Political scientists explain why tensions among the four major purposes shaping corrections policy in the United States and in most countries -- rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution -- cause difficulties in formulating legislation. The undermining and cooptation of reform efforts in juvenile justice in the United States and England and in community-based corrections indicate the current policy dilemma. Data show that reducing unemployment rather than relying on imprisonment would reduce crime. Other experts advocate eliminating the prevailing practice of placing women and men in separate prisons, studying such options as regional jails as a means of improving jail conditions, and using formalized, shared approaches to leadership transitions in departments of corrections. Additional papers note that developing new methods for resolving inmate grievances does not necessarily result in social change in correctional institutions and that a market model might be an appropriate basis for a restitution program. Judicial strategies regarding inmate lawsuits and reform efforts are also described; contrasts between the Warren Court's equity model in cases of unconstitutional incarceration and the Burger Court's more traditional approach are discussed. Also discussed are the Burger advantages of averaging previous sentences for a crime as a means of setting optimal sentences under determinate sentencing legislation. Data tables, chapter notes and reference lists, and an index are provided. For individual papers, see NCJ 88929-42.