Historically, probation officers have served both rehabilitative and law enforcement functions, especially in juvenile probation. In a rehabilitative role, the probation officer serves as a social worker, a counselor whose primary concerns are generally in the best interests of the offender. In this role, a probation officer must know how to interview, how to obtain facts about an offender's background, how to identify and distinguish surface problems from underlying ones, what community resources exist, and how to refer to those resources. In the law enforcement role, however, the probation officer is a controlling agent, an authority figure, a threat to the offender's parole. The dual role of probation is evident in the classic definition: “Probation aims to protect the community through the rehabilitation of the offender.” Given these contrasting roles, today's probation officers are more likely to emphasize surveillance and control functions, deeming community protection a higher priority than rehabilitation. I wonder, when probation officers meet offenders, what should they do? Of course, there are bureaucratic tasks to do, paperwork to do, or perhaps a drug test to monitor. But the more significant question is whether, in the often limited supervision meetings, there is anything officers or I can do to reduce the likelihood of offenders reoffending. In a growing community prison population, limited budgets and cumbersome workloads have, in part, contributed to ineffective supervisory practices. Many officers in the past have been unable to do anything other than take a “piss them and see them” approach. Also, perhaps… halfway through the paper… officer-offender interactions can potentially be used to reduce recidivism. As I mentioned previously, research shows that officers can have a positive impact on their supervisees' risk of recidivism if they build quality relationships with them and are trained to use sound principles during their sessions. The methodology of probation officers in their interaction with their probationers should remain an area of ​​research and correction in the future. Possibly calling for the development of a “supervision toolkit,” in systematic efforts to explore how to expand the resources officials can draw on in supervision. I believe this undertaking could hold promise for increasing offenders' chances of avoiding further criminal entanglement and improving public safety. We should never stop in pursuing the rehabilitation of offenders in the communities we serve and protect.