THE SAMPLE WAS DRAWN FROM THE 748 CONVICTED MALE OFFENDERS REFERRED TO THE TEXAS COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT IN 1973. THE ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THE FACTORS REPRESENTING ELEMENTS IN THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF THE DEFENDANT THAT WERE SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT WERE: THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS AS A JUVENILE AND AS AN ADULT, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS, THE TYPE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS, PRIOR IMPRISONMENT, PRIOR PROBATION OR PAROLE, AND PRIOR PROBATION OR PAROLE REVOCATION. THE TYPE OF OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AND WHETHER HE HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT WERE NOT SO RELATED. OF THE FOUR CHARACTERISTICS STUDIED WHICH WERE PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, WHETHER A DEFENDANT HAD APPOINTED COUNSEL, WHETHER HE OBTAINED PRETRIAL FREEDOM THROUGH BOND OR PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE, AND THE NUMBER OF DAYS HE HAD BEEN CONFINED IN JAIL PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT WERE SIGNIFICANT FACTORS; WHETHER THE DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY, HOWEVER, WAS NOT. ALTHOUGH RACE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE, AGE WAS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED. AMONG THE CHARACTERISTICS THOUGHT TO DENOTE ACHIEVEMENT AND STABILITY, THE INCOME OF THE DEFENDANT, WHETHER HE WAS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED AND WHETHER HE EVIDENCED EMPLOYMENT AND RESIDENTIAL STABILITY WERE ASSOCIATED IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY WITH THE PRESENTENCE RECOMMENDATION. THE EDUCATION OF THE DEFENDANT, HIS MARITAL STATUS AND THE NUMBER OF HIS DEPENDENTS WERE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE DECISION OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. THE NEED FOR CERTAIN PROCEDURAL REFORMS IS DISCUSSED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)