NCJ Number
86664
Date Published
1981
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This discussion of probation in the Australian States considers such issues as background qualifications for probation officers, probation officer functions, probation innovations, and efforts to recruit Aboriginal probation officers.
Abstract
Differences in probation agencies in the various Australian States stem largely from differences in the departments that control probation agencies; e.g., in Western Australia and Tasmania probation officers serve Crown Law Departments headed by attorneys general, while in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Victoria, and Queensland, probation is controlled by departments responsible for community welfare services. These structural differences may also explain the differences in qualification requirements for probation staff entrants. Some States and Territories emphasize social work credentials for applicants, while other jurisdictions are more flexible in their emphasis on personality characteristics and life experiences that have cultivated the skills and sensitivities required for probation work. All States and Territories based on specialist practice offer probation officers a distinct public-service career structure. Most States have undertaken probation innovations, including the establishment of special services for certain types of offenders, the use of intensive short-term casework, the use of community service orders, the use of day attendance centers, and the establishment of probation hostels. Probation in Australia is generally suited only to the white culture, although in many districts the majority of probationers are black. Some of these jurisdictions have sought to recruit Aboriginal staff. A number of the States are in the process of creating standards by which to develop and measure the effectiveness of probation services. Three footnotes are listed.