Although the granting of new judgeships historically has been a political matter, officials have become more interested in methodologies for evaluating judicial needs because of pressures for court reform and fiscal conservatism. Based on interviews with court administrators conducted in 1981, this monograph first classifies the 50 States according to whether they have established standards for determining the need for judgeships and then reviews the various standards used. This survey indicated that the majority have not formulated standards and that most of the 14 States with standards used multiple measures. The following methodologies are described with comments and examples: population measures; caseload measures; combined measures -- caseload, population, and other variables such as disposition rate and geographic size; and weighted caseload formulas. The last method assigns different weights according to the amount of judicial time required to dispose of various types of court cases and appears to be the most accurate technique to date for estimating judgeship needs. Disadvantages include the high cost and a tendency to average out small but possibly important differences among individual courts. Since there is no one superior or popular method for all courts, each system must choose the approach that best fits its own situation. Environmental factors that should be considered in this decision are the political climate, requirements of the funding body, court structure, manpower and financial resources, and the status of the existing caseload information system. Maps, notes, and tables are provided. The appendixes contain materials from judicial manpower studies conducted in California, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, and Georgia.