Database searches, a review of a periodicals, and letters to 46 criminal justice planning agencies in the United States were used to compile the evaluations. The most significant finding was that CSP, a form of sentencing advocacy designed to punish, supervise, and treat prison- bound offenders in the community, represents a paradigm shift and is therefore especially vulnerable to destabilization by traditional criminal justice institutions. In addition, the more a CSP project restricts its intake to prison-bound offenders, the greater chance that it will experience destabilization. Therefore, some degree of hostility is a sign of the success of such projects. Results also revealed that CSP is most effective as a means of decarceration, especially when used to close institutions. As a general form of sentencing advocacy, the courts have been willing to consider CSP proposals in about 70 percent of all cases. Furthermore, in six of the seven studies with control groups, CSP had a positive impact in either reducing the percent incarcerated or the jail time to be served. However, no significant difference was found in recidivism, except where massive transfers of institutional budgets have occurred to community-based programs. Footnotes, figures, appended background information, and list of the studies analyzed