Assumptions about the nature of the juvenile system and youth crime upon which reforms are based do not withstand close scrutiny. The traditional system does not neglect accountability, reforms are rooted in a poor understanding of levels and patterns of juvenile crime, and assessments of the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs are misleading. In addition, reforms are poorly targeted, they do not provide for greater predictability and uniformity in disposition decisionmaking, and expectations of the impact of reforms on juvenile crime are unfounded. Reforming reform will require a questioning of basic assumptions. The choice of sentencing rationale should not be predicated upon current assessments of juvenile crime, and the question of purpose should not be conditioned entirely upon the demonstration of success by sentencing stratgies or correctional programs espousing a particular aim. In addition, an emphasis on rehabilitation does not mean that the juvenile justice system is disinterested in crime control: These two goals are not mutually exclusive. Meaningful change will require the development of tools and techniques for effective risk control, including meaningful classification systems for juvenile offenders. Risk control goals do not demand an increased use of incarceration and do not require an overhaul of the traditional juvenile justice system. 26 footnotes and 34 references.