The research method entailed analysis of available documentation on juvenile decarceration in each of the four survey States, including public reports, newsclippings, and correctional agency plans and memoranda. A comprehensive review of published literature of decarceration was also undertaken. Analysis of these documents helped to establish the historical context of change in each State, identify key decisionmakers and the networks of influence in which they operated, and identify general areas of inquiry to be pursued in interviews with significant periods involved in the decarceration process. The primary source of research data were interviews conducted with 33 persons (roughly 8 per State), drawn from the categories of correctional administrators, private correctional agency administrators, child advocate workers, and social scientists. A decarceration matrix was designed to provide a comparative analysis of the four States' decarceration efforts. The matrix consisted of six dimensions: social history of the decarceration movements, political factors, organizaional factors, crises and the role of the public media, change dimensions, and outcomes. Analysis results show that the four survey States provided a spectrum of outcomes: Massachusetts had mainly a positive effort, Pennsylvania and Florida were considered marginal experiences, and Ohio had a negative experience. Analysis of the forces that shpaed these divergent policy outcomes points principally to political and organizational factors as key determinates of the relative success or failure of efforts to achieve juvenile decarceration. Concluding with the observation that self-styled change agents must approach juvenile decarceration as social reformers dedicated to the liberation of youths from the penal institutions that would oppress them, the article notes that the career risks associated with the work of decarceration are substantial. A table and 53 footnotes are included.