The FPD assigned a student or community volunteer to each client who served as an adult friend and role model and offered supplemental services such as tutoring, individual counseling, employment assistance, and school intervention. Information sources for the evaluation included site visits to five counties, interviews with project personnel, project records, and tests completed by youths upon entering and exiting the program. A review of intake and referral data showed that the FPD's components fell far short of achieving their projected referral flow. Cost comparisons indicated that diversion was less costly than processing youth through ordinary channels. However, additional statistical analysis suggested that most cases in the project would have been dismissed without official court sanction had diversion not been available. This finding implies that diversion fails to achieve a major goal of reducing the number of youths coming under State control because it accepts and processes inappropriate referrals. An examination of recidivism rates between diverted and nondiverted clients concluded that diversion generally does not produce either higher or lower recidivism rates than traditional processing. The FPD did appear to be more effective with certain client groups. For example, whites, females, and misdemeanants in one county were likely to recidivate when diverted than when processed by the court. Interviews and observations clearly indicated that FPD programs had improved cooperation between local social service, juvenile justice, and educational agencies and had rekindled juvenile justice officials' interest in alternatives for youthful offenders. Data from the Ziller Self-Social Symbols Tasks scale confirmed staff impressions that most clients improved their self-concepts during involvement with the FPD. Tables, notes, and four references are included.