Police, prosecution, courts, and probation often have only superficial contact, and most communication occurs on the informal and individual level, with few mechanisms for formal communication and coordination. Agency leaders and staff view the system from the narrow constraints of their own roles in their particular agency. This situation results in reduced efficiency and effectiveness, increased costs, and sometimes tragic consequences for consumers. Establishment of an interagency coordinating council provides a means for minimizing such fragmentation on the local level. Another mechanism is the use of an interagency team approach to coordinate efforts, reduce service gaps, and prevent duplication of effort. Such approaches have been used to improve relations between police and probation/parole in surveillance of high-risk offenders, between court personnel and probation staff in house arrest programs, and among juvenile justice and service agencies (e.g., welfare, social services, and schools). The Central Alabama Youth Service Interagency Coordinating Committee provides an example of how such approaches can improve interagency cooperation and coordination, resulting in more effective and efficient service delivery. 5 references.