Risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification instruments, broadly defined as structured decision making (SDM), are being increasingly employed in the juvenile justice system as a means to rationalize the decision-making process. While there have been a number of studies regarding the use of SDM in juvenile justice and child welfare, few have examined the attitudes of court professionals toward SDM. This type of research is important because it can help to understand the fit between the technology being employed and the perceptions of professionals toward this technology. Using data from a twelve-court (4-state) study of decision making in juvenile courts, this paper examines both attitudes toward and the use of SDM by juvenile justice professionals. The paper uses both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data include semi-structured in-depth interviews with key state and local officials concerning SDM usage and the barriers to SDM use in their courts. Quantitative data come from a survey (N = 665) of court professionals that included questions concerning SDM and juvenile justice administration. These data were used to assess the extent to which SDM is used in these courts and to examine the value and usefulness that court professionals attach to SDM. Analysis of variance was used with the quantitative data to identify differences across variables of interest including type of court professional and court size. Qualitative data were used to explain, clarify, and extend quantitative findings. Key findings indicate that some form of SDM was used by 64% of probation officers and judges in these courts. Risk assessment was the type of SDM used most often and probation officers were more likely to use SDM than judges. Among those court professionals who reported using SDM, 69% reported using it in more than 50% of their cases. While court professionals generally felt that there were good reasons for using SDM (i.e., sending fewer youths to secure placements), they also felt that SDM had not helped to meet these goals. Overall, court professionals found SDM to be only somewhat valuable in decision making, with needs assessment identified as most valuable and risk assessment as least valuable. Judges were more likely than probation officers to find SDM valuable and court professionals in small or medium courts were more likely than professionals in large courts to find SDM valuable. Court professionals who used SDM more frequently were more likely to find it valuable and useful at different decision-making points. Court professionals also revealed a number of constraints that affected implementing the recommendations of SDM instruments (i.e., lack of suitable options or conflict between recommendations and the judgment of court professionals). Implications of this research include the need to develop SDM technologies that better fit intended goals, the need for better training, and more monitoring/supervision of SDM use. In addition, there is a need to eliminate barriers to SDM use such as the lack of suitable options or legislative mandates that override the recommendations of SDM instruments.