The three courts cover the range of alternative means of handling criminal appeals. Springfield uses case management and affirmatively monitors compliance with its scheduling orders. Sacramento has a no-argument calendar that relies on an experienced attorney staff to screen cases. Rhode Island uses a fast track procedure to identify appeals that can be resolved through abbreviated procedures. Despite variations in caseload composition, the three courts share an essential characteristic of first-level appeals courts: a high volume of relatively straightforward, routine cases and a much smaller volume of more complicated ones. Consequently, there is a striking similarity across courts in how judges and lawyers view their respective criminal caseloads. Although using different means, all three courts have achieved their delay-reduction goals. A majority of the participants surveyed in each jurisdiction believed that the quality of justice has not suffered because of delay-reduction techniques. This suggests that courts can achieve delay reduction through a number of alternative means, permitting the selection of the means best suited to particular court characteristics. Suggestions are offered for future research in this area. 13 notes.