THE COMMISSION'S WORK WAS UNDERTAKEN BEFORE RESULTS OF EITHER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS PROJECT (SPONSORED BY THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION) OR THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL STANDARDS AND GOALS (LEAA), BECAME AVAILABLE. THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE MINNESOTA GROUP ARE COMPARED TO THOSE REACHED BY THE TWO NATIONAL STUDY GROUPS. THE COMMISSION'S FIRST JOB WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO FOCUS ON REFORM OF MINNESOTA'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OR TO SEARCH FOR AN ALTERNATIVE. IT CONCLUDES THAT, DESPITE DRAWBACKS, THE SYSTEM HAS SUCCEEDED IN PLACING SOME YOUTHS IN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND HAS BEEN A POSITIVE FORCE IN THE LIFE OF MANY YOUNG OFFENDERS. THE GROUP'S REASONING IS GIVEN IN DETAIL. THE REPORT THEN DESCRIBES THE WORKINGS OF THE MINNESOTA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM; REVIEWS DATA COLLECTION METHODS USED BY THE COMMISSION; AND SUMMARIZES COMMISSION FINDINGS IN THE FIELDS OF INTAKE, RIGHT TO TREATMENT, DIVERSION, AND WAIVER OR TRANSFER OF JUVENILE CASES TO ADULT CRIMINAL COURT. THE STUDY GROUP FOUND THAT MANY JUVENILES APPEAR WITHOUT BENEFIT OF LEGAL COUNSEL. COUNSEL IS APPOINTED IN THE CITIES, BUT IN RURAL AREAS, AN ATTORNEY IS APPOINTED FOR POOR YOUTH ONLY WHEN THE CASE SEEMS LIKELY TO RESULT IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT MANY OF THE PRESENT SHORTCOMINGS CAN BE REMEDIED BY A STATEWIDE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM WHICH WOULD GIVE EACH JUVENILE DEFENDANT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. ISSUES NEEDING FURTHER STUDY ARE IDENTIFIED. THE STUDY IS FOOTNOTED. (GLR)