Miller differed from earlier reformers in his realization that the dynamics of an institution and an institutional system limit reformability. As a result of Miller's action in deinstitutionalizing juveniles, DYS acquired a new flexibility in shifting juvenile offenders from one program to another without encountering an institutional lobby that had a vested interest in keeping the reform schools full. Even if, as is likely, the number of places available in secure facilities increases in the future, Miller's reforms have ensured that the majority of juveniles referred to DYS will continue to avoid institutionalization. Miller's reform effort was flawed, however, by its failure to establish replacement programs for deinstitutionalized juveniles with guidelines for evaluation. Only emergency grants from the State legislature and LEAA saved Massachusetts from having no delinquency program at all. Thirteen footnotes are listed.