The focus of the study was on the identification of differences in outcomes for marijuana, cocaine, and crack offenses as well as for possession versus sale offenses; findings were expected to provide insight into the provision of treatment access versus punitive policy at the local level. Dependent variables included diversion availability for each offense examined, frequency of diversion use, the frequency of two forms of nontraditional juvenile justice processing (juvenile drug court and adult criminal court), and the frequency of using two adjudication outcomes (court-ordered probation with treatment and out-of-home placement). Generally, marijuana offenses, compared with cocaine or crack offenses, were associated with a significant increase in general diversion availability for sales offenses and an increase in the frequency of access to treatment through diversion, along with a significant decrease in the frequency of the use of the punitive measures of criminal court transfer and out-of-home placement. Such differences were not found for diversion availability for possession offenses or for diversion with expungement for sales offenses, for overall juvenile drug court use, or for use of probation with treatment. No differences in treatment access were found for powder cocaine versus crack sales offenses. Powder cocaine possession offenses were, however, associated with greater access to treatment than crack cocaine possession offenses. Further, the data suggest that in communities with above-average White populations, there may be a preference for less use of diversion programming and more use of probation with treatment. Observed regional differences in processing suggest that prosecutors may be reflecting a complex combination of both social norms and service availability in processing juvenile offenders. The significant variation in treatment access for different substances indicates that the national debate on appropriate drug policy is being reflected in local case processing. Research on the effectiveness of the various local approaches to juvenile drug case processing is needed. 4 tables and 36 references