["Criminology &Public Policy, Volume 25, Issue 2, Page 379-402, May 2026. ", "\nAbstract\n\nResearch Summary\nProsecutorial discretion plays a central role in shaping criminal case outcomes, yet its influence in the context of probation, particularly during violation proceedings, remains underexplored. This paper explores how prosecutorial discretion functions within the courtroom workgroup to shape probation, from plea bargaining to responses to violations, in the context of mass supervision today. Using qualitative data from 23 in‐depth interviews with prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys in a midsize U.S. jurisdiction, we analyze how institutional norms, organizational pressures, and competing logics of punishment, rehabilitation, and efficiency shape decision making. Prosecutors influence who is offered probation, what conditions are imposed, and how compliance is interpreted, often anchoring decision making through informal case “valuation” practices that reflect victim‐centered, fiscal, and efficiency‐oriented logics. Within the workgroup, their recommendations carry significant weight, shaping outcomes even as they are formally subject to judicial approval and adversarial negotiation.\n\n\nPolicy Implications\nProbation is among the most common criminal legal sanctions, and evidence suggests that violations are increasing, which can have negative implications for individuals and systems. Research has attributed increases in probation violations to the growing complexity of supervision conditions, which make compliance more challenging. The findings identify prosecutors as central, yet largely overlooked, policy actors in shaping probation outcomes at both sentencing and revocation. As such, the research underscores the need for policy changes that ‘right size’ the conditions of probation and address the organizational norms and decision‐making practices of the courtroom workgroup.\n\n"]