Highlights from the analysis on challenges facing those within the juvenile justice system servicing and sanctioning dual jurisdiction youth include: (1) for most dual jurisdiction youth (62 percent), the delinquency petition resulting in the youth's placement on probation was filed prior to the filing of the petition alleging that the juvenile was dependent; (2) 25 percent of the families of dual jurisdiction youth named on private dependency petitions had been the subject of a prior dependency petition, previously closed by the juvenile court; (3) the percentage of dual jurisdiction families with a documented history of domestic violence and parental incarceration was considerably higher than found in the 2000 Arizona CIP-Re-Assessment Study; (4) very few dual jurisdiction youth in either county were relatively stable in regards to their living arrangements; and (5) dual jurisdiction youth tended to experience poor outcomes with respect to types of permanent living arrangements in place at the time dependency petitions were closed. The findings reflect the need to treat dual jurisdiction matters differently than others. The recommendations are many with highlights ranging from revising intake assessment/screening procedures for dual jurisdiction cases to addressing challenges associated with dependent youth who have been committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. Dual jurisdiction or "dully involved" cases pose unique dilemmas for juvenile courts and child welfare agencies. Who should take responsibility for supervision, case management, and servicing dual jurisdiction youth can be a sensitive issue. In 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts entered into a contract with the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) to conduct a study of youth who experience simultaneous dependency and delinquency court involvement, so-called dual jurisdiction cases. Appendix A and B