By the early 1970's, diversion had emerged as a core component of a comprehensive national policy based on the critical view of the court that included due process, deinstitutionalization, and decriminalization as additional components of policy reform that was aimed at protecting young people from the damage assumed to result from juvenile court intervention. Critics of diversion viewed it as a failure because programs were used for young people that would never have been referred to the formal juvenile justice system. Those that viewed diversion as a success argued that programs provided important services to youth at risk and reduced the likelihood of recidivism. Juvenile courts are now taking back jurisdiction over youth behavior such as truancy, runaway, and a range of status offenses by establishing new courts or other quasi-formal programs to address these behaviors. “Zero tolerance” seems to have become the moral authority that justifies due process violations and forced treatment or punishment. The normative theory of restorative justice is defined by the following core principles: repair, stakeholder participation, and transformation in community and government roles and relationships. Social capital in response to youth crime and juvenile justice intervention takes two forms: informal social control and social support. The three types of social control are private, public, and “village level” control. Those pursuing restorative practices have changed the content and goals by focusing on repairing the harm of crime and the obligation of the offender to the victim and the community. Diversion policy and practice could be positively influenced by an analysis formed by restorative principles applied beyond the constraints of individual cases. Diversion as a process and program is flawed in its failure to engage community. Restorative justice should fill up the diversion space with new forms of community-building and conflict resolution. 1 table, 5 notes, 103 references