The intent of DSO II was to connect legislative intent, service delivery systems, and youth responses, so as to provide guidelines for new or modified status offender legislation and practice. Because the project began at the level of State legislation and then moved to local community implementation of legislative intent, the project can be viewed as assessing two competing hypotheses: the articulation hypothesis and the habituation hypothesis. Under the articulation hypothesis local community service delivery and clienteles will substantially reflect State legislative intent. Under the habituation hypothesis local community service delivery and clientele will not reflect State legislative intent. There are three major philosophies (DSO rationales) that may ideally guide interventions into the situations of status offending youths. These are the deterrence, treatment, and normalization rationales. For this study, two deterrence States (Michigan and Idaho) were selected, along with two treatment States (Maryland and New Hampshire), and three normalization States (Delaware, Alaska, and Maine). The study conducted telephone conversations and site visits to the largest city in each State, although substituting Flint for Detroit due to resource limitations. After describing study methodology, findings are presented. The findings support the habituation hypothesis over the articulation hypothesis; that is, service agencies respond to their own philosophies regardless of legislative intent. The study advises that if States wish to influence the way their status offenders are handled, they must go back to their legislative drawing boards to consider at least the clarity and consistency of the intent; the incentives to local communities and agencies; and the level of insistence, from spelling out options to encouraging to mandating, enforcing, and monitoring the desired service approaches. Progress reports are included.