No abstract

DR. ROBERT NORDBERG ( 1967 ) has recently published an article entitled, "Toward a Code of Ethics for Catholic Counselors." Since he describes his work as an attempt at and toward a code, I hope he will not take it amiss if a colleague offers some comment on the direction he seems to be taking.There is, first of all, before any other consideration, the question why any mature Catholic, if he qualifies minimally as a counselor with the background which Nordberg requires in theology and psychology, need have an ethics spelled out for him in rudimentary and meticulous fashion, in so many rules and so many italicized sentences. If the counselor has the suggested background in theology, he ought to be able to apply it to his circumstance (at least, I should think, in most of the situations proposed by Nordberg) ; if the circumstance is not particularly one for which theology has much to say, he ought to know from his professional background which course to pursue (rules 8 and 31 might be good examples of that). The extensive and elementary spelling out of rules, plus the raised voice of italics, seem quite unnecessary, unless the readers are, for the most part, assumed to be below the intellectual, emotion-Father Fischer, Ph.D., is professor of theology at Saifit Peter'r College. Jersey G t ] , Neu, Jersey.

To assess the extent to which psychologists are used in probation work in New York State, a survey questionnaire was mailed to seventy-five departments of probation. All seventy-five replied.It was found that only eight probation departments had a psychologist on staff and these eight were all located in large urban areas; five departments hired a psychologist to work within the department on a per diem or per case basis; and in twelve departments no psychological services were available. Of the remaining fifty, most used the services of mental health clinics, state child guidance clinics, and other agencies to obtain psychological evaluations. Satisfaction with psychological services seemed to be based on the psychologist's adaptability for work within the probation framework, ease of communication between probation workers and the psychologist, and the psychologist's promptness in returning meaningful evaluations to the probation department. WITHIN THE PAST TWO DECADES ruse r1' of psychological services has greatly increased in schools, hospitals, clinics, prisons, and even probation departments. A perusal of the literature discloses numerous articles and reports on the psychologist's function in all of these areas except probation. Only one study relevant to probation was found. In surveying the extent of psychological testing in the juvenile courts in Virginia, Naarl found that only sixteen of fifty-five respondent courts employed a full-time psychologist. On the basis of these findings he recommended that psychologists become more active in juvenile court situations.Because of the paucity of published information in this neglected area. the authors of this paper conducted a survey to determine the extent to which psychologists were actually used in probation department work in New York State, and to ascertain the extent of psychological services, if any, which were available to the department.