REASONS FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION ARE OUTLINED, AND TYPES OF CASES COMMONLY DISPOSED OF THROUGH DIVERSION ARE NOTED. THE LIMITED USE OF STATUTES TO CREATE MANDATORY DIVERSIONARY PROGRAMS IS POINTED OUT, AND PROVISIONS GENERALLY FOUND IN SUCH STATUTES ARE MENTIONED. FACTORS THAT ENTER INTO THE DECISION TO DIVERT AN OFFENDER ARE DISCUSSED, WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE INTERESTS OF BOTH THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM. THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS AND DIVERSIONARY PROGRAM COUNSELORS, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO DIVERSION DECISIONMAKING, IS EXAMINED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS, PROGRAM STAFF MEMBERS FUNCTION IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN A ROLE THAT INVOLVES BOTH ADVOCACY AND COOPERATION. VARIATIONS IN THE PROCESSES THROUGH WHICH DEFENDANTS ARE ADMITTED TO DIVERSIONARY PROGRAMS, SUPERVISED AND MONITORED DURING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAMS, AND RELEASED FROM THE PROGRAMS ARE NOTED. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS AND PROGRAM STAFF TO DECISIONS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE DIVERSIONARY PROCESS ARE BROUGHT OUT. (LKM)