ONE REASON FOR CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS IN VARIOUS STUDIES IS THE CONFUSION OF DEFINITIONS OF DIVERSION. DEFINITIONS RANGE FROM NARROW TO VERY BROAD, AND SOME HAVE EVEN BEEN ALTERED IN THE COURSE OF A SINGLE STUDY. DIVERSION FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS MANY DIFFERENT MEANINGS, LARGELY BECAUSE THE TERM DOES NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED. IN ADDITION TO THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION, IT IS ASSERTED THAT MANY EVALUATIONS OF STUDIES HAVE SUFFERED FROM DISTORTIONS RESULTING FROM THE BIASES AND EXPECTANCIES OF THE INVESTIGATOR. IT IS THE EVALUATOR WHO IS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT. THE SAME DATA MAY BE EXAMINED BY SEVERAL INVESTIGATORS, AND EACH MAY ARRIVE AT A SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EVALUATION. IN CONCLUSION, IT IS SAID THAT ABSOLUTE PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THE NATURE OF 'DIVERSION DOESN'T WORK' MAY LEAD TO PUBLICATIONS AND PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT, BUT ARE OF NO HELP IN ADVANCING KNOWLEDGE OR PRACTICE. IN THE FUTURE, EVALUATION RESEARCH MUST BE ORIENTED TOWARD 'WHAT WORKS FOR WHOM UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS.' REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.