THREE SOURCES OF DATA ARE USED FOR AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES: ACTIVE PROBATION CASES, OBJECTIVES FORMULATED BY PROBATION OFFICERS IN RELATION TO SELECTED ADULT CLIENTS, AND OBJECTIVES FORMULATED FOR SIMULATED PROBATION CASES. THE RATIONALE FOR OBJECTIVE-SETTING IS DETAILED THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MEANING OF SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY FOR SUCH SOCIAL SERVICES AS CORRECTIONS, THE REEVALUATION OF REHABILITATION GOALS, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TRENDS FOR PROBATION. THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH AND THE DEVALUATION OF TREATMENT ARE DISCUSSED AND AN ARGUMENT IS MADE FOR REQUIRING PROBATION OFFICERS TO STATE IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE INTENDED OUTCOMES OF THEIR SUPERVISION ACTIVITY. EARLIER ATTEMPTS AT OBJECTIVES SPECIFICATION ARE CRITICIZED, AND A SPECIFIC MODEL FOR PROBATION OUTCOME SPECIFICATION IS ADVOCATED. THE MODEL INVOLVES FOUR STEPS OF ANALYSIS: (1) OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION; (2) FIELD-FORCE ANALYSIS AND SELECTION OF TARGET FORCES; (3) FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVES; AND (4) ARTICULATION OF RESOURCES USED TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES. AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE OBJECTIVE-SPECIFICATION PROCESS IS PRESENTED AND IT IS CONCLUDED THAT: DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS APPEAR TO HAVE DIFFERENT SUPERVISION TASKS FOR THEIR CLIENTS; GREAT DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN OFFICERS IN TERMS OF OBJECTIVE-SPECIFICATION PATTERNS; OFFICERS WHO HAVE A HIGHER CONCERN FOR ASSISTING THE CLIENT, REINTEGRATION POLICY, AND TEAM DECISIONMAKING WRITE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OBJECTIVES FOR A CASE THAN DO OFFICERS WITHOUT THESE CHARACTERISTICS; AND BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES CAN PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION FOR GROUPING PROBATIONERS FOR PURPOSES OF DIFFERENTIAL SUPERVISION. THE IMPLICATIONS OF BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVE SPECIFICATION FOR PROBATION ORGANIZATION, PLANNING, AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT ARE DISCUSSED. OBJECTIVE-SPECIFICATION AS A CHANGE TECHNIQUE IS CRITICIZED AND IMPORTANT UNRESOLVED ISSUES ARE LISTED. REFERENCES AND GRAPHIC AND TABULAR DATA ARE PROVIDED. (KBL)