The term "street-level bureaucracy" was initially identified by Merton (1940) and subsequently applied by Hughes (1958 and 1963) and Prottas (1978) to social work in North America and by Howe (1986) to social work in the United Kingdom. "Street-level bureaucracy" is characterized by a focus on dealing efficiently but impartially and impersonally with matters of great personal significance to the client. In a bureaucracy there is a contradiction between satisfying clients and efficient working. This examination of prisoner attitudes toward prison probation officers and their practices finds that many of the policies and practices of the probation service apparently obstruct a client- centered, personal approach. There is some indication that prisoners may be declining involvement with the probation service because of the treatment received. Some of the problems of "street-level bureaucracy" could be avoided by the use of alternative administrative methods. One approach would be the use of contract-setting, which could avoid some of the misunderstandings between probation officers and their inmate clients. Under such a system, both inmates and probation officers would make commitments to one another regarding the objectives of their interaction. The contract would include information about how often the probation officer will write the client, visit the client, and contact the inmate's family or others on the outside. Current contracts are not sufficiently explicit. Inmates indicate that they appreciate the personal service provided by probation officers, such as handwritten letters, Christmas and birthday cards, holiday postcards, and some degree of willingness to discuss officers' personal interests and home life when appropriate. In essence the inmates want a probation officer who is a genuine friend. 47 references