A study of the Connecticut Juvenile Court tested the assumption that administrative discretion can be controlled by promulgating rules and procedure to guide the discretion by examining the discretion delegated to probation officers under the parameters of standard rules of procedure. The following variables were compared for consistency in controlling probation officer discretion for the court's three administrative districts: responses to the facts in the cases, values evidenced in disposition, and sources of influence. Multivariate analysis of decisions was applied to burglary cases over an 18-month period. Judicial handling of the case was added as a variable to the multiple regression model to permit comparison of the explanatory power of the facts alone with the facts anbd the judicial handling variable. Results suggest that efforts to control discretionary decisionmaking through the promulgation of standards of procedure are not effective by themselves. The regular interaction between judges and probation officers, where judges exerted personal influence over the officers' exercise of discretion, had more influence on discretionary decisionmaking than did administrative rules. Study instruments and statistical analyses are appended. Figures, tabular data, footnotes, and a selected bibliography of approximately 140 references are provided.