The discussion on treatment of offenders has taken a more conservative turn to topics such as house arrest or surveillance kits rather than innovative treatment modalities. Ironically, many State and local systems have developed classification systems which determine who needs what kind of supervision during probation. Critics of this system claim that probation officers are supervising low risk offenders above the standard but are still deficient in supervising high risk and medium risk cases. This can be attributed to the high caseloads of probation officers and the problem of completing presentence investigation reports too quickly at the court's behest. Following the influx of community resources and innovative projects, the failure to meaningfully evaluate these programs brought about their demise. Thus began the outcry for tougher sentences and more data collection. In order to successfully negotiate their primary responsibility of supervising offenders, probation officers must ask that the existing data collection demands be reduced by combining information systems and emphasize creative supervision and the use of support groups for themselves. Also, evaluation projects should be developed for supervision projects; a standing policy of 30 days for completion of presentence investigations should be initiated; and supervisors should be provided with indepth management training. The cost of incarceration alone provides reason to explore alternatives at the time of sentencing. Probation officers can conceivably provide appropriate supervision to enable some offenders to avoid self-defeating behavior leading to violation of probation and parole.