Comments from the 14 organizations considered indicate a general feeling of disappointment and of opportunities missed in the paper. Much of the response focused on proposals for juvenile offenders (those under age 17). The proposals are as follows: (1) where a juvenile already in the care of a local authority as an offender is found guilty of a further imprisonable offense, power should be given the court to add a residential care order (RCO), with the effect that for a fixed period not exceeding 6 months the juvenile is not allowed to remain at home; (2) the detention center should be retained for male offenders aged 14 and 17, but with shorter maximum and minimum periods of detention; (3) the courts should have power to impose medium term sentences of custody on offenders aged 15 or 16 (now liable to be sentenced to borstal training); (4) the court should be able, on the recommendation of the supervising officer, to specify the program of activities a juvenile undertakes in the community; (5) probation and aftercare committees should have the power to provide intermediate treatment facilities, consistent with proper coordination of local arrangements; (6) the juvenile courts should be able to impose community service orders on offenders aged 16; and (7) there should be a clarification and strengthening of the measures which enable the courts to make parents pay the fines of juveniles or to enter into recognizances. Organizations leveled various criticisms at these proposals.