Although several work-measurement methods have been developed for both the private and public sectors, efforts to develop and apply these methods to determine needs for nonjudicial personnel have been limited to relatively few State-funded judicial systems and locally funded trial courts. Among the work measurement methods applied to the courts are weighted caseload, Delphi, and historical data. Weighted caseload systems differentiate among various case types by applying time factors to raw caseload data. The Delphi system is used to arrive at a consensus on workload measurement by means of a series of questionnaires concerning specific issues of workload measurement. Historical data include past employee-judge ratios used as bases to set standards for the future. This method is most common. Several factors should be considered in determining which method should be used for measuring workload and determining employee-workload measures: (1) size, complexity, and diversity of the system and functions performed; (2) time available to develop and validate needs assessment formulas ; (3) staff availability and skills to develop the system, monitor, and update it; (4) kind and degree of documentation required by the funding agency; and (5) purpose for which the measures will be used. Three of the most common drawbacks to the development and implementation of workload-measurement systems are lack of data, judicial and staff resistance, and funding-body nonacceptance. Planning and forecasting, in conjunction with a workload-measurement system, provide the data necessary for the courts to prepare fiscal impact statements and provide input for the programs and plans of other agencies that may affect the operations of the court. Finally, planning, forecasting, and workload-measurement systems provide a basis for cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. The applicability of workload-measurement systems can be applied to various budgeting systems also. The monograph includes tables, charts, footnotes, and an annotated bibliography of approximately 86 references. A glossary and a list of the council of State court representatives are provided.