Editorial

• Date: 01 October 1974
• DOI: 10.1177/003288557405400201
• Published date: 01 October 1974
• Subject Matter: Articles

2

EDITORIAL

This

issue

deals

with

the

need

for

and

problems

of

Pro f ession-

als

in

Correctiom.

We

use

this

term

to

describe

those

engaged

in

vo-

cations

which,

through

educational

requirements

and

independent

organizations

or

associations.

have

developed

their

own

bodies

of

knowledge,

ethics,

and

regulatory

procedures.

Their

fields

include

medicine,

psychology,

social

work,

education,

religion

and

law.

They

may

be

employees

of

a

correctional

system

or

they

may

provide

services

to

the

system

from

some

other

base

of

operation.

Of

course,

we

advocate

the

increase

of

such

professional

in

prisons,

probation,

and

parole!

It

is

like

being

for

God,

Country,

and

Motherhood!

The

report

of

the

National

Advisory

Commission

on

Standards

and

Goals

in

Criminal

Justice

B the

latest

&dquo;Bible&dquo;)

empha-

sizes

the

need

for

training

to

upgrade

all

correctional

personnel

to

a

professional

status.

The

American

Correctional

Association’s

develop-

ing

efforts

in

accreditation

imply

approved

levels

of

professionalism

both

in

quality

and

quantity.

Graduate

schools

seek

to

involve

stu-

dents

in

the

field

( cf.

Kaslow

and

l3eCato

in

this

issue).

Often

we

have

found

that

these

professionalb

are

more

concerned

with

the

client’s

interest

than

are

other

groups

(custody

and

administration)

whose

interest

leans

more

toward

institutional

convenience

and

-security.

However,

on

closer

examination,

particularly

in

conversation

with

inmates,

probationers

and

parolees,

one

begins

to

realize

that

the

mere

presence

of

professionals

is

not

enough.

Daniel

Glaser’s

study,

The

E ff ectiveness

of

a

Prison

and

Parole

System

( 1969 ) ,

points

out

that

correctional

clients

tend

to

attribute

positive

influence

more

to work

supervisors

and

guards

than

to

counselors,

teachers,

and

chaplains.

Even

if

this

is

accounted

for

by

less

contact

with

profession-

als,

that

in

itself

raises

problems

about

the

role

of

these

professionals

in

correctional

settings.

In

some

cases

the

more

one

advauces

in

his

professional

field,

the

farther

he

becomes

removed

from

the

very

persons

he

has

been

trained

to

·erve.

We

have

noticed

that

the

recipients

of

LEAA

train.

ing

grants

for

advanced

study

may

soon

advance

to

supervisory

and

administrative

positions

where

their

newly

learned

clinical

skills

have

less

direct

application.

The

&dquo;Peter

Principle&dquo;

often

applies

in

these

cases:

excellent

line

let

el

counselors

become

incompetent

supervisors.

Another

pitfall

for

the

professional

is

that

he

may

soon

internalize

the

system

and

in

fact

become

brutalized

by

the

institution

as

are

the

inmates

and

the

rest

of

the

staff.

Further,

he

may

develop

a

yearning

toward

research,

experimentation,

and

academic

’~work-cuts&dquo;

such

as

in

classification

systems

wherein

the

client

becomes

less

of

a

human

being

and

more

of

a

subject

for

the

professional’s

own

needs.

Still

another

problem

is

that

one

may

seek

to

confirm

his

profession-

alism

bN

drawing

the

client

to

his

own

’&dquo;turfB

in

the

counselling

once.

the

school

rooni.

the

chapel,

or

the

hospital,

rather

than

reaching

out

to

the

cell

blocks

and

work

shops

where

the

bulk

of

institutional