The defendant was charged with and arrested for the crimes of rape and kidnapping in the second degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to the rape charge, and the second degree kidnapping charge was dismissed. Before sentencing the district court ordered a presentence investigation and report. A parole officer from the State Board of Corrections made the investigation and prepared the report and submitted it to the district court and defendant. The district court reviewed the record and then adjudged the defendant guilty of rape and sentenced him for a term not to exceed twenty-five years in the Idaho State Penitentiary. The defendant appealed from that judgment of conviction and also from the sentence imposed.
On appeal the defendant’s sole argument attacks the district court’s imposition of a twenty-five year sentence. The defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion by disregarding the defendant’s previous good moral character evidenced in the presentence report and the lack of any physical harm to the prosecutrix and by imposing such a severe sentence. In this appeal the defendant does not challenge the validity of his guilty plea.
We affirm the judgment of conviction but reverse the commitment and remand the case for further proceedings because of deficiencies in the presentence investigation report. We do not consider whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant by disregarding his past unblemished record but conclude that the deficiencies in the presentence investigation report deprived the court of pertinent information necessary to the proper exercise of its discretion in sentencing the defendant.
In considering the scope of the presentence report in this case our purpose is not to evaluate the entire gamut of criteria involved in its preparation. The presentence report sufficiently described the appellant’s prior criminal, educational, employment, military, social and marital history and interests and activities. See, The Presentence investigation Report, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, publication 103 (1965); P. Keve, The Probation Officer Investigates: A Guide to the Presentence Report (1960); R. Carter and L. Wilkins, Probation and Parole: Selected Readings (1970). See also, ABA Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, sec. 4.1 et seq. (1968)-; Corrections, National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Standard 5.14, 16.10 (1973). Our concern focuses in this case on the inadequacy of the appellant’s psychological evaluation and failure of the presentence report to include a schedule of rehabilitation alternatives.
The only information concerning the appellant’s present mental health can be best described as sketchy and unskilled. Indeed, the presentence report states:
“Mental and Physical
5*C * * * * *
Mentally, Mr. French feels that he is stablel He cannot explain his crime of rape. He states that he was very angry *855with his wife and that could have been the motivating force. He states that he has never had any trouble like this before and that he is completely astounded at his behavior. He states that although he may have been coming down with his current disease at the time of this crime, it had no effect on his attitude toward it.1 He states that he does have off and on problems with an ulcer but that this is not serious.”
This offers absolutely no evaluation of or insight into the psychological makeup of the defendant which is so vital in light of the presentence report’s social and economic description of the defendant. In this case the presentence report described the defendant as a family man and a dependable worker without any prior criminal record who committed a forcible rape without any explanation. This case begs for a psychological evaluation. The omission of such an evaluation in this case deprived the district court of pertinent information essential to pronouncing an appropriate judgment.
Finally, the presentence report failed to discuss rehabilitation alternatives involving treatment centers, residential facilities, vocational training services, special educational facilities, or any rehabilitative programs of any institution. It stands to reason that in determining whether a defendant may be rehabilitated even under sentence the court must have information concerning the nature of available programs in which the defendant may participate. However, in this case the presentence investigator failed to include a schedule of alternatives for the district court’s consideration. This type of information is necessary for tailoring the correctional process to the individual defendant.
For the preceding reasons the judgment of conviction is affirmed; however, the order of commitment is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court with directions to order the state board of corrections to prepare a presentence report in conformity with the standards set out in this opinion and submit it to the district court for consideration in pronouncing judgment.
DONALDSON and McQUADE, JJ., concur.. The appellant suffered from hypothyroidism whieh apparently caused no mental side effects ; his attending physician’s affidavit describes only his physiological condition and therapy.