ON-SITE VISITS DURING MARCH, 1976, FOUND THAT THE BUREAU HAD STATED ITS WORK BY ACTIVELY INVOLVING REPRESENTATIVES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCIES IN A VIABLE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EFFORT. GRASSROOTS REPRESENTATIVES IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND SUGGESTED WAYS TO MEET THESE NEEDS. HOWEVER, THE PROGRAM THEN MOVED TO A PRESCRIBED STRUCTURE SITUATION. THIS PHASE SET UP NUMEROUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES WHICH REMOVED THE BUREAU FROM THE GRASSROOTS SUPPORT AND MADE LOCAL GROUPS FEEL THEY WERE NOT TO BE PART OF THE BUREAU'S PLANS. THOSE INTERVIEWED ALSO QUESTIONED THE NECESSITY OR ADVISABILITY OF HAVING ALL SERVICES COORDINATED COUNTYWIDE. MANY PEOPLE FELT THE LOCAL YOUTH SERVICE BUREAUS COULD FULFILL THEIR FUNCTIONS MORE CAPABLY IF THEY WERE FREE FROM PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRAINTS. AT THE SAME TIME OTHERS BELIEVED THERE NEEDED TO BE STRONGER COORDINATION OF AREA PROGRAMS. LOCAL PROGRAMS RECEIVE LITTLE FEEDBACK FROM THE CENTRAL OFFICE AND THE ENTIRE PURCHASE OF SERVICES NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED. THE ASSESSMENT TEAM FOUND THE SCOPE OF THE SYSTEM'S 'CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE QUITE LIMITED AND THE PROGRAM DESIGN GENERALLY'. THIS SEEMS DUE TO THE FACT THAT POLICY DECISIONS ARE MADE BY BOARDS FAR REMOVED FROM THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THE SERVICE DELIVERY TAKES PLACE AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES COME FROM AN ORGANIZATIONAL MILIEU UNRELATED TO THE YOUTH SCENE. ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES MUST BE MADE IF VIABLE PROGRAMS ARE TO DEVELOP. THIS REPORT CONTAINS NOTES, CHARTS, APPENDIXES, AND A MAP OF THE SERVICE AREA. (GLR)