In the absence of decriminalization, the way a diversion program can come closest to fulfilling its intended purpose is first to drop all charges and exclude all possibility of future court processing for the situation that led to the initial intervention and then to offer all services on a completely voluntary basis. Study data came from a status offender diversion project in Connecticut. The program aimed to divert status offenders from detention or correctional facilities into one of three alternative forms of treatment, one located in each of the State's court districts. The models were a community-based minimum intervention model providing up to five family crisis intervention counseling sessions, a court-based community minimum intervention model in which court personnel provided up to five counseling sessions, and a maximum intervention model in which an individualized treatment program was developed for each client. Data came from court records and interviews. During the program period, police brought to detention status offenders whom they would not previously have, perhaps for them to receive the treatment provided by the program. The clients spent time comparable to preprogram cases under control or supervision. Youths in the program were more likely to be removed from the home. A tendency also existed for the minimum intervention contractors to provide their intervention in the most maximal way allowed by the model design. The only way to ensure against all possible tendencies toward beneficent despotism in diversion programs is to make participation in them truly voluntary. Decriminalization is the only genuine alternative to juvenile court. A data table, a note, and 20 references are provided.