THE QUESTIONNAIRES WERE DISTRIBUTED WIDELY AND 20 PERSONS FROM EACH CATEGORY WERE SELECTED TO ASSURE A BALANCED SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH CATEGORY IN THE NEW YORK CITY COURT SYSTEM. IT WAS FOUND THAT RESPONSES FELL INTO FOUR CATEGORIES: ITEMS ON WHICH ALL THREE GROUPS HAD DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS, ITEMS ON WHICH THE JUDGE AND PROBATION OFFICER AGREED, AND ITEMS ON WHICH THE PROBATION OFFICER AND PROBATIONER AGREED. JUDGES AND PROBATIONERS SAW PROBATION AS A FORM OF LENIENCY, WHILE PROBATION OFFICERS DID NOT. HOWEVER, THE PROBATIONER OVERESTIMATED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PREPROBATION REPORT, NOT BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGAL AND PERSONAL FACTORS INVOLVED IN A PROBATION DECISION. THERE WAS SOME AGREEMENT AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT, BUT PROBATIONERS WERE MORE SUSPICIOUS OF THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION. BOTH JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS OVERESTIMATED THE OFFENDERS' PERCEPTION OF PROBATION AS A REWARD FOR A PLEA OF GUILTY OR TURNING STATE'S EVIDENCE. ALTHOUGH THE PRACTICE IS COMMON, THE PROBATIONERS REJECTED IT IDEOLOGICALLY. JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS ALSO UNDERESTIMATED THE PROBATIONERS' ACCEPTANCE OF THEM AS A ROLE MODEL FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR. IN FACT, PROBATIONERS WERE STRONGLY AFFECTED BY BOTH AS ROLE MODELS. JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS ALSO UNDERESTIMATED THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROBATIONER RELIED ON THE PROBATION OFFICER FOR HELP WITH PERSONAL PROBLEMS. SINCE JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS ARE CLOSER IN STATUS, IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THEY DISPLAYED SIMILAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE SYSTEM. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT UNDERSTANDING THESE DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES WILL HELP THE PROBATION PROCESS. SURVEY DATA IS PRESENTED IN DETAIL. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED. (GLR)