In 1978, 34 municipal police agencies responded to a survey instrument mailed to a sample of departments all over the country. Analysis of the responses indicated the police commitment to the diversion ideal to be ambiguous. Only two-thirds of the responding police agencies admitted formal diversion responsibility. One-third disclaimed such responsibility apparently because of perceived lack of legal authority for diversion or because of perceived lack of competence to make the decision. Most State statutes do not acknowledge selective, discretionary enforcement by police, while juvenile diversion is explicitly limited. It may be that diversion will not be formally integrated into police operations until law reflect unambiguous authority for police to dispose administratively of juvenile delinquents. Police agencies that admit to the diversion responsibility seem to practive it primarily in the context of 'legalistic' rather than 'rehabilitative' criteria. This implication is founded in the near-total absence of civilian professionals' involvement in the diversion decision. Diversion is handled almost exclusively by sworn officers who may lack sufficient training for juvenile dispositions based on psychometric, casework methodologies which a 'rehabilitative' diversionary practice requires. Perhaps, however, the police role vis-a vis juvenile offenders should not be extended beyond legalistic grounds. Traditional police orientation perceives the selection of rehabilitative treatment alternatives for young offenders to be beyond its actual, or even desired, competencies. Overall, police administrators apparently have not as yet confronted diversion of juveniles as a priority operational issues. And, although half of the departments indicated written policy guidelines, such guidelines reveal unsystematic approaches to formal police policy. Eight footnotes are provided. (Author abstract modified)