THE PROJECTS EVALUATED INCLUDE PRETRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAMS, RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION, AND ALCOHOL AND HEROIN DETOXIFICATION. (EVALUATORS BROADENED THEIR DEFINITION OF ADULT DIVERSION WHEN THEY WERE UNABLE TO FIND ENOUGH PROGRAMS AIMED SPECIFICALLY AT PRETRIAL INTERVENTION.) THE EVALUATION SUMMARY TOUCHES ON CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS, EFFECTIVENESS IN LIMITING SYSTEM PENETRATION, AND RECORDKEEPING PRACTICES. EVALUATORS FOUND STRIKING DIFFERENCES IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE VARIOUS PROJECTS ACTUALLY LIMITED CLIENT PENETRATION INTO THE SYSTEM--A FINDING THAT BEARS UPON EVALUATION OF THE PROJECTS IN TERMS OF THEIR COST-EFFECTIVENESS. EVALUATION FINDINGS ALSO SUGGEST THAT, BECAUSE THE DIVERSION PROJECTS DEAL PRIMARILY WITH PEOPLE CHARGED WITH MINOR OFFENSES, THEY REPRESENT A VERY EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO FORMAL PROCESSING. TWO ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVING THE DIVERSION MECHANISM ARE CONSIDERED: RETAINING THE PRINCIPAL OF DIVERSION AND CONTINUING TO DEAL WITH MINOR OFFENSES, BUT DISCARDING THE ELEMENT OF QUASIPROBATIONARY CASE SUPERVISION; OR EXPANDING CLIENTELE TO INCLUDE SERIOUS OFFENDERS WHO ORDINARILY WOULD RECEIVE A DISPOSITION OF PROBATION WERE THEY PROSECUTED, CONVICTED, AND SENTENCED. THE FIRST APPROACH REPRESENTS THE DIVERSIONARY EQUIVALENT OF SUMMARY PROBATION. DIVERTED OFFENDERS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO A CASE SUPERVISOR BUT WOULD SIMPLY BE CARRIED ON THE RECORDS UNTIL THEY COMPLETED A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD ARREST-FREE (OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME OTHER STIPULATION). THE SECOND APPROACH IS LESS PRAGMATIC AND MORE DEPENDENT ON THE ATMOSPHERE IN A GIVEN JURISDICTION. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)