The values that the author proposed were not intended as a prescription for an entirely new form of probation service. Instead, they were intended as a clarification and refinement of values that are either implicit in existing practices within the service or are steadily emerging as new responsibilities are assumed and as the service begins to envision progressive alternatives to being a social work agency. Both writers incorrectly contend that the author has proposed aims rather than values. However, values are deeply held beliefs about what it is right to do or be. In that sense, anticustodialism, restorative justice, and community safety are values capable of informing personal, professional, and organizational behavior. Separately and together, in the context of criminal justice policy, they promote individual human flourishing and the common good. Neither critic has proposed a more appropriate set of probation values. The author's proposed values do not represent either social work or correctionalism; instead, they represent the third way, community justice. 2 references