As a result, the authority and resources of the traditional juvenile justice agencies have increased. The established criminal justice officials have almost universally adopted the terms diversion, deinstitutionalization, and decriminalization as their own. The established agencies administer most of the programs that claim to be based on these reforms. Instead of reducing the numbers of young people brought into the formal system of social control, the reform movement has produced a widening of the nets to include increasing numbers of young people in an increasingly comprehensive system of control. The years between 1957 and 1977 saw a steady increase in the rates of young people processed by juvenile courts, although the youths being brought into court in recent years are not necessarily more serious offenders than in the past. No evidence exists to suggest a widespread decrease in the use of institutions for juveniles, if both public and private facilities and lengths of stay are considered. The reform movement aimed to produce a network of community alternatives that would be more effective than traditional agencies. However, these programs tend to be coercive, stigmatizing, and encapsulating rather than diversionary. The failure of reform probably results from such factors as ambiguity in definitions, provision of funding without appropriate safeguards, and the conservative tone of national politics. Increasing the judiciary's power might help produce compliance with legislative standards. Notes and 43 references are provided.