Social Work and Juvenile Probation: Historical Tensions and Contemporary Convergences

The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed ... --NASW Code of Ethics It would be difficult to argue that those involved in the correctional system are not among the most vulnerable and oppressed individuals in the United States today. The correctional system affects individuals and communities at the heart of social work's efforts: people who are poor and people of color (Edelman, 2007; Hartney & Silva, 2007; Wacquant, 2001).Yet social work has an almost negligible presence in the key roles of this domain; prison administrators and probation departments do not prioritize social workers in filling line positions, and schools of social work offer little to prepare social work students for work in the corrections field. In recent decades, participation in the field has averaged under 2 percent of the profession (Gibelman, 2004; Gibelman & Schervish, 1993). The small role played by social workers contrasts with that played by the profession at its birth; social work's earliest activities included deep involvement in corrections, in courts, and with incarcerated adults and juveniles (D. S. Young & LoMonaco, 2001).The most common historical explanation for the departure of social work from corrections cites the aversion of therapists to working with involuntary clients; the unavoidable coercion inherent in correctional settings, it has been argued, taints the therapeutic value of professional social work relationships (Hollis T Piven & Alcabes, 1971). This article explores social work's diminished role in correctional work by focusing on one aspect of the justice system: juvenile probation, the "linchpin of the juvenile court system" (Gittens, 1994, pp. 113-114). Even as social workers work with probationers in other contexts, in recent decades they have rarely done so as probation officers (Roberts & Brownell, 1999). Yet no other aspect of the justice system seems so well matched to the skills and perspective brought to bear by social workers. Probation had a critical role in defining the juvenile court and continues to play an enormous role in juvenile corrections; it remains the most common disposition for youthful offenders, with 62 percent receiving this sentence (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Probation is more than surveillance by the authoritarian judicial arm of the state; it is, as it has always been, primarily casework (Abadinksy, 1991; Kenney & Pursuit, 1959; Piven & Alcabes, 1971; Pray, 1945). This article first addresses the prevailing explanation for social work's virtual abandonment of corrections: that the coercive nature of the corrections system is incompatible with the nature of social work. It then examines the historical context of juvenile probation and explores what other tensions between corrections and social work helped drive the domains apart and which may remain relevant today. It concludes by proposing an agenda for reintegrating social workers into probation services. COERCION AND INCOMPATIBLE ROLES Social workers of the early juvenile court quickly became aware of the coercive nature of the court's environment and how it could frustrate their goal of addressing the needs of the client (Flexner & Baldwin, 1914; Fox, 1997). Undoubtedly, the emergence of the psychodynamic approach and the ensuing dominance of clinical social work reinforced the aversion to involuntary clients, significantly contributing to the profession's withdrawal from corrections work. However, closer examination makes it difficult to credit coercion entirely for social workers' absence from the field. Indeed, social work scholars recognized that coercion may at times be an inevitable aspect of the client relationship and should not be seen as precluding positive social work intervention (Abadinksy, 1991; Dressier, 1969; Piven & Alcabes, 1971; Pray, 1945; Rhodes, 1986; Studt, 1959). …