The American case study was drawn from a larger study of probation officer supervision styles. Data were collected through interviews and survey questionnaires. The interview elicited information about the juvenile court as an organizational entity, including power relationships and probation officer rewards for their work. A vignette portion of the questionnaire posed hypothetical probation cases in the juvenile court that ranged from minor incidents to serious offenses. Probation officer responses to the vignette revealed rehabilitation and reintegration were their favored approaches to juvenile supervision. Responses also showed power struggles evolved between the judiciary and court administrators that left probation officers uncertain as to who was in the position of ultimate authority. Probation officers generally were not aware of formal goals established by the juvenile court, but nearly all said the juvenile court lacked resources and vehicles needed to achieve even ill-defined goals of which they were aware. Many probation officers were critical of compliance policies designed to keep track of the number of cases in which they were able to achieve the mandated number of contacts. Within the context of conflicting ideologies, goals, and relationships, probation officers felt powerless and vulnerable. Probation officers used several methods to manage their workloads, such as risk/needs assessment instruments and record keeping. An analysis of the American case example in relation to the British probation system indicates potential problems related to organizational arrangements, networks of influence, and professional ideologies. Characteristics of the British probation system are noted that focus on the system's long tradition of welfare and social work, the system's organizational autonomy, and networks of influence available to sustain professional traditions during a period of change. 37 references