The Differential Treatment Unit: Part I
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057602300403 |
| Published date | 01 December 1976 |
| Author | Geoffrey Dobson |
| Date | 01 December 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
105
The
Differential
Treatment
Unit:
Part
I
GEOFFREY
DOBSON
Inner
London
THE
DTU
was
Inner
London’s
IMPACT
Unit.
By
the
end
of
the
IMPACT
experiment
in
Spring
1975,
the
Unit’s
team
approach
to
its
work
had
helped
to
develop
a
wide
range
of
treatment
methods
for
its
clients.
We
remained
concerned
however
about
two
important
aspects
of
our
work:
1.
That
despite
its
intensive
nature
we
had
not
applied for
an
early
discharge
for
many
of
tlre
Probation
Orders
and
were
not
using
time
limits
effee-
tively
in
our
work.
2.
That
our
efforts
were
often
spread
over
a
great
many
problems
with
each
client,
changing
rapidly
from
one
problem
to
another.
Our
thinking
at
this
time
became
influenced
by
reading
Reid and
Shyne’s
book,
Brief
and
Extended
Case
Work.
Describing
experimental
work
in
other
settings
they
concluded
that:
I.
Planned
short
term
work
yields
results
at
least
as
good
and
probably
better
than
open-ended
work.
2.
The
improvement
associated
with
short
term
treatment
appears
to
be
relatively
durable.
3.
Short
term
treatment
can
be
used
successfully
in
most
conditions
if
its
objectives
are
properly
limited.
The
rational
for
planned
short
term
work
is
based
on an
analysis
of
how
problems
change.
It
assumes
that
the
greatest
amount
of
problem
change
is
likely
to
occur
early
and
that
this
amount
is
usually
sufficient
to
restore
equilibrium
and
reduce
the
client’s
incentive
for
further
change.
We
were
also
aware
of
the
declining
use
of
Probation
Orders
by
Magistrates’
Courts
and
at
what
we
felt
to
be
confusion
in
the
minds
of
the
Judiciary
and
the
Probation
Service
over
the
merits
of
orders
of
varying
lengths.
The
following
figures
for
Inner
London
are
comparable
with
national
figures
and
exclude
money
payment
supervision
orders:
1.
There
Itas
been
a
decline
from
1963
to
1975
of
Probation
Orders
current
at
the
end
of
each
year
from
6,336
to
3,975.
This
in
part
would
be
accounted
for
by
the
Children
and
Young
Persons
Act
1969
and
the
many
alternative
forms
of
disposal
open
to
the
courts.
Many
of
these
alternatives
were
however
introduced
as
alternatives
to
imprisonment
and
the
numbers
of
people
in
prison
has
continued
to
increase
over
this
period.
During
this
time
Probation
Orders
have
fallen
as
a
percentage
of
officers’
caseloads
from
73
per
cent
to
41
per
cent.
2.
In
the
last
ten
years
the
percentage
of
Orders
that
were
one
year
orders
was
never
higher
than
13
per
cent
in
1975
and
ivas
as
low
as
6.8
per
cent
in
1970.
To continue reading
Request your trial