Trends in the Probation and After-Care Service
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056601200302 |
| Published date | 01 September 1966 |
| Date | 01 September 1966 |
| Author | Pauline Morris |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
treatmenl of oftenders, and it may encourage or develop its own research project.,,
in the field of after-care and crime prevention.
The first report of the working party on the place of voluntary service in
after-care (see above), though dealing specifically with residential provision.
endorsed the idea that an association of voluntary societies should be
established to be concerned with the prevention of delinquency in general, and
to co-ordinate and develop voluntary work in this field. The report stated the
opinion that N.A.C.R.O., given the right leadership and support, would be
the body to meet this need. All who are concerned about the vast problems
to be covered will, we hope, offer that support.
Reports on Probation
As WE GO to press, the first report on the work of the Probation and After-Care
Department and the second report from the Probation Research Project have
been published. We hope to make full comments on these in the next edition.
* * *
*
*
Changes at N.A.P.O.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY of the National Association of Probation Oflicers.
Mr. Frank Dawtry, will be retiring from that post on reaching the age of 65
in mid-January next. Mr. David Haxby, who was appointed Assistant Secretary
at the beginning of 1965, will succeed Mr. Dawtry in the post of General
Secretary with effect from 16th January 1967.
The post of assistant secretary will not be filled for the time being, but
instead an administrative assistant has been appointed. Miss Brenda Palmer took
up this appointment in October.
TRENDS IN THE PROBATION
AND
AFTER-CARE SERVICE
Pauline Morris
Senior Research Officer, University of Essex
I SHOULD LIKE to start by looking at what have up to now been the principal
tasks or functions of the probation service, and then to go on to discuss what new
ones await it. Until recently the primary function of probation offices was to
provide a service to the Court and to those offenders whom the Court saw fit
to place on probation. There were subsidiary tasks-often subsidiary more in
name than in fact-but there was a strong tendency to consider the probation
case-load as essential, and to view marital work, after-care, and the prevention
of delinquency as work to be done if and when there was time.
Since the beginning of this year the probation service has been vested with
sole responsibility for the after-care of the great majority of offenders, adult
and juvenile: the service has changed its name to the Probation and After-care
Service, and this further includes the functions of the prison welfare officer,
* Based on a talk given at a conference for Principal and Senior Probation Officers, held
at the University of Essex, April, 1966.
84
working within the institution. Furthermore, it seems virtually certain that
within a very short time probation ollicers will also become parole oflicers. What
it is important to remember and accept is that the jobs of after-care and
prison welfare should share equal importance and status with probation work.
This will naturally also be the case in due course for parole. These new functions
cannot be regarded as secondary to probation-they are the full responsibility
of the .service, not just of those members who feel an interest in them. It is of
course conceivable that if parole becomes a statutory task of the probation
and after-care service, after-care (at any rate that which is voluntary) may slip
back even further into the position of &dquo;after-thought&dquo; simply through shortage
of time. For example if the probation officer is statutorily concerned with
probation and parole in addition to his other duties, when will he find time to
do voluntary after-care work’? In Nortli American, in those states where probation
and parole are carried out by the same service there are already strong
indications that probatiol/ takes second place to parole. In order to carry
out these additional tasks, much more judicious use of scarce personnel and other
resources may be necessary so that the less criminalistic will receive minimal
assistance and the most intensive and costly efforts will be directed to the more
anti-social persons.
Let us examine some of the implications involved in this expansion of
work, in the light of what have, up to now, been the fundamental goals of
the probation service; we can then try to see whether these are compatible
with the goals of after-care and parole. I think it important to state at the
outset that there is a quite fundamental difterence between probation and
parole: in the latter case mean are cOl/ditiollally roleu.vecl into the custody of a
parole officer acting as fiii agent of the state. In the case of probation, this is a
form of treatment given as an alterl/lItil’e to inearceration.
PROBATION AND PAROLE
Closer examination of the goals of the probation service indicate some lack of
clarity, and even a possible contradiction. In offering a service to the Courts
(who may be said to be acting as representatives of the general public), the
primary concern of an officer carrying out pre-sentence investigations and
advising the Court must surely be that of ensuring public safety-rehabilitation
of the offender at that stage must necessarily become a secondary goal. However,
once the offender is on probation, his rehabilitation becomes the primary goal.
This rehabilitative function is equally the primary goal in the case of those
offenders requiring after-care. But as parole officers the &dquo;social defence&dquo; aspect
of the work should come very much to the fore, since the granting of parole must
imply that men can be returned to prison if it is thought they are a threat to
society. One of the dangers of any parole service is that only those men who
are considered &dquo;safe&dquo;
will be released: if so we may jeopardise a man’s
chances of rehabilitation simply on the basis of fear-fear that...
To continue reading
Request your trial