ALTHOUGH MANY CORRECTIONAL AGENCIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE DEMAND FOR GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES BY DOING NOTHING AT ALL, THOSE THAT HAVE INSTITUTED PROCEDURES HAVE ACHIEVED ONLY MODERATE SUCCESS. THE DIRECT MAIL SYSTEM, BY WHICH INMATE COMPLAINTS ARE MAILED DIRECTLY TO PRISON ADMINISTRATORS, HAS BEEN UNDERMINED BY THE LACK OF CONFIDENCE THE PRISONERS HAVE FOR ANY VEHICLE CONTROLLED BY THOSE AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINTS ARE DIRECTED. LIKEWISE, INMATE GOVERNING BODIES SUFFER FROM LACK OF CREDIBILITY. NOT ONLY DO THESE ORGANIZATIONS FEEL THAT THEIR COMPLAINTS NEVER GO OUTSIDE OF THE PRISON, BUT THE NATURE OF THE INMATE'S SOCIAL VIEW DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO FAITH IN A REPRESENTATIONAL ARRANGEMENT. ONE OF THE MOST WIDESPREAD OF THE GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS IS THE CONCEPT OF OMBUDSMAN. NOT ONLY HAVE OMBUDSMEN FOUND THEIR JOBS TO BE OVERWHELMING, BUT IN MANY CASES, THEY LACK THE PUBLIC RESPECT AND INDEPENDENCE NECESSARY TO BE EFFECTIVE. SEVERAL STATES HAVE INSTITUTED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES. THESE USUALLY INVOLVE PRISONER APPEAL TO AN EXECUTIVE BOARD, WHICH IN TURN GRANTS HEARINGS AND THE RIGHT TO CALL AN QUESTION WITNESSES. THOUGH THESE PROCEDURES ARE VAST IMPROVEMENTS OVER THOSE ALREADY MENTIONED, THEY SUFFER MANY OF THE SAME WEAKNESSES. PRIMARILY, THE FINAL DECISION IS MADE BY THE CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS WHO IS FREE TO TREAT IT WITH AS LITTLE OR AS MUCH REGARD AS HE DESIRES. IN RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL FAILURE OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, THE CENTER FOR CORRECTIONAL JUSTICE (CCJ) HAS ATTEMPTED TO DEVELOP WORKABLE MODELS TO ATTACK THE PROBLEM. KEYS TO THE CCJ MODELS ARE OUTSIDER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEDURE AND ARBITRATION AS THE FINAL STEP.