The study focused on diversion programs and on deinstitutionalization of status offenders. Officials were interviewed in urban Maricopa County, and rural Coconino County. Maricopa County maintains a highly complex juvenile court system, while Coconino County is representative of the State's rural counties. The two counties have basic similarities as well as some differences with respect to their systems' operations. Problems in administration include confusion regarding authority for placing preadjudicatory juveniles in foster homes, determination of indigency, and filing of incorrigibility petitions. Problems in the interpretation of the codified system concern probation conditions, holding of peititons during periods of conditional release, and delays in dispositions. The Arizona system also lacks standards similar to the proposed national standards in the areas of handling status offenders outside the juvenile court system, due process, rapid detention hearings, and prompt court procedures. It is recommended that defense counsel be appointed before the detention hearing, that incorrigibles be detained separately from delinquents, that review of detention decisions be legally required, and that restrictive time limits be set for all stages in the handling of juvenile cases. Summaries of basic provisions of the Arizona juvenile code and footnotes are included. For related case studies, see NCJ 72413-14 and 72416.