THE SEVEN COURTS, GIVEN FICTITIOUS NAMES, ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN URBAN, MIDDLE-SIZED CITY, AND SEMIRURAL AREAS OF THE NORTHEAST AND CENTRAL UNITED STATES. FOUR HAD STRUCTURED INTAKE, PROCESSING, AND DISPOSITION PROCEDURES WITH HIGH REGARD FOR DUE PROCESS. TWO OF THESE HAD LEGAL COUNSEL ROUTINELY AVAILABLE TO JUVENILES. THE OTHER THREE HAD INFORMAL STRUCTURES. INTAKE, CASE PROCESSING, CASE CHARACTERISTICS, ADJUDICATION, AND DISPOSITION ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL FOR EACH COURT AND THE RESULTS COMPARED WITH DATA GATHERED FROM A NATIONAL SAMPLE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE STRUCTURED COURTS HAD SEPARATE INTAKE DEPARTMENTS, THAT THE INTAKE OFFICERS HANDLED EACH CASE MORE FAIRLY, AND THAT THERE WAS LITTLE TEMPTATION TO MIX THE PROBATION AND THE INTAKE FUNCTIONS. IN THE TWO WITH COUNSEL AVAILABLE, DISCRIMINATION BY RACE AND SEX DISAPPEARED. HOWEVER, DISCRIMINATORY HANDLING WAS FOUND IN BOTH THE INFORMAL AND THE FORMAL COURTS WHEN SUCH COUNSEL WAS NOT AVAILABLE. ADJUDICATION ALSO SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES RELATED TO COURT STRUCTURE. AGAIN, AVAILABLE LEGAL COUNSEL RESULTED IN LESS DISCRIMINATORY HANDLING. THE STUDY CALLS THE PROCESSING OF STATUS OFFENDERS THE LEAST SATISFACTORY PART OF THESE FINDINGS. REGARDLESS OF COURT STRUCTURE, STATUS OFFENDERS HAD PROBLEMS SECURING DUE PROCESS. REASONS FOR THIS ARE DISCUSSED. SUGGESTIONS FOR JUVENILE COURT REFORMS CONCLUDE THE STUDY. COMPREHENSIVE TABLES PRESENT SURVEY DATA. THE STUDY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)