Even prior to the establishment of the first juvenile court at Cook County, Ill., in 1899 some alternatives were attempted in an effort to deal with younger offenders. A major premise underpinning the establishment of juvenile court jurisdiction during the early 1900's was to provide a wider range of options by selecting effective responses that would operate in the best interests of the child. To a large extent, this search continues today. In this paper the focus is only on public offense and status offense cases. We will not examine other areas of responsibility such as welfare services for youth, child abuse, neglect and foster care. An examination of programs in existence reveals a high degree of diversity. The literature on this topic is quite scattered and there are few organized means available by which to compare and contrast so many different programs. A purpose of this paper is to provide students a framework by which to view various courses of action that have characterized responses to misconduct among juveniles. Considering interventions according to (1) focus, (2) process, (3) degree of restriction, and (4) vehicle provides a basis for comparing and contrasting the many different programs in existence. Liberal use of specific examples of more recent programs are included that reflect contemporary thought as well as possible future direction. Readers should note that the aim is not to evaluate whether a given program is effective. However, contrary< to Martinsons' insistence that 'nothing works,' Ross and Gendreau provide examples of programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Examples utilized in this paper were selected from among those indicating positive results. (Publisher abstract)