Five major findings emerged from the study. First, probation officer (PO) contacts with probationers were limited. Over the course of the first 3 months, POs met with their probationers an average of 4.3 times. This number of contacts may be appropriate for low-risk offenders, but this finding was the average for all offenders, including high-risk offenders. Second, intervention plans were not driven by the Primary Risk Assessment (PRA) administered to probationers upon intake. Needs identified by the PRA were often not reflected in the Intervention Plan. The courts mandated the majority of the actions listed in the Intervention Plan. Only in matters of employment and housing were POs the primary catalyst for providing an Intervention Plan. Third, identified needs were not being addressed in supervision. In the audiotapes of PO interviews with probationers, identified criminogenic needs were not discussed in the majority of cases, and minimal use was made of community resources in meeting offender needs. Fourth, POs can be more active in establishing a productive relationship with a probationer that leads to a practical structure for addressing a probationer's needs. Although POs tended to be respectful toward their clients, more could be done to gain attention and respect from probationers by using relationship skills more frequently and consistently. Fifth, positive changes in the probationers were ambivalent. The only positive change noted during the 6-month observation was a decrease in PRA risk scores for adults. For youth, risk scores actually increased. For this study, POs agreed to audiotape supervision sessions with their probationers. In addition, data were obtained from files, interviews, and questionnaires. 27 references