An inmate who faces an additional charge or a probation or parole revocation has alternative courses of action. Usually the choice made has a substantial impact upon the inmate's correctional program and total length of time in confinement. Situations involving additional charges include those where a prosecutor may bring an additional charge but has not yet done so, an additional charge has been brought but no detainer has been filed, or an additional charge has been brought and a detainer has been filed. Situations involving probation or parole revocation include those where no decision has yet been reached; there has been a decision made to revoke, but no hearing has been held; revocation could result in the execution of a previously imposed sentence; or the revocation of probation could be followed by the imposition of a new sentence. In most cases, it is to the inmate's benefit to resolve any additional charges before trial and sentencing on other charges. When charges have been issued but have not been filed at the prison, an inmate might anticipate that a detainer is forthcoming. A letter to the prosecutor in the jurisdiction where the detainer is anticipated must emphasize that the inmate wants to resolve all outstanding legal problems and is uncertain about pending charges. When an inmate learns that a detainer has been filed in another State, he or she must decide whether to ask the prosecutor for a speedy disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. A letter, sent from inmate and counsel to the filing prosecutor, should seek to reach an informal understanding about the disposition of the case. The prosecutor may choose to dismiss the charges, refuse to dismiss the charges, or respond that no decision has been made. Inmates with revocation detainers on file have fewer options in resolving the detainer, especially since the Supreme Court's holding in Moody v. Daggett (1976), which states that an inmate with a parole revocation detainer has no due process right to a speedy revocation hearing. The discussion suggests that an interstate agreement on revocation detainers could provide the consistency that now exists for additional charge detainers. The chapter includes 60 reference notes.