The closing of Massachusetts institutions for delinquent youth reflected three deliberate strategies: regionalization, privatization and community integration. Decentralization was not a strong enough idea to transcend the budget process. Secure care, detention and shelter care facilities remained central office responsibilities and thus created a competitive dual system of care with the obvious administrative burdens. Privatization also failed in implementation. Small grassroots nonprofit organizations lacked the infrastructure, the fiscal accountability and the sophistication to deal with State and Federal bureaucracies. Community-based services had success in many locales, but the idea of integrating youth into their own communities still failed. Most programs lacked connections to the neighborhoods and communities in which they operated, and escapes from residential programs created community opposition. Reference