RESULTS REPORTED ARE BASED ON A STUDY OF THE FIRST 5-YEAR EXPERIENCE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA WITH THE USE OF JUVENILE AID PANELS AS AN ALTERNATIVE IN COURT PROCESSING. FROM 1976 TO 1977, APPROXIMATELY 51 PERCENT OF ALL APPREHENDED CASES WERE PROCESSED BY THE PANELS, AS INDICATED BY THE PRIMARY DATA OBTAINED FOR STUDY FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY WELFARE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. EXTENSIVE INFORMATION WAS ALSO OBTAINED ABOUT THE SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND OFFENSE BEHAVIOR OF THE JUVENILES PROCESSED THROUGH THE JUVENILE COURT AND PANELS. EXAMINATION OF REAPPEARANCE RATES IN BOTH PANELS AND THE COURT INDICATED THAT BOTH WERE ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR IN REDUCING SUBSEQUENT APPREHENSIONS. THE EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT THE PUBLIC ENCOUNTERS NO GREATER RISK WHEN THE FORMALIZATION OF THE JUBENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS REDUCED, ESPECIALLY FOR OFFENDERS CHARGED WITH MINOR CRIMES AND NUISANCE BEHAVIOR. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED WHICH WERE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO USE OF THE PANELS INCLUDED LACK OF ATTENTION ENSURING PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES OF PROCESSED JUVENILES AND GREATLY INCREASED NUMBER OF CASES PROCESSED. ONGOING AND SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM IS ESSENTIAL IF POLICIES ARE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORD WITH THE ORIGINAL MANDATE OF THE PANELS. THE REAL TEST OF THE PANELS, AND OF ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO COURT PROCESSING; IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY SERVE BOTH JUSTICE AND SOCIETY. THEREFORE, EQUIVALENT CLIENT EFFECT SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE VIEWED NEGATIVELY DURING POLICY DECISIONMAKING BECAUSE DIVERSION IS A LESS COERCIVE FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL THAN COURT PROCESSING. TABULAR INFORMATION, NOTES, AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED IN THE CHAPTER. (LWM)