In the 1960's, probation was viewed primarily as casework, with the probation officer responsible for both treating and supervising the probationer. This approach to probation has been criticized on a number of grounds in recent years. Some critics charge there is a discrepancy between probation expectations and outcomes, in that it neither rehabilitates nor adequately controls the offender. Others argue that probation has become another form of social control that expands the state's jurisdiction over more people without reducing the prison population. Under the influence of these criticisms, a 'neo-correctional school' has emerged to define a new role for probation that reflects the community corrections philosophy. Under this philosophy, probation officers become the case managers who coordinate community corrections services for offenders. Among the benefits of such a probation system are its provision of a greater number of specialized services to the offender within the community and its processing of a larger number of cases efficiently. Arguments against this style of probation are its creation of an impersonal bureaucracy unresponsive to the immediate needs of clients and its involvement of many workers in offender services who may have conflicting views of offender needs and service priorities. Forty-three references are listed, and tabular data cover various aspects of adult probation in Canada for 1979-80.