The four survey States provide a broad spectrum of decarceration experiences: one positive effect (Massachusetts), two marginal experiences (Pennsylvania and Florida), and a negative experience (Ohio). The study is intended to provide empirical information relevant to large-scale policy implementation by describing a series of change sequences in the survey of States, which may help explain the complex process through which networks of public agencies change. The commitment of State agency leadership to decarceration goals was found to be important to success, although such commitment in and of itself is not sufficient for success. The research also indicates that for decarceration to be effective, change agents must have control over intake and discharge, with the use of this control being maximized to effect change. Further, the administrators of organizations with primary responsibility for delinquency programs and services must be able to control their agency operations at the local level. The judiciary has also played a key role in the outcome of the deinstitutionalization efforts in all of the survey States. Support from private agencies and interest groups was found to be helpful in achieving change in juvenile justice systems, and the research tentatively indicates that crises can be a valuable tool in both mobilizing public opinion and in achieving conditions that are conducive to change. Alliances between a correctional administrator seeking change and the media can be invaluable in achieving public support for change goals. Finally, data indicate that a rapid approach to change is more effective in achieving deinstitutionalization goals than more conventional gradual, 'planned change' efforts. The lessons for deinstitutionalization are discussed under the topics of a philosophy of decarceration; some practical pointers; the politics of deinstitutionalization; deinstitutionalization, public employees, and the helping professions; the court, diagnosis, and the 'dangerous' youth; and personal dilemmas in decarceration. An extensive bibliography is presented on three approaches to the problem of institutionalized persons: therapeutic communities, community-based programs, and deinstitutionalization.