a probation officer immediately on appointment. I propose to examine
these concerns and hope to alleviate much of the anxiety within the
Service.
Responsibility for the Promotifln and Recognition of Qualifying Courses
in Social Work
The nature of CCETSW’s responsibility is not always understood. It is
a statutory body, covering the United Kingdom, and wholly funded by
central government. It is, however, independent of government and free
to adopt its own policies, although their implementation depends upon
the co-operation of many other bodies. The Council’s responsibilities
include probation officers as one type of social worker for whom it has a
statutory duty to promote training. Throughout this article reference to
social workers should, therefore, be taken to include probation officers.
There are 60 members of Council and the Probation Service in England
and Wales is represented by the Advisory Council for Probation and
After-Care (one seat), the Central Council of Probation and After-Care
Committees (one seat), the National Association of Probation Officers
(two seats), and the Conference of Chief Probation Officers (one seat),
and the Home Office appoints two assessors. The allocation of members
has been arranged so that there is at least one probation &dquo;voice&dquo; on each
committee or board affecting the Probation Service. In addition, the
committee which has delegated powers to recognise and review CQSW
courses has co-opted to its number a working group of panel members
and this includes probation representatives. To strengthen further exist-
ing links with the Service, the staff of the Council has established a
98
Probation Consultative Group with representatives of the Home Office, the
Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees, NAPO and
CPO’s Conference plus a regional staff development officer: The Service has
also been represented on every working party and curriculum study group
convened by the Council. Thus the interests of the Service are well repre-
sented both in the decision-making process and in the consultative process
that precedes the formulation of policy.
The anxiety about the Service losing control of its training springs, at
least in part, from the relinquishing by the Home Office of much of the
financial control. It may be assumed that control over the allocation of
resources was passed to CCETSW. This was not so. In fact a decision
was taken before the Council was established to make over funds held
by various central government departments responsible for training social
workers (including the Home Office) to the mainstream of educational
finance. Thus, for England and Wales, funds for social work education
in the further education sector are now handled by DES and for the
universities by the UGC. DHSS and the Home Office retain only limited
sums for specific purposes. The Council is no more in control of the
major funds than is DHSS or the Home Office. Increased expenditure
must be negotiated in competition with the many claims within higher
education for limited funds. It is, however, arguable that social work
education could not have begun to obtain an established place within
higher education until it became an integral part of the planning and
budgeting of educational institutions.
There is, I think, another sense in which the Service fears loss of
control. Comparisons are often made between the close ties enjoyed
between the Service and the Home Office Training Centre at Cromwell
Road and the more tenuous links with no less than 71 (out of a total of
134) courses now...
To continue reading
Request your trial