THE REVIEW FOCUSES ON A CASE DECIDED IN 1977 BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. IN BROWN V. CARLSON, THE COURT HELD THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ACT WAS TO PROVIDE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR OFFENDERS CHARGED UNDER THE ACT AND THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS DOES NOT HAVE TOTAL DISCRETION IN DESIGNATING THE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT FOR OFFENDERS SENTENCED UNDER THE ACT. A 'SAVING CLAUSE' IN THE ACT (SEGREGATION IS REQUIRED ONLY INSOFAR AS PRACTICAL) WAS FOUND NOT TO APPLY TO THE MATTER OF SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION AND TO APPLY ONLY IN A LIMITED MANNER TO THE MATTER OF SEPARATE CONFINEMENT. THE DECISION IN BROWN IS A DEPARTURE FROM MOST CASE LAW IN THIS AREA AND PRESENTS A MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS. HOWEVER, THE REHABILITATION THEORY UPON WHICH THE ACT IS BASED CALLS FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, AND BY HOUSING AND TRAINING YOUTH OFFENDERS WITH ADULT OFFENDERS, THE BUREAU HAS NOT FULFILLED THE INTENT OF THE LAW. CASE LAW CITATIONS ARE FOOTNOTED. (ATHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)