PROBATION OFFICERS TYPICALLY ARE VIEWED AS ANALYZING CLIENTS WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES WHILE IGNORING THE REALITIES OF DAILY LIFE. RESEARCH BASED ON DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS OF A SMALL GROUP OF PROBATION OFFICERS SHOWED THAT THIS WAS NOT TRUE, BUT THAT A WIDE RANGE OF EXPLANATIONS FOR DEVIANT BEHAVIOR ARE APPLIED BY PROBATION OFFICERS DEPENDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF ACTUAL CASES. PROBATION OFFICERS HAVE A BROAD FRAMEWORK ON WHICH TO BASE THEIR DECISIONS BECAUSE THEY MUST BOTH TRY TO UNDERSTAND REASONS FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND PERFORM CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES. THE SAMPLE USED CONSISTED OF 18 PROBATION OFFICERS SELECTED FROM BOTH A CITY AND A COUNTY AGENCY. CASE REPORTS WRITTEN BY THE PARTICIPANTS WERE EXAMINED AND EACH OFFICER WAS INTERVIEWED. WHEN ASKED ABOUT OFFENDERS' MOTIVATIONS, PROBATION OFFICERS USED A VARIETY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS, BUT ALSO EVIDENCED INFLUENCE BY SOPHISTICATED THEORIES OF SOCIAL CAUSATION. OFFICERS' VIEWS OF THEIR CLIENTS' OWN ACCOUNTS WERE STUDIED TO SEE IF THE STORIES WERE ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE OR REINTERPRETED IN TERMS OF THE OFFICERS' THEORIES. WHEN PRACTICAL NEEDS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT SEEM TO JUSTIFY THE CRIME, THEN THE OFFICER TENDED TO USE MORE COMPLEX EXPLANTIONS INVOLVING PSYCHOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL FACTORS. OFFICERS WERE ALSO MORE LIKELY TO EXPLAIN MOTIVATION IN TERMS OF MENTAL OR SOCIAL PRESSURES WHEN THE OFFENDER HAD COMMITTED A SERIOUS CRIME, HAD A PREVIOUS RECORD, OR WAS EXPERIENCING PERSONAL PROBLEMS. IN CONCLUSION, THE ATTITUDE OF PROBATION OFFICERS APPEARS TO BE INFLUENCED BY THE NATURE OF THE CRIME AND THE CLIENT, NOT A RIGID SET OF THEORIES. CASE STUDIES ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE TEXT, AND AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF NOTES AND REFERENCES IS APPENDED. (MJM)