Probation officers must concentrate on a clear concern for the offender rather than yielding to overt or subtle pressures to identify with the sentencers. They must balance the courts' structured world of legal definition and procedure against the more personal and unpredictable nature of probation supervision and the highly formalized court rituals against the unstructured world of the offender. They must seek to influence the sentencing practice of the courts by providing appropriate information while also collecting other detailed facts to meet the administrative needs of their own organization. The relationship between the Probation Service and the courts has further been complicated by the advent of statutory aftercare, expanding caseloads and responsibilities, the demise of the treatment model of probation, increasing bureaucracy, empirical study of an actual probation practice, increased calls for accountability, and changing social and political realities, including an increased emphasis on effective crime control policies. Regardless of policies and procedures, probation practice consists of the human interaction between officer and offender. Thus, officers must avoid the temptation to seek a compliant or unobtrusive role in the courts or to identify with them rather than with the offender. 47 references.