THE DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HALFWAY HOUSES, THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED, AND THE STATUS OF HALFWAY HOUSE PROGRAM EVALUATIONS. CRITICISMS OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMS BASED ON PERCEIVED LENIENCY BY COURT AND CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS AND STEMMING FROM A LACK OF DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE OPERATION OF MOST COMMUNITY PROGRAMS ARE ALSO EXAMINED. EVALUATION FINDINGS ARE SAID TO INDICATE THAT HALFWAY HOUSE PROGRAMS CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN DIRECT RELEASE TO PAROLE IN REINTEGRATING PRISONERS INTO THE COMMUNITY. IF THE HALFWAY HOUSE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO INSTITUTIONALIZATION, IT CAN FUNCTION AT A REDUCED OVERALL COST TO THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. THAT OFFENDERS CAN BE MORE HUMANELY TREATED BY ALLOWING THEM TO SERVE PART OF THEIR SENTENCES IN HALFWAY HOUSES APPEARS TO BE TRUE, BUT THE PREMISE REMAINS LARGELY UNTESTED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, WHEREAS THE GOAL FOR HALFWAY HOUSES IS TO ASSIST IN THE REINTEGRATION OF EX-OFFENDERS BY INCREASING THEIR ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN A SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE MANNER AND REDUCING THEIR RELIANCE ON CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, MOST EVALUATIONS ARE BASED ON MEASURES OF RECIDIVISM, WHICH REFLECTS ONLY A PORTION OF THIS GOAL. FEW STUDIES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MEASURE THE READJUSTMENT OR SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR OF FORMER HALFWAY HOUSES CLIENTS. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EVALUATIONS REVIEWED IS INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)