RESEARCHERS EXPLORED 130 INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS DURING ONSITE VISITS TO 17 JURISDICTIONS IN ARIZONA, FLORIDA, MARYLAND, ALABAMA, MISSOURI, RHODE ISLAND, OREGON, CONNECTICUT, MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, MASSACHUSETTS, WASHINGTON, AND KANSAS. THEY ALSO ANALYZED THE 235 RESPONSES TO A MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED TO 750 TRIAL COURTS AND JURISDICTIONS. THE PROGRAMS HAVE GENERALLY TAKEN ONE OF THE THREE FOLLOWING FORMS. THE FIRST INVOLVED SUBSTITUTING A NONJUDGE IN PLACE OF A JUDGE, SUCH AS USING ATTORNEYS AS MASTERS, USING LAW CLERKS TO PERFORM LEGAL RESEARCH, AND HAVING CLERK'S OFFICE PERSONNEL NOTIFY ATTORNEYS OF CHANGED SCHEDULES. THE SECOND TYPE OF PROGRAM REDUCED THE FREQUENCY OF TASKS PERFORMED BY JUDGES, SUCH AS CONSOLIDATING A NUMBER OF PRETRIAL HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY INTO A SINGLE OMNIBUS HEARING, USING PREPARED BENCH BOOKS, AND MODIFYING PROCEDURES TO ELIMINATE EXCESS CONTINUANCE REQUEST HEARINGS. THE THIRD ASSIGNEDTHE TASK PERFORMANCE AS PART OF A GENERAL TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTIVE, SUCH AS JURY MANAGEMENT, PRETRIAL RELEASE ACTIVITIES, INFORMATION SYSTEM OPERATION, AND CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT. SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS INVOLVED THE REASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES' RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE JUDGE'S BAILIFF OR SECRETARY, WHILE OTHERS REQUIRED STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND SUBSTANTIAL AND CONTINUING FUNDING FOR THEIR OPERATION. THE REPORT CONCLUDED THAT ITS FINDINGS WILL BE USEFUL TO COURT ADMINISTRATORS, CHIEF AND PRESIDING JUDGES, PLANNING AGENCIES, AND OTHERS WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS AND WHO ARE CONSIDERING EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. THE QUESTIONNAIRE, RESPONDENT COMMENTS, TABLES, SUMMARIES OF EACH STUDIED PROGRAM, AND AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 25 ITEMS ARE INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).