One paper argues that the criminal justice system's effectiveness can be increased by decentralizing some or all existing operations. A decentralized system, working concurrently with a municipal system, will conciliate and reintegrate community disputants, deviants, delinquents, and others with problems. Dispute resolution outside the courts is discussed, with attention to various mechanisms (adjudication, mediation, negotiation, avoidance), as well as rational criteria for selecting an appropriate mechanism for a particular case. In contrasting two ideal organizations -- one in a technologically complex, rich society and one in a technologically simple, poor society, one article explores the implications of linkages between social organizations and dispute processing for certain reforms currently advocated in the United States. Other papers consider developments in minor dispute processing, report findings from an empirical study of dispute processing and neighborhood structure, and results of the Neighborhood Justice Centers Field Test in Kansas City, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. There is a description of the mediation component of the Dorchester Urban Court (Mass.), a program that substitutes lay mediation for criminal prosecution if the victim and defendant are acquaintances. An examination of the Brooklyn Dispute Center (N.Y.) concludes that mediation is appropriate only for those disputants who want to talk through a disagreement, not negotiate a settlement. Four broad-ranging assessments of neighborhood justice centers conclude the book. One examines the elusive notion of 'success' in the neighborhood justice movement, another criticizes the centers within a broad social and political context, and a third raises important questions about the adaptability of mediation in cross-cultural settings. The final assessment reviews the major assumptions and problems of the neighborhood justice center movement. Tables, diagrams, chapter notes, an index, and about 500 references are supplied.