HISTORICALLY, A WIDE RANGE OF STANDARDS AND METHODS HAS BEEN USED TO DETERMINE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING POPULATION AND NUMBER OF ACTUAL/FUTURE FILINGS OR DISPOSITIONS. THE USE OF RATIOS OF JUDGES TO POPULATION HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE POPULAR TECHNIQUES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO RELIABLE METHOD TO PREDICT THE KIND AND EXACT NUMBER OF CASES THAT WILL RESULT FROM A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN POPULATION. ANOTHER ASSESSMENT SYSTEM COMBINES POPULATION WITH CASE FILING/DISPOSITION CRITERIA. DIFFERENT METHODS USED NATIONALLY ARE SKETCHED, AND SOME OF THE MORE NOTABLE CASE WEIGHT APPROACHES (THOSE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM) ARE DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL. ALTHOUGH SUCCESSFUL IN ITS USE OF TIME STUDIES TO FIND THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TIME NEEDED TO PROCESS A CASE TO DISPOSITION, THE CALIFORNIA SYSTEM DEPENDS ON A HIGHLY COMPLEX, RELIABLE STATISTICAL GATHERING NETWORK. FEDERAL COURT EXPERIMENTS WITH CASE WEIGHTS USED A MEASURE CALLED 'WEIGHTED CASELOAD INDEX'; A STUDY OF THE SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED NUMEROUS STATISTICAL AND INTERPRETIVE PROBLEMS. SOME CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CASE WEIGHT APPROACH AND THE USES OF SUCH AN APPROACH ON A STATE/LOCAL LEVEL ARE INCLUDED. THE METHODS USED IN PENNSYLVANIA PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF CASE WEIGHTS ARE REVIEWED. THE METHODOLOGY, SIGNIFICANCE, AND RESULTS OF THE DELPHI SURVEY APPROACH, DEVELOPED IN 1964 BY THE RAND CORPORATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TIME AND MOTION STUDIES OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, ARE DISCRIBED. IT USES A QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERED BY THE JUDGE TO ASSESS TIME SPENT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVITY, INCLUDING TIME ON BENCH, IN CHAMBER, AND IN RESEARCH AND OPINION WRITING. IT ALSO CONSIDERS THE VARIANCES IN TIME FOR CASES OF A GIVEN TYPE. BY SUCCESSIVELY INTERROGATING INDIVIDUAL EXPERTS THROUGH QUESTIONNAIRES AND SUBSEQUENT FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS, THE METHOD IS A POWERFUL TOOL FOR GENERATING CONSENSUS; MEDIAN OPINIONS CONTINUE TO APPROXIMATE TRUTH/REALITY IN CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS. A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF 24 OUT OF 285 (8.4 PERCENT) OF PLEA JUDGES IN PENNSYLVANIA WAS SENT QUESTIONNAIRES, OF WHICH 18 (75 PERCENT) WERE COMPLETED AND RETURNED. DATA WERE TABULATED AND COMPARED STATEWIDE. THE DELPHI METHOD WAS SHOWN TO BE RELIABLE IN ESTABLISHING CASE WEIGHTS FOR SPECIFIC CLASSES OF DISPOSITIONS. APPENDED MATERIALS INCLUDE A STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DELPHI METHOD AND OTHER CASE WEIGHT METHODS; THE QUESTIONNAIRE, EXPLANATION, AND COVER LETTER; RESULTS OF THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES; EXPLANATION OF THE DELPHI WEIGHTS; AND THE WEIGHTED 1976 CASELOAD OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS. (DJM)