THE DISPOSITION PROCESS IS DESCRIBED IN THE PROJECT'S VOLUMES ON DISPOSITIONS, DISPOSITIONAL PROCEDURES, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND SANCTIONS, AND CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATION. THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE DISPOSITION PROCESS ARE SUMMARIZED AS THEY RELATE TO SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS AND GOALS, PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS, AND MODIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT. THE CRITIQUE ENCOMPASSES THREE ASPECTS OF THE DISPOSITION PROCESS: SCOPE OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION; DISPOSITION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES; AND CRITERIA FOR MODIFYING THE DISPOSITION. THE STANDARDS PURPORT TO EFFECT A RADICAL SHIFT IN JUVENILE COURT PHILOSOPHY AWAY FROM REHABILITATION AND TOWARD JUST DESERTS. HOWEVER, THE STANDARDS REFLECT SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSISON AND AMBIVALENCE ABOUT THE SHIFT. THE JUST DESERTS PRINCIPLE IS EVIDENT IN THE STANDARDS' TREATMENT OF GRADED MAXIMUM PENALITIES; THE REQUIREMENT THAT, WITHIN THE MAXIMUMS, THE COURT SELECT THE PENALTY MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE DELINQUENT'S CULPABILITY AND DEGREE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY; RESTRICTIONS ON THE COURT'S POWER TO BASE SENTENCES ON OFFENDER-RELATED INFORMATION; AND ABOLITION OF PAROLE. HOWEVER, OTHER ASPECTS OF THE STANDARDS QUALIFY AND, IN SOME CASES, CONTRADICT THE JUST DESERTS PRINCIPLE, AS IN THE ABSENCE OF MINIMUM SENTENCES, AMBIGUITY REGARDING GROUNDS FOR REDUCTION OF DISPOSITION, AND RESTRICTIONS ON CUSTODIAL DISPOSITIONS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE STANDARDS' PURPORTED ADOPTION OF JUST DESERTS SENTENCING IS BELIED BY THE INCORPORATION OF SUCH OPPOSING PRINCIPLES AS PREVENTION AND REHABILITATION AND THAT THE STANDARDS FAIL TO ARTICULATE A COHERENT INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG VARIOUS SENTENCING AIMS AND CRITERIA. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).