AS OF MARCH 15, 1977, ALL BUT TWO JUVENILES WERE OUT OF CAMP HILL. THROUGH ACCESS TO THE RECORDS AT CAMP HILL, THE AUTHORS WERE ABLE TO EXAMINE THE COMMITTAL AND RELEASE POLICIES UTILIZED BY THE JUDGES WHO SENT JUVENILES TO THE INSTITUTION. DATA SUGGEST THAT THERE WERE DRAMATIC INCONSISTENCIES IN UTILIZATION OF CAMP HILL AMONG COUNTIES AND EVEN AMONG JUDGES WITHIN THE SAME COUNTIES; THAT JUVENILES AT CAMP HILL WERE NOT THERE, IN ALL INSTANCES, BECAUSE THEY HAD COMMITTED SERIOUS OFFENSES, BECAUSE THEY HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY BEEN TRIED IN LESS SECURE INSTITUTIONS, OR BECAUSE THEY HAD LENGTHY ARREST HISTORIES; AND THAT BLACKS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY OVERREPRESENTED IN THE POPULATION (JUVENILE COURT PRACTICES) AND WERE REQUIRED TO SERVE DISPROPORTIONATELY LONGER SENTENCES IN THE INSTITUTION (PRIMARILY INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES). THE AUTHORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT THAT CAMP HILL WAS A NECESSARY OR EVEN USEFUL COMPONENT OF THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. THEY CONCLUDE THAT BOTH THE COURT'S USE OF THE FACILITY AND PRACTICES WITHIN THE INSTITUTION WERE SUCH AS TO REPUDIATE ANY CLAIM THAT THE INSTITUTION SERVED ANY OF THE HELPING OR REHABILITATIVE FUNCTIONS DEMANDED BY JUVENILE JUSTICE PHILOSOPHY. STUDIES ARE NEEDED AT EVERY STEP IN THE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILES. WHEN SUCH STUDIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, IT WILL BECOME CLEARER WHAT FACTORS AFFECT THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AT EACH STEP IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).