THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT REQUIRES THAT FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES EITHER BE PROCESSED WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED TIME FRAME OF 100 DAYS OR BE DISMISSED. THE ACT PROVIDES A 4-YEAR PHASE-IN PERIOD DURING WHICH SPECIFIC STEPS WERE TO BECOME GRADUALLY EFFECTIVE. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS DID NOT DEVELOP SUFFICIENT DATA TO IDENTIFY THE REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS. DURING THE PHASE-IN PERIOD, THE COURTS RELIED ON LIMITED DATA AND SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS OF COURT OFFICIALS, JUDGES, AND U.S. ATTORNEYS RATHER THAN ON A SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF EMPIRICAL TIME FRAMES. AS A RESULT, LIMITED EVIDENCE EXISTS FOR EITHER SUGGESTING PROCEDURAL OR LEGISLATIVE TIME FRAME CHANGES. IN JULY OF 1979, THE ACT WILL PERMANENTLY ESTABLISH A 100-DAY ARREST-TO-TRIAL TIME FOR DISPOSITION, AND MANY U.S. ATTORNEYS AND DISTRICT JUDGES ANTICIPATE THAT UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES DEFENDANTS WILL BE PROCESSED WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME, BUT THEY BELIEVE TRADE-OFFS WILL RESULT THAT COULD DECREASE THE SYSTEM'S ABILITY TO PROMOTE JUSTICE. GAO RECOMMENDS THAT ALTERNATIVES BE DEVISED WHICH ALLOW THE JUDICIARY AND CONGRESS TO DECIDE HOW THE COURTS CAN FULLY COMPLY WITH THE ACT AND MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IT RECOMMENDS DEVELOPMENT OF DATA ON A REPRESENTATIVE BASIS BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE U.S. IN COOPERATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS AND THE JUDICIAL COUNCILS TO SHOW CLEARLY WHY CASES ARE NOT BEING PROCESSED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, ASSESSMENT OF THE CAUSE, SEVERITY, AND IMPACT OF THE PROBLEMS TO FORMULATE RULE CHANGES, QUANTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEMS AND IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL, AND PERIODICAL REPORTING TO CONGRESS OF PROBLEMS WITH THE ACT AND IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--DAG)