GOTTHEIL RESPONDED TO AN ARTICLE BY ROESCH THAT DEALT WITH PRETRIAL DIVERSION IN ILLINOIS. THE ROESCH ARTICLE CRITICIZED THE INADEQUATE EVALUATION OF ADULT DIVERSION PROGRAMS. GOTTHEIL IMPLIED THAT THE ARTICLE BY ROESCH REPRESENTED AN OBJECTION TO DIVERSION PROGRAMS IN GENERAL, AND SHE REVIEWED SEVERAL ARTICLES ARGUING THAT DIVERSION PROGRAMS INCREASE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM'S RANGE OF SOCIAL CONTROL. SHE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN ILLINOIS, BEING VOLUNTARY, CIRCUMVENTED THE PROBLEM OF UNNECESSARY SOCIAL CONTROL. OTHER CRITICISMS OF GOTTHEIL RELATED TO THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF EVALUATION, MULTIPLE EVALUATION GOALS, THE PROPOSAL THAT FUNDING AGENCIES BE PRESSURED TO REQUIRE MORE INFORMATION ON PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS, AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES. ROESCH RESPONDS TO GOTTHEIL'S CRITIQUE BY STATING THAT HIS PURPOSE WAS TO SUGGEST METHODS FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION ON WHICH POLICY DECISIONS CAN BE BASED. HE ALSO RESPONDS TO GOTTHEIL'S CHALLENGES REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION AND APPROPRIATE EVALUATION PROTOCOLS. ROESCH BELIEVES THAT POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE INNOVATION SHOULD NOT BE ABANDONED ON THE BASIS OF FAULTY EVALUATION DESIGN. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)