The issue of security in the system has been characterized over the last 15 years by a reform and deinstitutionalization movement, followed by efforts to systematize and render accountable the resulting community-based system. This policy has been succeeded by efforts to reintroduce secure placement in the system. The results of a survey of 73 court officers and 97 security system staff and of an analysis of the demographic characteristic and placement results of 447 youth entering the system between July and October 1978 illustrate the current status of secure placement. Both the court and corrections survey participants agreed that the Department of Youth Services made placement decisions, although court respondents felt that the division had more power in this area than did the corrections respondents. Both groups saw disagreement centering over perceptions of what was best for the child. Corrections staff were concerned about services to youths with mental problems, while court staff were concerned about difficult youth who were neither violent nor exhibited mental problems. Both groups felt that the corrections experience harms rather thatn helps difficult youths. Placement analysis results indicated that black youths were more likely to be bound over for adult court, women were more common in mental health units, older youths received more extreme classifications, and youths from two-parent families or those whose fathers were more occupationally skilled were more likely to be placed in mental health units. Serious crimes were more represented among bindovers and next most among secure care cases. Additional interviews with 97 corrections staff and 104 residents in 38 programs indicated that services were not structured for problem youths, who were probably assigned to secure care. The programs have had little effect on the long-term attitudes of residents. Advocates for increased community care work against the current trend by attempting to restructure the program to facilitate working with youths who run away from programs, by urging the department to provide increased evaluation and technical assistance, by obtaining payment for aftercare, and by professionalizing community work. The department should develop better program coordination and relations with the courts. Notes and tabular data are provided.