JUDICIAL REFORMS FALL INTO THREE CATEGORIES: COURT STRUCTURE, JUDICIAL PERSONNEL, AND PROCEDURES. WITH REGARD TO PROCEDURAL CHANGES, THERE IS WIDESPREAD RECOGNITION THAT REFORM IS NEEDED IN SUCH MATTERS AS SCHEDULING, ASSIGNMENT, AND COURT REPORTING, BUT THERE IS LESS AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD REPLACE EXISTING SYSTEMS. TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF IMPROVED MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES IN THE COURTS, REFORMERS USUALLY MAKE AT LEAST TWO RECOMMENDATIONS: THE STRENGTHENING OF THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, AND THE USE OF PROFESSIONAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS IN AT LEAST THE MULTI-JUDGE TRIAL COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION. OFTEN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE COUPLED WITH A PROPOSAL FOR A STATEWIDE PERSONNEL SYSTEM, MAKING LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE RATHER THAN THE PARTICULAR JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH THEY SERVE. IN ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PROFESSIONAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS MAKE A DIFFERENCE, THE THREE ESSAYS EXPLORE THE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF COURT ADMINISTRATION TO JUDICIAL EFFECTIVENESS. THE FIRST (NCJ-48467) ARGUES THAT TRADITIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ADDING COURT ADMINISTRATORS ARE INADEQUATE. COURT PROBLEMS ARE VIEWED AS STRUCTURAL AND POLITICAL, NOT MANAGERIAL. CONSEQUENTLY, ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTIONS ARE SEEN AS INAPPROPRIATE. TWO OTHER ESSAYS (NCJ-48468 AND 48469) DISAGREE, NOTING THAT, WHILE THERE ARE LITTLE DATA ON THE IMPACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS ARE NECESSARY IF PROCEDURAL REFORMS ARE TO BE INTRODUCED AND IMPLEMENTED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)