THE AUTHOR FOCUSES HIS DISCUSSION ON CURRENT PROGRAMS DESIGNED EXPLICITLY TO AVOID THE STIGMATIZING CONSEQUENCES OF YOUTHFUL CONTACT WITH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. IT IS NOTED THAT THESE DIVERSION PROGRAMS ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE AUTHORITY-LADEN, COERCIVE ATMOSPHERE THAT SURROUNDS COURTS AND THEIR FUNCTIONARIES, THEREBY MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR REFORM AIMS TO BE PURSUED WITHOUT RISKING THE DANGER OF THE STIGMATIZING LABEL. HOWEVER, THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT THE TRANSLATION OF A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS (IN THIS CASE THE LABELING INSIGHT) INTO SOCIAL POLICY HAS MANY PITFALLS. THE LABELING RESPONSE IS, AS THE AUTHOR REMARKS, AN IRREPRESSIBLE FEATURE OF HUMAN INTERACTION IN THAT PERSONS PERCEIVE AND IDENTIFY ONE ANOTHER BY EMPLOYING CULTURALLY STANDARDIZED COGNITIVE CATEGORIES. HE MAINTAINS THAT THE PROBLEM POSED IS NOT SIMPLY THAT OF THE ABILITY OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN DIVERSION PROGRAMS TO SUSPEND NEGATIVE LABELING. INSTEAD, HE STATES THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BEHAVIOR OVER WHICH CONTROL IS SOUGHT IS PREDATORY AND PERSONALLY THREATENING, THE SOCIOLOGIST MUST INQUIRE AS TO THE IMPACT ON THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF CHANGING (OR SEEMING TO CHANGE) THE LABELING OF SUCH BEHAVIOR. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT DIVERSION PROGRAMS ARE UNLIKELY TO AVOID THE LABELING PROCESS INSOFAR AS THEY TEND TO FOSTER THE SEGREGATION OF DELINQUENTS, TO NEGLECT THE USE OF GROUP EXPERIENCES IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT METHODS, AND TO EMPLOY COERCION IN MAINTAINING PROGRAM MEMBERSHIP. HE CONCLUDES THAT INTERVENTION EFFORTS KEYED TO A REVERSAL OF NEGATIVE LABELING PROMISE LIMITED SUCCESS, AND THAT CLOSER ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH BUREAUCRATIZATION AND ITS OFTEN ARBITRARY AND SOMETIMES MINDLESS NARROWING OF THE 'VALUE SPACE' WITHIN WHICH THE FIRM ATTACHMENT OF THE YOUNG TO INSTITUTIONAL GOALS MAY TAKE PLACE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)