A BALANCE IS NEEDED BETWEEN DIVERSION, THE GOAL OF WHICH IS TO REDUCE THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS, AND MORE HARSH TREATMENT OF SERIOUS OFFENDERS. FEDERAL FUNDS AND POLICY ENCOURAGE THE GROWTH OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS, BUT THE BASIC EVALUATION OF SUCH PROGRAMS IS POOR. OF 6,600 STUDIES, ONLY 95 CONTAINED SOME EMPIRICAL DATA, AND OF THESE MOST FAILED TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS. THE LACK OF CRITERIA AND FOLLOWUP MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO COMPARE AND EVALUATE SIMILAR PROJECTS WITH DISSIMILAR RESULTS AND ISOLATE THE SIGNIFICANT FACTORS. EVEN THOUGH CRITICISM SUGGESTS THAT DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOSTER RACISM AND DEPRIVE CHILDREN OF DUE PROCESS, SUCH PROGRAMS SEEM TO BE THE LEAST HARMFUL ALTERNATIVE FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS. A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT 'SOCIAL FORCES KEEP DELINQUENCY RATES WITHIN IDENTIFIABLE UPPER AND LOWER LEVELS.' HOW SOCIETY VIEWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY MAY DETERMINE DIRECTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. DELINQUENCY CAN BE VIEWED AS ACTION DEMANDING PUNISHMENT. OR AS A SIGNAL OF CHILDHOOD PROBLEMS NEEDING SOLUTIONS. (RFC)