DIFFERENCES OF VIEWS EXIST BETWEEN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE PROBATION SERVICE AS WELL AS BETWEEN THE SERVICE AS A WHOLE AND ALLIED AGENCIES. POLICE AND JUDGES OFTEN SEE THE RADICAL MINORITY OF PROBATION OFFICERS AS SPOKESMEN FOR THE SERVICE, AND THEIR IMAGE OFTEN DOMINATES THE PICTURE OTHER AGENCIES HAVE OF THE PROBATION SERVICE AND AFFECT ITS OVERALL CREDIBILITY. THE INABILITY OF THE COURT TO ASSES THE CREDIBILITY OF A PARTICULAR PROBATION OFFICER, BECAUSE IS IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO PRESENT REPORTS PERSONALLY, MEANS THE COURT HAS BECOME MORE CAUTIOUS IN ACCEPTING PROBATION OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE REASON FOR THESE CONFUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SERVICE IN THE VAST INFLUX OF YOUNG, ARTICULATE PEOPLE TRAINED ON GENERIC SOCIAL WORK COURSES WHERE LITTLE EMPHASIS IS LAID UPON SPECIFIC NEEDS AND PROBLEMS OF OFFENDERS. THE MOVE FROM PSYCHOANALYTICALLY BASED SOCIAL WORK TRAINING TO SOCIOLOGICALLY BASED TRAINING HAS ALSO CAUSED DISCONTENT AMONG NEWLY TRAINED PROBATION OFFICERS. WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE IS TO DEVELOP COMMUNICATION AMONG DIVERGENT AGENCIES SUCH AS THE POLICE, JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, AND THE PROBATION SERVICE. NOTES AND A DISCUSSION ARE INCLUDED. (MJW)