ARGUMENTS CONCERNING JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION OVER STATUS OFFENDERS HAVE BEEN BASED ON POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, AND EMOTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, RATHER THAN ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. THOSE WHO DEFEND THE COURT'S ROLE SUGGEST THAT STATUS OFFENDERS HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS AND SHOW BEHAVIOR THAT IS PREDICTIVE OF A DELINQUENT CAREER. THOSE WHO CRITICIZE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION SUGGEST THAT SUCH BEHAVIOR IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT OR PREDICTIVE OF MORE SERIOUS DELINQUENT INVOLVEMENT. RESEARCH SHOWS THE NEEDS OF STATUS OFFENDERS AND DELINQUENTS TO BE SIMILAR. TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR BEHAVIOR IS DIFFERENT, SELF-REPORTED INVOLVEMENT IN DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR AND STATUS OFFENSES IS COMPARED. FINDINGS INDICATE THAT BOTH PETTY OFFENDERS AND SERIOUS OFFENDERS ENGAGE IN STATUS OFFENSES AND DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR, WITH THE LATTER COMMITTING MORE SERIOUS PROPERTY AND VIOLENT CRIMES. THUS, NO BEHAVIORALLY UNIQUE STATUS OFFENDER OR DELINQUENT EXISTS, ALTHOUGH DIFFERENCES IN THE INTENSITY OF ILLEGAL INVOLVEMENT ARE APPARENT. JURISDICTION OVER STATUS OFFENSES, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE RESTRICTED OR ABANDONED FOR BOTH STATUS OFFENSES AND LESS SERIOUS DELINQUENCY. THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE JURISDICTIONAL ABANDONMENT OF STATUS OFFENSES AND THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL PROCESSING OF PETTY AND SERIOUS JUVENILE CRIMINALS. TABULAR DATA, NOTES, AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. APPENDIXES INCLUDE DATA SETS USED IN SECONDARY ANALYSIS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF DELINQUENCY AND STATUS OFFENSE SCALES, AND TABLES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--AOP)