The combination of incarceration and probation is available to all U.S. judges, either before or after beginning service of the incarceration sentence. The growth of these alternatives is due partially to the desire for flexibility in sentencing. Judicial support for these provisions may derive in part from skepticism about parole boards. In addition, judicial support for these provisions may come from efforts to avoid restrictions in the sentencing structure, such as mandatory minimums or parole guidelines that specify a longer period of confinement than desired or provide no parole because of the length of the sentence. The combinations of split or mixed sentences, shock probation, intermittent confinement, jail as a condition of probation, judicial parole, or diagnostic study followed by probation, are all sentencing provisions that allow the judge rather than the parole board to make the release decision. In a sentencing scheme built mainly on the indeterminate sentence and parole, these provisions are notable exceptions. As parole decisionmaking continues to come under attack, the role of these combinations may change. In Maine, where parole has been abolished, it will be interesting to see if split sentences take its place. California has moved to presumptive sentencing without a parole board and there appears to be a decrease in the use of jail as a condition of probation. Yet, even if supervision following release from confinement (parole supervision) is eventually seen as needless, it is unlikely that supervision at sentencing will suffer the same fate. As long as probation and incarceration exist as the predominant options at sentencing, there will be a need for a hybrid sentence in presumptive sentencing schemes and judicial sentencing guidelines. Included are 115 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)