The volume also provides information for judges who design and refer cases to dispute resolution programs, for attorneys and clients who are experiencing choices and requirements in the Federal district courts, and for policy makers who study programs and make recommendations for the future. Information came from a 2-year study of ADR and settlement practices, including a survey of the courts and an analysis of their rules. Results revealed that mediation has emerged as the main ADR process in the Federal district courts; more than half of the 94 districts now offer and sometimes require mediation. Most mediation is administered wholly by the courts; a few districts provide mediation through referral to bar groups or private ADR provider organizations. Arbitration is the second most frequently authorized ADR program. The use of early neutral evaluation has increased from 2 courts 5 years ago to 14 courts now. Three courts offer a settlement week and two courts offer case valuation. Just over half the courts report authorization or the use of the summary jury trial. Most ADR programs have been implemented since 1990. The analysis also focused on the numbers of cases, the referral systems, ADR obligations of attorneys and litigants, the timing of the ADR session, the role of attorney-neutrals and court rosters, and fees. Descriptions of programs in each district, tables, and footnotes