Probation officers are accountable to the court system, while the relationship between probation officers and clients is based on client involvement before the court rather than directly upon client social needs. In order to function effectively, probation officers must protect client welfare and provide for client control to protect society. To evaluate the dual role of probation officers, research was conducted using 14 probation officers employed by England's Berkshire Probation Service and 84 of their adult probation and juvenile supervision cases. Despite the centrality and importance accorded to the concepts of care and control in the probation setting, research findings confused rather than clarified these concepts. It is suggested that care and control may be better understood as ideological rather than theoretical constructs, that further research be conducted to assess the concept of personalization in probation officer practices, and that inconsistency rather than incompatibility may be the major problem in evaluating probation support and surveillance. It is also suggested that short probation and supervision orders may be preferable, that the home may be the most suitable place for probation officers and juvenile clients to meet, that conflict may constitute a constructive element of probation interaction, and that probation officers should be realistic about their supportive interventions. An appendix contains the probationer interview guide. 31 tables, 127 references.