The prescribed legal role sets duties for probation officers that oppose duties anticipated for their subjective role during the socialization processes of their preservice education. The duty to report all client violations immediately to the supervising judge denies the case work principle of viewing a single act in relation to the complex ongoing process toward reintegration and self-responsibility. The requirement causes ruptured relationships with clients and frequently a resumption of probation supervision of cases. The uncertainty of the prescribed role is further illustrated by the assignment of a case only after the sentencing decision has been made by a separate agency, the Youth Court Service. The above problems are a result of conflict between the traditional crime control philosophy of the courts and the therapeutic philosophy which identifies German probation as the application of social work principles. To solve these problems, role norms should be clearly defined. A sanctioning system that relies on the professional competence of probation officers should call for managing probationer deviance through informal means before drastic action is taken. Tolerance of the probation officer's withholding of reports on client violations would establish client rapport for therapeutic interventions, a prerequisite to the process of community reintegration. Statistical data, footnotes, and about 20 references are included.