Home 
Learn Toolkits (Learn) Impact of the new Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill (2008) on the probation service
Learn Toolkits (Learn) Impact of the new Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill (2008) on the probation service | Impact of the new Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill (2008) on the probation service |
|
|
|
ROLAND GRASER This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  The new Bill, championed by the Department of Social Development in 2008,1introduces a distinction between ‘occupations’ and ‘professions’ into the social services. The first three of the ten objectives of the Bill concern this distinction, namely, to establish a council for social service professions and occupations; to provide for the establishment of professional boards for social service professions, as well as for social service occupations. The other objectives concern such general matters as advancing social justice; promoting and protecting the interests of the public; promoting professional and ethical standards; promoting the quality of education and training of social service practitioners; providing for their registration; and providing the disciplinary action in respect of unprofessional conduct.Although the key feature of the Bill is the introduction of the ‘profession’ – ‘occupation’ distinction, it does not clarify this distinction, nor does it give an indication what the intention is of introducing such a distinction. One is left to wonder what it means in practical terms. It is significant, however, that social work is the only ‘profession’ listed in the Bill. Probation finds no mention at all, in spite of being one of the oldest social services in the country. As its ongoing professionalization has been blocked in the final stages at different levels, it is argued that the Bill does not meet one of its core objectives, namely, “to advance the interests of social service practitioners.”2 It is also felt that the Bill represents a phase in a larger strategy aimed at reclaiming status lost by social work with the introduction of the broader category of social services, including probation. This view is based on information in an article by Gray and Lombard.3 Setting the scene Under the Nationalist government, the formal provision of welfare services was the exclusive domain of social work. With the transformation of the country in the 1990’s came a change in the structure of welfare services, with the adoption of a social development paradigm. This gave rise to the ‘social services professions,’ which broadened the base of social service delivery. The Council for Social Work was transformed into the Council for Social Service Professions in 1999. As a result social work was no longer the only officially sanctioned provider of social services. Under the umbrella of the new Council, it became one of the social service providers. The others were child and youth care workers, probation practitioners and community development workers. The distinction between these different categories can only be described briefly here. As social work is a vast field, providing supportive and remedial services in a variety of setting – i.e. welfare, medical, psychiatric, educational and industrial – and as most readers are likely to have a basic understanding of what social work generally is all about, it will not be defined here. As to its relationship with the child and youth care workers, Gray and Lombard indicate that, “there was a great deal of confusion as to the differentiation of roles between social workers and child and youth care workers, and about the relationship between child welfare and child and youth care”.4 Probation officers are currently registered social workers who provide probation services - in some instances on a rotational basis, in others they occupy specific probation posts. There is no uniformity in the way probation services are delivered in the various provinces. In most cases such persons attended training workshops on subjects such as relevant legislation restorative justice, the structure and function of the courts, court ethics, pre-sentence investigations, expert witnessing in court, sentencing options, diversion and community-based programs for young offenders, victim support and community crime prevention programs. Since 1998, when several universities i.e. U.C.T., R.A.U., U.P.E. and Rhodes, started offering postgraduate programs in probation practice, close to two hundred probation officers have obtain postgraduate qualification. It should be emphasized that, internationally, probation is regarded as an occupation in its own right.5 Rise of the social service professions: The impact on social work. An article by Gray and Lombard, two prominent advocates for the social work profession, provides the key to understanding the background to the Bill. They describe the rise of the ‘social service professions’ after the ANC came into power in 1994, indicating that this profoundly affected social work; “…social work came under attack. A powerful political force emerged that preached that what South African welfare needed was social development rather than social work.”6 This, they pointed out, “… broadened the occupational base of those offering welfare services, and caused social work to loose its dominant role in the welfare field, which had been supported by the apartheid government.”7 According to Gray and Lombard the White Paper for Social Welfare “heavily criticized” social workers for being mostly engaged in case work and statutory services. It was also critical of the welfare system’s over reliance on professional social workers. “Such denigration of the social work profession hit hard and social work, being a divided profession, was ill equipped to respond to the onslaught.”8 The emerging occupational groups mentioned as playing a role in the White Paper included child and youth care workers, community development workers and probation workers. These groups, now part of the social service professions alongside the formerly dominant social work profession, clearly posed a threat to the latter. Under the heading ‘Probation workers”, Gray and Lombard express the view that “…part of the motivation behind the transformation of human resources within the welfare sector was geared towards removing social work’s dominance and allowing other occupational groups to develop with government support as social work had done through the apartheid years.” (Emphasis added).9 For forty years probation services had stagnated under the apartheid government. Social workers in the employ of the pre-1994 Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, who were doing statutory work, were then referred to as ‘probation officers’. Their work involved mainly doing pre-sentence investigations and presenting court reports, but they received no formal additional training to fulfill these tasks. As one of the social service professions, probation practice developed rapidly after 1994. Instead of focusing only on the court reports, probation officers now offered diversion programs for young offenders, as well as crime prevention programs in certain areas. The White Paper for Social Welfare advocated the expansion of the probation service, and the Probation Services Act (116 of 1991) was amended to incorporation a number of reform initiatives. With the active support of the Department of Social Development the Standard Generating Body (S.G.B.) for the probation service was established in 2004.10 Country-wide training workshops were held for probation officers and several universities developed postgraduate qualification in probation practice. Considering these major developments in probation practice, it is strange that this social service occupation does not feature in the Social Services Professions and Occupations Bill at all. The Bill provides no explanation for this omission which is certainly not in the best interest of the probation service. Now it is left wondering what its future will be in the social services in this country. The question posed initially; In whose best interest (is the Bill)? cannot be answered conclusively at this stage, as the Bill raises more questions than it provides answers. However, keeping in mind the recent history and current state of social work described by Gray and Lombard above, one wonders whether there has been a significant change from the stance of social work under the previous government, namely: “It (social work) was excessively pre-occupied with professional status and kept others out of ‘their’ field through legislation which not only regulated the social work profession, but assured its key role in the welfare provision.” (Emphasis Added) To reiterate, in the current Bill, only social work is accorded the status of ‘profession’!11 As the Bill provides no justification for the omission of probation practice, the author attempts to explain this in light of the troubled background and current position of social work in South Africa. The development of probation practice is described in order to emphasise the need to recognize it as an occupation in its own right. Why the new Bill? In order to fully appreciate the purpose of the Bill, and more particularly, its impact on probation, it is essential to consider the history underlying the Bill as well as the context in which it was conceived and born. Although this article will concern itself with the potential impact of the Bill on the probation service, there is no doubt that it will also have far-reaching effects on other social services. To evaluate the Bill per se, without considering why it was conceived and who the driving forces behind it are, would not provide a proper understanding of the Bill. While lawyers were clearly responsible for the final drafting of the Bill and politicians approved it, it would be significant to know who the prime movers; the originators of the substance of the Bill were. It is highly questionable that any representatives from social services other than social work, e.g. the fields of probation or child and youth care played a significant role (if at all) in the drafting of the Bill. A personal communication with the Director of the National Council of Child Care Workers (NACCW) and with the Co-ordinator of the Social Services Advocacy Network (SSPAN) confirmed this.12 If that is indeed the case it would be unfair, if not irregular, as the Bill, if it becomes legislation, is likely to also effect social service providers other than social workers. An obvious benefit significantly to the social work profession is that they are the only social service accorded the status of ‘profession’ by the Bill. This would have implications for the right to register with a professional body, and to perform specific social service functions. In considering the history and context of the Bill it would appear that it represents but a phase in an ongoing process (which will be described below). Having been involved in the professionalization of probation practice for more than a decade, and having experienced the sudden and high-handed termination of the Standard Generating Body (S.G.B) for the Probation Service, the author suspects that the Bill is actually part of a strategy by certain senior social workers to regain their status and power which was ‘diluted’ with the creation of the social service professions. Ever since its inception as an occupation, social work in South Africa has been beset by challenges concerning its status. It always had to strive to assert itself as a profession worthy of recognition and esteem. This becomes abundantly clear from the above quotations from the Gray and Lombard article. It would appear that particularly the medical and legal professions tended to look down upon social work. In the clinical field it is probably not regarded as being on par with psychiatry and psychology. As a result of this, and of what is outlined below, a general sense of insecurity; perhaps even a low self-esteem seems to pervade the social work profession.13 Unfortunately, this appears to have negative consequences for probation practice, which is, in effect, currently under the control of social workers. (Probation officers are in the employ of the Department of Social Development, which employs mainly social workers at its provincial and regional offices.) One of the major problems confronting the social work profession – particularly non-governmental organizations – is that of poor salaries and inadequate financial resources generally. This makes it difficult to attract adequate numbers of recruits into the profession, to offer attractive conditions of service and to keep them in the profession. Of those who enter the profession, many leave for more lucrative salaries and more attractive working conditions in other fields. Upon completing their studies, social work students, hoping to pay off their large study loans, are often recruited by other countries – notably the U.K.14 When the Council for Social Work became the Council for the Social Service Professions, the status and power of the social work profession, was, as it were, ‘diluted’. It now became one of the social service professions, alongside the others, such as child and youth care, probation and other social services, if they are ‘allowed’ to establish professional boards. PROFESSIONALIZATION OF PROBATION : A THREAT TO SOCIAL WORK? It would appear that probation in particular is perceived by some senior social work managers/ administrators and academics as presenting a problem to social work. As a separate unit at many offices of the Department of Social Development, the probation section draws staff from a pool of scarce social workers. Hence there are insufficient numbers of workers to implement the Children’s Act and other child and family functions, such as child protection, foster care and adoptions. During the 1990’s and after the turn of the century there were unprecedented developments in the field of probation practice. It was the establishment and work of the Inter-ministerial Committee on Young People at Risk, appointed by former President Mandela in 1994, which engendered the transformation and development of probation practice in this country. The Probation Advocacy Group (P.A.G.) came into being in 1995 for the purpose of driving the transformation of probation practice. Probation co-ordinators from across the country, as well as representatives from relevant N.G.O’s and concerned academics met from time to time, combining forces to transform the probation service into one that would deal more effectively with children in conflict with the law. The deliberations of the P.A.G. led to the development of training courses for probation officers and the establishment of minimum standards for probation practice. Training workshops for probation officers were held in all provinces and the new occupational category of assistant probation officers (A.P.O’s) was established. A.P.O.’s have since become an indispensable component of the probation service, and have received formal accreditation. Over the past ten years or so A.P.O’s have rendered valuable services at “grass-root’ level in most provinces, presenting crime prevention programs at schools and in communities, running diversion programs such as life skills training and home-based supervision (formerly ‘house arrest’), and assisting probation officers with their duties. There was agreement among members of the P.A.G. and probation officers generally that, in order to deliver more effective services, probation practice should be professionalized. At the time the Department of Social Development appeared to be in full agreement with this sentiment, as it contracted with the University of Cape Town to develop a number of programs aimed at the professionalization of probation practice, for which it paid the University R1 000 000. These programs included the development of a B. degree in Probation, a training qualification for assistant probation officers, conducting research in the field of youth justice, developing training (‘re-skilling’) programs for probation officers, and conducting training workshops (twice) in each province. All this was achieved and the outcomes were supplied to the Department.15 Standard Generating Body for Probation Services. One of the major milestones in the professionalization of probation was the establishment of the Standard Generating Body (S.G.B.) for the Probation Service in July 2004. For almost two years representatives from relevant state departments, including S.A.P.S., the Departments of Justice, Correctional Services and Social Development, as well as representatives from some universities and N.G.O’s met to develop unit standards for a professional qualification (B. degree) for probation practice. This work was virtually completed when the Department of Social Development abruptly disbanded the S.G.B. Neither the chairperson nor the members of the S.G.B. were consulted. The last meeting, to finalise matters, was suddenly cancelled.16 Professional Board for Probation Services. The final stage of the professionalization of probation practice concerned the application to establish a professional board for probation practitioners. Over a period of time all the necessary steps required by the Council for Social Service Professions were followed, and the regulations appeared in the Government Gazette, (26478 of 25 June 2004.) Throughout the process, the process received the support from the Council which, in its Newsletter (Volume 24, No. 2) reported as follows: “PROFESSIONAL BOARD FOR PROBATION SERVICES (PBPS) The necessary regulations to establish the Professional Board for Probation Services in terms of the Social Service Professions Act 1978, as amended were published in the Government Gazette of 25 June 2004… The Council looks forward to welcoming the probation services officials in the family of social service practitioners which is the responsibility of the Council. The Council has no doubt that providing to probation service as a social service profession, a statutory regulatory forum next to the other social service professions under the auspices of the Council would lead to this profession fully taking its place in the realm of the social service professions.”17 Just like the Standard Generating Body for Probation Services, the regulations for the establishment of the Board for the Probation Service were also inexplicably cancelled.18 As in the case of the S.G.B., this was also done without consultation with leaders in the field of probation practice. Although the Regulations establishing the Board were repealed by the Minister, one would like to know who advised her to do so. The author is of the opinion that getting rid of the probation S.G.B. and blocking the establishment of the professional board is all part of the strategy of certain senior social workers to stop the professionalization of probation practice. The question arises: “Is this in the best interest of the country, or in the (perceived) best interest of the social work profession?” The Bill as a means to re-assert the status of social work? A core feature of the Bill is the distinction it makes between “professions” and “occupations.” This distinction does not appear in the current Social Service Professions Act (110 of 1978), nor in the first two drafts of the Bill. Although the Bill does not clarify the difference between these two concepts, it would appear that the two categories are not on par. Professions are probably “superior” to occupations in terms of qualifications and status. The Bill merely stipulates which discipline falls into each category: “‘social service occupation’ means the child and youth care work occupation, and any other service occupation designated by the Minister,” and “‘Social service profession’ means the social work profession, and any other social service profession designated by the Minister as a social service profession.”19 It is not clear what distinguishes an ‘occupation’ from a ‘profession’ in the context of the Bill, and what is required for an ‘occupation’ to become a ‘profession’ – if that is possible at all. As the Bill specifically assigns child and youth care work to the status of ‘occupation,’ it would probably require an amendment of the legislation for that social service to ascend to professional status, if it so wishes. Ironically probation is not mentioned in the Bill at all, in spite of the fact that it has existed as a separate social service category for almost one hundred years. Although there was already provision for probation in the 1906 First Offenders Act of the Cape Colony, the first statutory provision for the appointment of probation officers, their duties, conditions of release of offenders and for their supervision and care was made in 1913.20 One could assume that the reason for the omission of probation could be that it has not as yet been given official accreditation by SAQA (South African Qualifications Authority) as a profession/occupation in its own right. If that is the case, how about the category of assistant probation officers (A.P.O.’s), which has been awarded such accreditation? This omission is rather strange in light of the fact that three new categories of practitioners are defined in the Bill, namely, ‘child and youth care worker’, ‘student social auxiliary worker’, and ‘student child and youth care worker.’ Should the Bill become legislation in its present form, social work would be the only ‘profession.’ This would give it superior status – and probably – power. Child and youth care would be the only ‘occupation,’ and probation and the other social services would have no status in this legislation at all! As far as influence in initiating and driving legislation and policies is concerned it must be kept in mind that the senior professional staff in the Department of Social Development are social workers. That also applies to the Council for Social Service Professions. Current position of probation in South Africa With the disbanding of the Probation Advocacy Group, the scrapping of the Standard Generating Body for the probation service and the cancelling of the establishment of its professional board, probation practice is experiencing a similar fate as it did under the Apartheid regime – it is waning and stagnating. In most provinces there is hardly any expert probation training, specific probation posts are increasingly being converted into generic social work posts, in which the occupant may deliver different social work services at various times, including the provisions of probation services for a period of time. This is clearly contrary to the recommendations of the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997).21 Under the heading “Probation Services” the following is stated: “A transformation of the probation services is required in order to provide a service that is realistic and achievable, taking into account human and auxiliary resources. The conversion of a number of posts to permanent probation service posts will be considered as an interim measure, with a longer-term plan to appoint a larger number of probation officers in order to meet the demand.” (Emphasis added.) This far-sighted and appropriate vision of what should happen is clearly not being implemented. On the contrary, the opposite is happening – to the detriment of the provision of effective services to the courts, and youth justice generally; not to speak of the provision of crime prevention services, particularly to disadvantaged communities. In fact, because of inadequate human and material resources, lack of proper professional training, lack of adequate administrative and managerial support, the probation service is not performing some of the crucial services assigned to it by various pieces of legislation and policy documents. This includes i.e. crime prevention and victim support services. Furthermore, with this scenario in mind, the prospect of implementing the recently promulgated Child Justice Act is bleak. While the probation officer plays a central role in the Act, it is questionable that it can be effectively implemented considering the current decline of the probation service, occasioned by the factors described above. During a number of probation training workshops across the country over a period of ten years the author has become aware of several serious weaknesses and shortcomings in the probation service. These include matters such as inadequate assessments, a poor standard of pre-sentence report, and a lack of crime prevention programs. Magistrates have also voiced their dissatisfaction with the quality of probation services. The author feels that this state of affairs is due largely to the suppression of the efforts to professionalize probation, described above. The need for professionalization of probation. For many years probation services have been provided by social workers who (sometimes) received a bit of in-service training and, perhaps, the odd workshop on aspects of probation. In most cases they were “thrown into the deep end” and had to learn about probation work during their day-to-day activities. While generic social work training covers such aspects of probation practice as assessment and interviewing, it generally offers little or no training on some of the most important elements of probation practice. These include theories of crime causation and of juvenile delinquency, the nature of crime and criminals, crime prevention strategies, rehabilitation models, police science, criminal law and procedure, restorative justice, theories of punishment, objectives and methods of punishment, the psychology of the criminal court, court ethics, conducting pre-sentence investigations, writing court reports, acting as expert witness in court, and victimology - particularly the role of the victim of crime in the criminal justice process. In his Masters research concerning the training needs of probation officers in the Free State, Steyn found that respondents, that is, social workers performing promotion work, were generally of the opinion that their social work training alone did not prepare them adequately to perform probation work.22 The following comments illustrate this: “A social worker does not have much authority in court. You need more information (i.e. training) to be taken seriously in court. For example, if a doctor testifies in court everything is wonderful, lovely and right, but if the social worker testifies everything is taken with a pinch of salt because we are seen as emotional and unable to act objectively … this is the court’s view of social workers; social workers are soft and pathetic. I think it relates to our training, especially the social work training… more legal knowledge is needed … this is a major gap;” “For probation services you need more skills. Social workers lack the skills to do probation work;” “…..they don’t specialize on the court. You come from the (training) institution not knowing exactly what happens out there. The information that you got (through training) is not directed to what you get (in practice.) So I think that, when they draw up curricula, they should concentrate on the different institutions that offer services,” and “Four years of tertiary training and I don’t know what happens in court.” Training needs identified by Steyn include a great deal of information from criminology and criminal law. The author concurs with him that considerable knowledge from the field of criminology is required to deliver an effective probation service. Keeping in mind the diverse functions and powers of probation officers outlined in the Probation Services Act (116 of 1991), expanded by the Probation Services Amendment Act (35 of 2002), and the greatly increased demands on probation officers in the new Child Justice Act (75 of 2008) it is clear that, in order to fulfill all these duties, probation officers need a great deal of additional specialized training. In fact, to be really competent they would have to complete the B. degree in probation developed by the S.G.B. for probation, or the degree developed by U.C.T. That is to say, they would have to obtain a professional qualification. Future of probation. Although the Social Services and Occupations Bill makes no mention of probation at all, it will clearly have a major impact on that field of service. As the Makofane research report on The Demarcation of Social Services: Professionalization and Specialization describes probation as a specialization of social work, it is assumed that the drafters of the Bill will do likewise.23 Considering the information presented above, that is clearly an erroneous view, based on inadequate knowledge of the nature of probation practice. It is argued here that, should the Bill in its present form become legislation, in which probation is relegated to a specialization of social work, it would have deleterious long-term consequences not only for probation, but the for the administration of youth justice generally. The field of probation is so multi-faceted and complex, encompassing elements of several disciplines, that training in social work alone would not qualify probation officers adequately to perform the various tasks expected of them by i.e. the Probation Services Act (116 of 1991), the Criminal Procedure Act (51 of 1977), and the Child Justice Act (75 of 2008). The recent promulgation of the Child Justice Act (75 of 2008) can be seen as the most important milestone of the child justice reform movement.24 It brings South Africa into line with modern international approaches to children at risk. To achieve this, it has cost the advocates of an enlightened approach to child justice many years of ‘blood sweat and tears.’ Over a number of years, the Inter-ministerial Committee on Children at Risk developed policies and projects aimed at transforming the youth justice system in South Africa. The professionalization of the probation service was an integral part of this process. Ironically the emasculation of probation practice, described above, is likely to hamper the implementation of the provisions of the Act, as well as that of other legislation. How can a service largely (under) staffed by inadequately trained persons, who frequently deliver probation services on a rotational basis effectively perform the many, often complex tasks required of them by this Act? CONCLUSION The need to regulate the social service professions is not disputed. However, when the whole process was conceived, driven and controlled by one of the social service professions, namely social work, it could result in legislation which is not in the best interest of the social service professions generally. There are still too many issues in the Bill that are problematic for it to become legislation. These include:
NOTES 1.Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill 2008, (Final Draft – post public comment), Cape Town : Department of Social Development. 2.Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill 2008, 2(f). 3.Mel Gray and Antoinette Lombard, The post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, International Journal of Social Welfare (Special issue guest edited by Mel Gray), 17(1) (2008), 132 – 145. 4.Mel Gray and Antoinette Lombard, The post-1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 12. 5.Renaud Villé, Ugljesa Zvekic and Jon F. Klaus (cds.), Promoting probation internationally. Proceedings of the international training workshop on probation (2-5 July 1977, Valletta, Malta.) Rome/London : United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Koichi Hamai, Renaud Villé, Robert Harris et.al. (eds). Probation round the world : A comparative study. London and New York; Routledge, 1995. 6.Gray and Lombard, The post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 9. 7.Gray and Lombard, The post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 7. 8.Gray and Lombard, the post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 11 9.Gray and Lombard, The post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 15. Probation Services Amendment Act 2002 (Act 35 of 2002), Pretoria : Government Printer. 10.South African Council for Social Service Professions, Newsletter, S.G.B. for probation work. 24(2), (2004), 6. 11.Gray and Lombard, The post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 20. 12.Personal communication, 12 February 2010. 13.Gray and Lombard, The post – 1994 transformation of social work in South Africa, 31. 14.Author’s own experience as lecturer in the Department of Social Development (social work) at the University of Cape Town, 1998 – 2006. 15.Memorandum of Agreement Made and Entered Into By and Between the Government of the Republic of South Africa in its Department of Welfare and University of Cape Town, Department of Social Development signed at Pretoria on the 22nd July 2003, and in Cape Town on the 28th July 2003. 16.Author’s personal experience as chairperson of the S.G.B. for Probation Services. 17.South African Council for Social Service Professions, Newsletter, Professional Board for Probation Services (PBPS). 24(2), (2004), 9. 18.Repeal of regulations made under the Social Service Professions Act 1978. Government Gazette No. 32713 of 20 November 2009. 19.Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill 2008, Section 1(n) and Section 1(g). 20.Regulations (1913) made under the Prisons and Reformatories Act (Act 3 of 1911). Pretoria : Department of Prisons and Reformatories. 21.White Paper for Social Welfare, Government Gazette 386, no. 18166, 8 August 1997, Pretoria : Government Printer, 85. 22.Francois Steyn, The role of criminology in the training of probation offers specializing in the management of young offenders in the Free State, Master’s dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 2001. 78 – 98. 23.M.D.M. Makofane, Demarcation of Social Services : Professionalization and specialization, Pretoria : S.A. Council for Social Service Professions in partnership with the Department of Social Development. Undated. 24.Child Justice Act 2008 (Act 75 of 2008). Cape Town : Government Gazette No. 32225, May 2009. 25.Social Services Professions and Occupations Bill 2008, Section 32 and Section 34. Impact of the new Social Service Professions and Occupations Bill (2008) on the probation service Bookmark this article:          |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|