STUDIES THAT HAVE EVALUATED REHABILITATIVE CORRECTIONS EFFORTS AS GENERAL FAILURES ARE QUOTED AND ANALYZED. IT IS INDICATED THAT MOST EVALUATION STUDIES OF SPECIFIC PROGRAMS HAVE USED RECIDIVISM AS THE MEASURE OF SUCCESS, WHILE DEFINITIONS OF RECIDIVISM AND THE MEANS OF MEASURING THE INCIDENCE OF IT IN EACH STUDY DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM EVALUATION TO EVALUATION, THUS CALLING INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF ANY GENERAL INDICTMENT OF REHABILITATION EFFORTS BASED ON TREATMENT EVALUATIONS. CAUTION AND SELECTIVITY IS URGED IN APPRAISING REHABILITATION EFFORTS, AND IT IS ARGUED REHABILITATION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO PROVE ITSELF. HOWEVER IN THE ABSENCE OF WIDESPREAD PROVEN TREATMENT PROGRAMS, IT IS BELIEVED THAT DETERMINATE SENTENCING BASED ON THE SEVERITY OF THE CRIME PROVIDES THE MOST EQUITABLE WAY OF TREATING OFFENDERS IN CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, ALTHOUGH, THE BELIEF THAT DETERMINATE AND MANDATORY SENTENCING WILL DETER CRIME IS QUESTIONABLE. IT IS FEARED THAT WHEN THESE MEANS DO NOT SERVE TO REDUCE THE INCREASE IN CRIME, THE RESPONSE WILL BE TOWARD EVER MORE HARSH SENTENCING. INTENSIVE PROBATION SUPERVISION AND SUPPORTIVE COUNSELING ARE SUGGESTED AS PROVEN METHODS OF DEALING WITH CERTAIN OFFENDERS. THE EMPLOYMENT AND EXPANSION OF PROVEN REHABILITATION EFFORTS, ON BEHALF OF TYPES OF OFFENDERS WHO HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO PROFIT FROM THEM, IS RECOMMENDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CUSTODIAL INSTITUTIONALIZATION. THE PROBATION STRUCTURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENDERS IS BELIEVED TO BE THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAY OF APPROACHING CORRECTIONS, WHILE RESERVING PRISONS FOR HARDENED CRIMINALS. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)