THE STUDY ENCOMPASSED THE ENTIRE OPERATION OF EACH COURT, INCLUDING THE PROCEDURES OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE CONDUCT OF TRIALS, AND PRETRIAL AND POSTTRIAL PROCESSES. THE EXPERIENCES OF LITIGANTS USING THE COURTS WERE ALSO EXAMINED. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COURTS WAS ASSESSED IN TERMS OF ABILITY TO MOVE TOWARD THE BASIC GOALS OF THE SMALL CLAIMS PROCESS, I.E., THE PROVISION OF A FORUM FOR THE SPEEDY, INEXPENSIVE, AND FAIR RESOLUTION OF SMALL DISPUTES. IN EACH COURT STUDIED, QUESTIONNAIRES WERE SENT TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS IN A RANDOM SAMPLE OF 500 SMALL CLAIMS CASES. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM CASE RECORDS, TRIAL OBSERVATION, AND INTERVIEWS WITH JUDGES, COURT CLERKS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL. FOR MOST LITIGANTS, THE COURTS PROVIDED SPEEDY, INEXPENSIVE, AND EVENHANDED RESOLUTION. MANY LITIGANTS WERE ABLE TO USE THE COURTS SUCCESSFULLY WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, AND LITIGANTS FARED EQUALLY WELL REGARDLESS OF INCOME, EDUCATION, OR RACE. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES WERE REVEALED: THE COURTS TENDED TO IGNORE DEFENDANTS; LITIGATION WAS NOT INEXPENSIVE FOR LITIGANTS WHO LOST WAGES OR WHO HIRED AN ATTORNEY; MANY LITIGANTS HAD TROUBLE LEARNING THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND PREPARING FOR THE TRIAL; AND THE COURTS ARE NOT BEING USED EXTENSIVELY BY CONSUMER PLAINTIFFS. REMEDIES FOR THE DEFICIENCIES ARE SUGGESTED. THE COURTS STUDIED ARE BRIDGEPORT, CONN.; NEW YORK (HARLEM AND MANHATTAN), N.Y.; WASHINGTON, D.C.; GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.; MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.; DES MOINES, IOWA; OMAHA, NEBR.; SIOUX FALLS, S.DAK.; OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.; DALLAS TEX.; CHEYENNE, WYO.; SPOKANE, WASH.; EUGENE, OREG.; AND SACRAMENTO, CALIF. TABULAR DATA ARE NOT INCLUDED.