Responding to recent criticism of 'Sentenced to Social Work?' the authors review the arguments for and against non- treatment models of probation practice and conclude that these can be developed to promote fairness, consistency and self-determination without sacrificing social work help itself.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bryant, M. et al. 'Sentenced to Social Work?' (Chief Probation Officers Conference Paper. London: CPOC. 1978.
2.
Napo.The Provision of Alternatives to Custody and the Use of the Probation Order. (Report of the Professional Committee of the National Association of Probation Officers. London : NAPO. 1982.
3.
Godson, D. 'Social work, Surveillance, and the Committee' (Letter) Probation Journal, Vol 29, No 2. 1982.
4.
Bottoms, A.E. and McWilliams, W. 'A Non-Treatment Paradigm for Probation Practice '. British Journal of Social Work, Vol 9, No 2. 1979.
5.
Brody, S.R. 'Research into the Aims and Effectiveness of Sentencing'. Howard Journal, Vol 17, No 3. 1978.
6.
Perlman, H.H. 'Self determination: reality or illusion?' Social Service Review. (University of Chicago Press). Vol 39, No 4. 1965.
7.
Biestek, F.P.The Casework Relationship. London: Allen and Unwin. 1961.
8.
Plant, R.Social and Moral Theory in Casework. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1970.
9.
Timms, N.Perspectives in Social Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1977.
10.
Berlin, I.Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1969.
11.
Home Office.Exploring Ways of Reducing the Prison Population. (A Home Office Research and Planning Unit Project). Minutes of the Hampshire Consultative Committee; April 1982. London: HORPU.
