ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR PROCESSING DISPUTES VARY IN THE TYPES OF DISPUTES HANDLED, THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES, THE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED, AND THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE RESULTS, BUT THEY ALL SHARE AN EMPHASIS ON ACCOMMODATION OF BOTH PARTIES IN A MORE FLEXIBLE AND LESS FORMAL SETTING THAN THAT OF TRADITIONAL LITIGATION. AMONG THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES ARE COMMUNITY DISPUTE CENTERS, INSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, CONSUMER CONCILIATION, GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED MEDIATION, AND COURT-ANNEXED ARBITRATION. ALTHOUGH MOST PROGRAMS ARE TOO RECENT FOR PROPER EVALUATION, INDICATIONS ARE THAT THEY FURNISH GREATER ACCESS TO LEGAL SYSTEMS FOR LOW-INCOME DISPUTANTS, THAT THEY SUCCESSFULLY RESOLVE MANY CONFLICTS, AND THAT THEY UPHOLD SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE OF INDIVIDUALS VS. THE TRADITIONALLY MORE POWERFUL. EXAMPLES OF CITIZENS' GROUPS INCLUDE TENANT, CONSUMER, AND ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS WHO SUCCESSFULLY BRING CHARGES AGAINST MORE ESTABLISHED ADVERSARIES. DECISION FAIRNESS THROUGH ALTERNATIVE SETTLEMENT NEEDS TO BE STUDIED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF SUCH FEATURES AS SHARED RACE AND SOCIAL CLASS OF DISPUTANTS AND DECISIONAKERS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON EACH CASE, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF DISPUTANTS, AND THE ROLE OF COERCION IN ALTERNATIVE FORUMS. ENFORCING DECISIONS IS ANOTHER PROBLEM AS YET UNRESOLVED. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT OF DISPUTE-SETTLEMENT SERVICES NEEDS INDEPENDENT FUNDING SOURCES, AND THE SIMPLE APPROACH TO COMMUNITY SETTLEMENT MUST REMAIN FREE OF BUREAUCRATIZATION. LEGAL SERVICE PROFESSIONALS ARE URGED TO BECOME MORE INVOLVED IN ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY JUSTICE SERVICES AND EDUCATING THE CLIENTELE. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (MRK)