Participants were part of a purposive sample of supervisory probation and parole executives and State alcohol and drug abuse directors from 50 States. Participants were contacted by telephone before receiving the mailed questionnaires. The analysis focused on roles, coordination, client assessment and treatment, confidentiality, and evaluation and training. Results revealed that three-fourths indicated that their primary role in managing drug-involved offenders was control rather than treatment. However, 40 percent indicated that it is appropriate to provide treatment, and 58 percent indicated that respective roles have been agreed upon with treatment providers. While 62 percent indicated that existing factors inhibited communication with drug treatment providers, 90 percent reported that they believe that probationers and parolees could tell the difference between officers and treatment providers. Forty-four percent indicated that sanctions were agreed upon with treatment providers before sanctions were imposed. About one-third indicated that their agency conducts drug abuse assessments and that they use a specified assessment instrument. Ninety-six percent report using drug testing for offenders; 98 percent reported sanctions for positive results. Findings suggest that joint training activities would be the next logical step to increase formal relationships between probation/parole and community drug treatment. Additional results, tables, and 12 references