Probation officials were asked whether their jurisdictions had revised their guidelines for probation eligibility, shortened probation time, developed a contract probation program, or established differential supervision levels. Parole authorities were asked whether their States had increased the frequency of parole hearings, instituted special or early release programs, revised their criteria for eligibility, changed their revocation process, developed alternatives to reincarceration for violators, or implemented other changes. The author concludes that there is little consistency in the practices the 31 jurisdictions have implemented; the impact of changes has been modest at best. The most frequently cited solution was increased use and improvement of probation services, particularly intensive probation.