THE JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE, IN TRYING TO RECONCILE THE REHABILITATIVE AND CRIME CONTROL ASPECTS OF THE JUVENILE COURT, RECOMMENDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FIXED TIME LIMITS ON JUVENILE SENTENCES IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE SENTENCING DISPARITIES. THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO THE JUDGES AND DIRECTORS ASKED THREE QUESTIONS: (1) SHOULD A SENTENCE BE DETERMINED BY A JUDGE OR BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; (2) DOES A JUVENILE INSTITUTIONALIZED ON AN OPEN-END SENTENCE RESPOND WITH INCREASED DEFIANCE OR COMPLACENCY; AND (3) IS IT EASIER TO WORK WITH A DELINQUENT IF HE KNOWS HOW LONG HE WILL BE INCARCERATED OR IF HIS TERM DEPENDS ON COOPERATION. ALTHOUGH ANSWERS TO THE FIRST QUESTION VARIED, SEVERAL JUDGES AND BOTH DIRECTORS FELT THAT THE LENGTH OF STAY SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES WHO WERE IN A BETTER POSITION TO EVALUATE THE OFFENDER. RESPONDENTS FELT THAT THE ATTITUDE OF AN OFFENDER TOWARDS COOPERATION DEPENDED ON THE ABILITIES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL STAFF TO BE HONEST WITH THE CHILD AND MAKE SURE THAT HE OR SHE UNDERSTOOD THE GOALS THAT HAD TO BE ACHIEVED FOR RELEASE. SOME PARTICIPANTS FELT THAT INDETERMINATE SENTENCING WAS MORE CONDUCIVE TO BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION BUT QUESTIONED ITS USES IN SOLVING BASIC PERSONALITY PROBLEMS. IN REALITY FUNDING CONSTRAINTS AND OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS GOVERN RELEASE UNDER THE OPEN-END SYSTEM RATHER THAN REHABILITATIVE PROGRESS. MANY JUDGES FELT THAT SENTENCING PROCEDURES SHOULD FOLLOW THE STANDARDS AND GOALS SET BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARD PROJECT OF THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH PROVIDE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCES DEPENDING ON THE CRIME SEVERITY. FOOTNOTES AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED.