Because the Sundsvall project was a forerunner of Sweden's correctional reforms implemented in 1973, its scientific evaluation is particularly relevant. In the experiment, the probation staff was increased from 4 to 19 to give a caseload of 50 clients to each officer. The following services were also established: a work release hostel for 20 probationers, a probation hostel for 20 persons, a sociomedical clinic with a psychologist, and an officer assigned to the labor exchange office to secure employment for probation and parole clients. The primary responsibility for treatment work rested with lay supervisors rather than professional probation officers, and clients were divided into recidivism risk groups. For example, high risk clients initially received intensive supervision and were then shifted to normal contacts of one per month. Furthermore, the responsibility of preparing presentence reports was transferred from the judicial system to the social workers in the probation service. To assess the program, conditions in Sundsvall during the experimental period were analyzed, and all clients who entered the system were studied and followed-up for 2 years. For comparison purposes, a corresponding investigation was conducted in Karlstad, a district similar to Sundsvall except that its resources were not increased. Information was obtained from official records and interviews with supervisors and clients. Outcomes were measured by three criteria: reduction of recidivism, reduction of alcohol misuse, and adjustment to work life. Recidivism decreased somewhat in Sweden during the 1970's, and Sundsvall reflected this national pattern. No differences in recidivism rates between the resource intensive period and the previous years were found, and no improvements in the different risk groups were noted. Although half the clients misused alcohol, the experiment did not lead to any reduction in alcohol abuse levels. Moreover, the special efforts to obtain employment for clients did not produce any positive results. The findings of this assessment supported those of similar experiments in other countries which indicated that intensified resources did not improve client rehabilitation. The evaluation concluded that contacts between clients and supervisors should be increased and not left solely to the initiative of the probationer. Unrealistic goals, such as a reduction of recidivism, should be replaced by such attainable objectives as improved work adjustment. A program of intensive supervision coupled with educational and vocational training is recommended. Tables and graphs are provided.