THE LITERATURE OFFERS A NUMBER OF NOT WHOLLY COMPATIBLE CONCEPTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE SENTENCE: IT IS VIEWED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IMPRISONMENT, AS BEING RESTRICTED TO A RANGE OF NONSERIOUS AND NONIMPRISONABLE OFFENSES, AND AS BEING AVAILABLE FOR ALL TYPES OF OFFENDERS. THESE AMBIGUITIES HAVE INHIBITED ANY THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOTION AND HAVE CAUSED UNAVOIDABLE INCONSISTENCIES IN PRACTICE. GIVEN THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING THE CONCEPT, THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IS RAISED: HAS COMMUNITY SERVICE BEEN USED AS AN INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO IMPRISONMENT OR MERELY AS A NOVEL ADDITION TO THE RANGE OF NONCUSTODIAL MEASURES? DATA FROM A SMALL STUDY COMPLETED IN 1974 SHOW THAT OUT OF 305 CASES WHERE PROBATION OFFICERS RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY SERVICE, IT WAS NOT IMPOSED BY THE COURT. A NONCUSTODIAL DISPOSITION WAS AWARDED, HOWEVER, IN 81 PERCENT OF THE CASES INDICATING A RELUCTANCE TO USE CUSTODIAL DISPOSITIONS WHERE COMMUNITY SERVICE IS CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADOPTED. IF COMMUNITY SERVICE IS VIEWED AS A TRUE ALTERNATIVE TO IMPRISONMENT, MORE OF THESE OFFENDERS WHO WERE DENIED COMMUNITY SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED. A SECOND AREA OF EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF OFFENDERS IN ALL AGE RANGES ARE EVER SENT DIRECTLY TO PRISON; AND THIRDLY, AN EXAMINATION OF OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS SHOWS THAT OFFENDERS WHO RECEIVE SENTENCES OF COMMUNITY SERVICE, THOUGH NOT GUILTY OF TRIVIAL CRIMES, GENERALLY ARE CONVICTED OF OFFENSES FOR WHICH A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT WOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS INEVITABLE AND MIGHT EVEN BE CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE. OVERALL, THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE FIRM CONCLUSION THAT COMMUNITY SERVICE DOES NOT IN PRACTICE OPERATE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IMPRISONMENT BUT APPEARS TO BE RESERVED FOR OFFENSES WHICH WOULD PROBABLY RECEIVE ANOTHER FORM OF NONCUSTODIAL DISPOSITION. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KJM)