The data were collected through a mail and telephone survey of court personnel in a saturated sample of 150 metropolitan juvenile courts. The typology includes 12 clusters. Cluster 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all characterized by the inclusion of status offenders in their jurisdiction, centralization of authority, and lack of formalization. Clusters 5 and 6 do not have status offense cases within their jurisdiction. They do have intake involved in prescreening of cases, but in cluster 5 the prosecutor is also involved in the decision to file a formal petition. Clusters 7, 8, and 9 are all decentralized systems, the court does not administer probation, and the prosecutor is involved in the decision to file a petition. Cluster 7 and 8 have a double prescreening process, the noncourt probation or intake has the discretion to handle a case informally, and the prosecutor must make the final decision to file. Cluster 9, the closest to a felony justice model, does not have jurisdiction over status offenders. Cluster 10 is similar to cluster 9 except that the court maintains control of probation, even though the prosecutor is involved in prescreening. Clusters 11 and 12 have separated probation from the executive control of the court, but they do not share the screening function with the prosecutor. Implications for future comparative studies are noted. Tables and about 45 references are provided. An appendix identifies courts by cluster number.