THE REPORT OPENS WITH DISCUSSIONS OF THE ROLE AND DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, AND OF THE METHODS USED TO STUDY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IN MINNESOTA. THE HISTORY OF THE MINNESOTA COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACT IS TRACED, AND THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY THE STATUTE IS DESCRIBED AND EVALUATED. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACTIVITIES IN INDIANA ARE REVIEWED, AND THE PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION PROPOSING A COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SYSTEM FOR INDIANA ARE ASSESSED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE PURPOSE AND DIRECTION OF THE INDIANA LEGISLATION, WHICH IS PATTERNED AFTER THE MINNESOTA ACT, ARE GOOD, AND THAT THE LEGISLATION HAS POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVING SERVICES TO OFFENDERS AND FOR ALLEVIATING OVERCROWDING IN STATE PRISONS. HOWEVER, SEVERAL WEAKNESSES ARE CITED. THE INDIANA PROPOSAL LACKS SPECIFIC MECHANISMS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF STATE FUNDS AND DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR FUNDING OF PROGRAM EVALUATION AND STAFF TRAINING. INDIANA'S PLAN CALLS FOR COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS THAT ARE SMALLER AND LESS REPRESENTATIVE THAN BOARDS IN MINNESOTA. BOTH THE MINNESOTA STATUTE AND THE INDIANA PROPOSAL RELY ON A FUNDING DISINCENTIVE SYSTEM OF 'CHARGE BACKS' TO DISCOURAGE COUNTIES FROM SENDING CERTAIN CLASSES OF OFFENDERS TO STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. BUT THE INDIANA PLAN REQUIRES COUNTIES TO PAY ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE COST OF MAINTAINING COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS-ELIGIBLE OFFENDERS IN STATE FACILITIES, WHEREAS MINNESOTA REQUIRES COUNTIES TO PAY THE FULL COST. THE INDIANA PROPOSAL ALSO DIFFERS SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE MINNESOTA STATUTE IN THAT THE FORMER DOES NOT INCLUDE CLASS C OFFENDERS (BURGLARY, ROBBERY, FORGERY, BRIBERY, ETC.) IN THE CHARGE-BACK SCHEME. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THIS LIMITATION WOULD EXCLUDE MOST PROPERTY OFFENDERS FROM PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONS IN INDIANA. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING RESPONSES TO IDEAS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT, IS PROVIDED,