Psychological reports and Juvenile probation counseling

Abstract

PROBLEM Probation officers serve two masters: the court and the probationer, or society and the individual. Thus, their role is a curious compound of police officer and counselor-psychotherapist. As case loads permit, probation officers are increasingly concerned with applying their sensitivity in counseling situations. In order to help them do this effectively, other professional persons are often called upon. This study reports the routine utilization of clinical psychological services for diagnosis and treatment planning by a Juvenile Probation Department. METHODDuring a two and one-half year period, selected juveniles were referred for psychological testing. Selection was made on the basis of repeated delinquency, failure to "reach" the adolescent in counseling, or simply lack of sufficient personality data to make appropriate plans. In all cases, referral was dictated by insuficient knowledge in the face of necessity for some concrete action or decision. Each case was discussed prior to testing; the kinds of information wanted by the probation officer were elicited. Subjects were individually administered a battery of projective tests, a short-form Wechsler-Bellevue, and a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Specific behavioral predictions and possibIe counseling techniques were incorporated into a formal report. Psychological terminology and diagnostic statements were minimized. There were 24 male and 17 female subjects from 12 to 18 years of age. There were no differences in mean ages or intelligence. Males were followed over a slightly longer time interval and for a greater number of sessions; i.e., 15.1 months and 15.4 sessions as contrasted with 13.1 months and 12.9 sessions. The juveniles were classified diagnostically as follows : Without psychopathology 17; Adolescent Psychopath 7; Schizophrenia 6; Psychoneurosis 5 ; Neurotic Character 2; Undetermined 4.Approximately one year after testing each of the three assistant probation officers was given a follow-up card with the date of testing for each juvenile and directions for listing the major concrete tangible events which had occurred during the interval. Independently, the psychologist prepared a card for each juvenile from the psychological report indicating psychodiagnosis, specific treatment recommendations, psychodynamics (if known) , and a statement of prognosis. Prognosis was indicated as "favorable", "guarded", and "unfavorable1', and sometimes qualified ; e.g., favorable with psychotherapy ; unfavorable without treatment.From the completed cards, Ss were given code numbers and placed in random order on a rating sheet. This sheet contained, on a separate line for each S, pretest delinquency data, post-test delinquency data, and a space for ratings. The Chief Probation Officer was given a rating sheet with directions to compare each set of pre-and post-test behavior for "improvement", "no change", or "decrement".The Chief Probation Officer, however, was in a position to know intimately the behavior of these juveniles. The adequacy of p...

Projective assessment of Latinos in the United States: Current realities, problems, and prospects.

“…Many years ago research on the utility of assessment reports for probation officers involved in long-term counseling relationships provided an unobtrusive method for evaluating an informal supervisory process (Dana, Hannifin, Lancaster, Lore, & Nelson, 1963). During a 2/12;-year period, whenever there was repeated delinquency, insufficient information, and an immediate need for intervention, assessment reports containing specific recommendations for counseling techniques were prepared; 41 of these juveniles subsequently received counseling.…”