CRITICS OF THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAVE ASSERTED THAT FRAGMENTATION AND LACK OF COORDINATION AMONG THE COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM ARE THE PRINCIPAL FACTORS FOR ITS INEFICIENCY AND INEFFECTIVENESS. FEDERALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS OF A NECESSARY DIFFUSION OF POWERS AND DIFFICULTIES IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND TRANSFER HAVE BEEN MAJOR ISSUES IN INTERGOVERNMENT INTERACTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONG NATIONALIZING CURRENTS CAN BE DISCERNED IN FEDERAL FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL STANDARDS, AND REFORM ADVOCACY. NONETHELESS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS HAS BEEN LIMITED. OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIVERSIFIED EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS ARE GREATEST IN THE INVESTIGATION AND APPREHENSION PROCESS. AS CRIME RESPECTS NO POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUIRES COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG CONTIGUOUS JURISDICTIONS. ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION IS INVOLVED AT THIS STAGE, COOPERATION IS PRIMARILY AMONG LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS. CONSOLIDATION AT THIS STAGE MAY RANGE FROM COMPLETE METROPOLITAN REORGANIZATION TO INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS. COOPERATION MAY BE VERTICAL (COUNTY/CITY, STATE/LOCAL) OR HORIZONTAL (CITY/CITY, COUNTY/COUNTY), ALLOWING INTERCOORDINATION WHILE ALSO PRESERVING LOCAL AUTONOMY. EFFECTIVE CRIME CONTROL DEMANDS COORDINATED STAFF AND AUXILIARY SERVICES, AS WELL AS FIELD OPERATIONS, WHEN POSSIBLE. JOINT TRAINING, DATA COLLECTION, AND SHARING OF FACILITIES PERMITS MORE EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A MORE COST EFFICIENT MANNER. UNFORTUNATELY, SUCH EXCHANGES HAVE TENDED TO BE SPORADIC AND INFORMAL. AS A RESULT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LIMITATIONS, THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXCHANGE ARE LESS FLEXIBLE IN THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS. BOTH PROSECUTION AND CORRECTIONS/REHABILITATION ARE LOW VISIBILITY AREAS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE DEGREE OF DECENTRALIZATION OF STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTIONAL SYSTEMS VARIES; BUT IN GENERAL LOCAL OFFICIALS ENJOY MUCH INDEPENDENCE AND DISCRETION, AND NATIONAL/STATE LINKAGES ARE WEAK. ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES PROVIDE RUDIMENTARY ASSISTANCE TO STATE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS, THERE IS NO NATIONWIDE PATTERN OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY. IN CORRECTIONS AND IN JUVENILE AND ADULT CORRECTIONS AND DIVERSIONARY AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS THERE IS SUCH WIDE DIVERSITY THAT LITTLE INTERACTION OCCURS. HOWEVER BOTH PROSECUTION AND CORRECTIONS/REHABILITATION OFFER OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE CENTRALIZED LIAISON. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT ACCOMODATION OF TENDENCIES TOWARD GREATER INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION WOULD LEAD TO MORE EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)