Judicial officers were asked to express their opinions on what kinds of offenses should attract CSO and PD dispositions, the attitudes of sentencers toward such dispositions, and difficulties encountered in their use. Most judges and magistrates felt that CSO's make a positive contribution to the offender's rehabilitation or education. Not all judicial officers, however, thought CSO's should be used exclusively as an alternative to imprisonment. Some judicial officers were ambivalent in their responses, suggesting that sometimes CSO's but less so PD were used more appropriately instead of fines or bonds. Sentencers appeared to accept the proposition that imprisonment is a sentence of last resort. The vast majority of sentencers saw CSO's as an alternative to imprisonment. A substantial proportion also felt that CSO's fulfill the objectives of punishment and deterrence. About one in three judicial officers considered CSO's as an intermediate option between gaol and noncustodial sanctions. Judges who dealt with more serious offenses tended to see CSO's as a softer option than magistrates. The latter perceived CSO's as a relatively harsh penalty reserved for the more serious offenses and for offenders with significant prior records. Most judicial officers considered punishment and deterrence as objectives of PD. In contrast to CSO's, however, rehabilitation was not regarded as an important objective of PD. Many judicial officers viewed PD as a last chance option to full-time imprisonment and generally preferred the CSO option over PD. Policy issues related to the use of CSO's and PD in New South Wales are discussed. Additional data on the survey are appended. Footnotes and tables