THE FIRST STUDY ANALYZED THE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY PROFILES OF 60 MALE ADOLESCENTS AGED 14 TO 17. THE SUBJECTS, WHO HAD BEEN REFERRED BY THE COURTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION, INCLUDED DELINQUENTS AND INCORRIGIBLES (STATUS OFFENDERS) WHO HAD BEEN ASSIGNED EITHER TO A PROBATION HOME OR TO A GROUP HOME AND DELINQUENTS WHO HAD BEEN COMMITTED TO AN INSTITUTION. THE ANALYSIS REVEALS CONSIDERABLE OVERLAP BETWEEN THE PERSONALITIES OF ADJUDICATED DELINQUENTS AND INCORRIGIBLES AND REFUTES THE PREMISE THAT STATUS OFFENDERS SHOULD BE SEGREGATED FROM THEIR DELINQUENT PEERS. THE SECOND STUDY EVALUATED THE COURT HISTORIES OVER AN 18-MONTH PERIOD OF A DIFFERENT GROUP OF YOUTHS. THE HISTORIES OF STATUS OFFENDERS WERE COMPARED TO THOSE OF YOUTHS WHO INITIALLY CAME TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION FOR BURGLARY AND SHOPLIFTING. AN ANALYSIS OF 500 CASE HISTORIES COMPARED THE RATES OF AND REASONS FOR RETURN TO COURT FOR INCORRIGIBLES, JUVENILE BURGLARS, AND JUVENILE SHOPLIFTERS. STATUS OFFENDERS WERE MORE LIKELY TO RETURN TO COURT THAN WERE YOUTHS WHO FIRST CAME TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION FOR BURGLARY OR SHOPLIFTING. WHEN THEY DID RETURN TO COURT, STATUS OFFENDERS WERE JUST AS LIKELY AS DELINQUENT OFFENDERS TO RETURN FOR A DELINQUENT ACT. ONE IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS IS THAT SEPARATING THE NEEDS OF YOUTHS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR LEGAL STATUS IS ARTIFICIAL AND SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED AND THAT SEPARATING THE ADJUDICATION AND PROCESSING SYSTEMS FOR THE TWO GROUPS IS UNTENABLE. FURTHER IMPLICATIONS ARE DISCUSSED. NO TABULAR DATA ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)