The five papers draw on the same data but are intended for different audiences. The first paper studies three alternatives for handling criminal appeals at State courts with mandatory jurisdiction. The Illinois Appellate Court Fourth District in Springfield uses case management procedures and monitors compliance with scheduling orders. Case management procedures attempt to reduce processing time by setting and enforcing realistic and achievable timeframes for the appeal. The California Court of Appeal Third District in Sacramento uses a no-argument calendar that relies on a staff of experienced attorneys to screen cases. The effect of no-argument calendars is to reduce the time judges spend on nonargued appeals. The Rhode Island Supreme Court uses a fast track procedure to identify appeals that can be resolved through abbreviated procedures, thus permitting the court to direct its resources to cases requiring full appellate treatment. The remaining four papers focus on (1) caseload composition and the ways in which the different appeals procedures affect case processing times in each court; (2) linking incentives to appellate court reform; (3) how judges, government attorneys, and counsel in each of the jurisdictions studied view the administration of justice in criminal appeals; and (4) how the views of judges, government attorneys, and counsel compare in terms of the organization of the criminal appeals process. 56 footnotes.