The two States use opposite approaches in resolving juvenile justice problems. Massachusetts has a deinstitutionalized youth correctional system which relies on small, community-based residential programs and local counseling and educational programs. New Jersey, on the other hand, operates a more traditional juvenile correctional system, based on institutional confinement and minimal use of local programming. Each of the States is contemplating major changes in juvenile justice. Specific recommendations in Massachusetts call for the provision of an additional 300 secure beds, greatly increased judicial sentencing discretion, and a system of mandatory sentences for certain categories of delinquents. They would also substantially ease the criteria for sending juveniles to trial in adult court. Because these measures are deemed unwieldy and costly, four alternatives are proposed. The suggestions are a legislative mandate for secure treatment regulations, efficient use of existing secure beds, addition of no more than 50 secure beds, and change in only one phase of the transfer process. The bills proposed in New Jersey consist of a list of harsh measures which presume that youths coming into contact with the justice system are eligible for incarceration (immediately causing a need for new and expanded institutional facilities). The proposed legislation also imposes mandatory sentences for certain kinds of crimes. This report suggests other changes to the system to bring about effective procedures for screening youths into an array of program alternatives. Both States seem to be on the verge of adopting legislation without an adequate analysis of its fiscal or programmatic impact, according to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Tabular data and 40 references are given.