This approach would also give offenders the opportunity for self-rehabilitation, although restitution rather than rehabilitation would be its goal. It would apply to four groups of offenders: (1) imprisoned offenders with less than 2 years of prison remaining, (2) jailed offenders with less than 2 months to serve, (3) offenders who would be sentenced to jail in the absence of this alternative, and (4) convicted offenders who would not receive incarcerative sentences. The time required for public works would vary for each group. To prevent criminal activity, offenders would receive strict supervision. Funding could come from the reduced expenditures for corrections, but this possibility is unlikely. Using money from seized assets or obtaining pilot funding from State legislatures would be two more likely possibilities. Offenders would require careful screening. Although concern for community safety might provoke opposition, strict selection criteria and supervision could address this issue. In addition, the offenders would not be taking existing jobs. The results of a community sentencing project sponsored by the Vera Institute in New York City suggest that this alternative would be viable. 36 footnotes.