A KNOWLEDGE OF COMMON AND WORKABLE METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS AND OF MODELS FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION IS ALSO IMPORTANT. BASIC CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ARE (1) PLACEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTIONS WITHIN A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN THE STATE AND (2) LESS SEGREGATION OF OFFENDERS FROM THE FREE WORLD. ADVANTAGES OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ARE PURPORTED TO BE A GREATER HARMONY WITH OTHER FACETS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH ARE NOW OPERATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (POLICE, ADJUDICATION), COST EFFECTIVENESS, AND HUMANITARIANISM. HOWEVER, ARGUMENTS ESPOUSING THESE BENEFITS CAN BE MISLEADING. THE LOWER COSTS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST REHABILITATIVE QUALITY, THE UNCANCELED FIXED COSTS OF REMAINING PRISONS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SAVING OR MERELY POSTPONING EXPENDITURES, AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCAPACITATION. A STUDY OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTER IN MINNESOTA, FOR INSTANCE, FOUND THAT COSTS OF SUPERVISING OFFENDERS DIVERTED TO THE COMMUNITY WERE APPROXIMATELY HALF THOSE OF INCARCERATION. HOWEVER, IN MANY CASES (50 PERCENT) THE OFFENDERS EVENTUALLY ENDED UP IN INSTITUTIONS, A SITUATION THAT ABSORBED MOST SAVINGS. FURTHERMORE, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS IS A LESS EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INCAPACITATION THAN PRISON AND IS USED BY MANY DISPOSITIONAL DECISIONMAKERS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PROBATION RATHER THAN TO INSTITUTIONALIZATION, THUS INCREASING SOCIAL CONTROL. FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS HAVE OFTEN COME FROM THE STATES. MOST COMMON ALLOCATION METHODS ARE A FLAT AWARD BASED ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S REDUCTION OF STATE'S PRISON POPULATION (EXEMPLIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACT) AND THE EQUALIZATION FORMULA INDIVIDUALLY DESIGNED FOR THE COMMUNITY (EXEMPLIFIED BY CALIFORNIA'S PROBATION SUBSIDY). REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD OF SUBSIDY, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SHOULD HAVE A NUMBER OF FEATURES: (1) A COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, (2) A STATEWIDE MASTER PLAN, AND (3) PILOT, PROJECTS. ALL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PRETRIAL SERVICES (PRETRIAL RELEASE, RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE, RELEASE UNDER SUPERVISION, DIVERSION, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION DEVICES), SHOULD HAVE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, INPUT OF AND COOPERATION AMONG PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, PUBLIC DEFENDERS, THE COURTS, POLICE, AND THE PUBLIC, AND MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY IN EXPANDING STATE FUNDS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (DAG)