Literature surveys on misdemeanor courts, lower court management, and lower court probation services are described. Specifically, these studies demonstrate the diversity of misdemeanor courts, the lack of understanding as to how they operate, and the inapplicability of much of the research on felony courts. An underlying theme is the failure to establish policy for misdemeanor courts. The studies also suggest that court ambivalence regarding goals -- whether to process cases rapidly and informally or to ensure substantive, uniform justice through increased formalization -- hampers efforts at reform or improvement. Two quantitative research efforts include an examination of the extent and impact of defense attorney presence in misdemeanor courts nationally and an examination of sentencing practices in Columbus, Ohio. The defense attorney study could not conclusively correlate defense attorney presence to case outcome. However, the Columbus, Ohio, study found that sentences in that city were relatively severe and, as a corollary, that trials were more frequent. The research also suggested that the fines may be imposed more frequently as sentences or in larger amounts since the money is used to support court operations. Other discussions focus on a case study of a management innovation in a Minnesota misdemeanor court, the experience of a community service restitution program in a county in Washington State, a study of three local advisory boards in Washington State and Texas, and the process of planned change in two misdemeanor courts. Tables, footnotes, and references are provided in individual chapters. A chart of misdemeanor courts and survey methodology are appended. For the first volume of this report, see NCJ 77378. For separate papers, see NCJ 77380-87. (Author abstract modified)