THE ARTICLE RECOMMENDS THAT: 1) DIVERSION AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE BE ESTABLISHED IN A STATUTE; 2) POLICE AUTHORITY IN DIVERSION BE SPECIFIED: 3) JUVENILE STATEMENTS MADE DURING DIVERSION CONFERENCES SHALL NOT BE USED IN ANY LATER COURT PROCEEDING; 4) JUVENILE PARTICIPATION IN DIVERSION MUST BE VOLUNTARY: 5) DIVERSION SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH VICTIM COMPENSATION. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT STATUTORY TIME LIMITS BE PLACED ON DIVERSION PROGRAMS AND THAT THE PETITIONER NOT BE GIVEN ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO REFER THE CHILD TO JUVENILE COURT. FINALLY, THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS THAT PROTECTIONS MUST BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE CHILD AFTER THE DIVERSION AGREEMENT, THAT RECORD-KEEPING MUST BE REQUIRED, AND THAT THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGE MUST BECOME PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH DIVERSION. A HYPOTHETICAL JUVENILE CASE IS PRESENTED IN WHICH A CHILD IS PROCESSED THROUGH THE DIVERSION SYSTEM THAT WOULD EXIST IF ALL THE SUGGESTIONS MADE IN THIS PAPER WERE ADOPTED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)