The analysis focused on the different kinds of court-annexed dispute resolution processes, their strengths and weaknesses, issues concerning their design and implementation, and their effectiveness. The analysis revealed that the only alternatives to civil trials that are involved in dispute resolution processes are settlement or arbitration. The reasons for using dispute resolution processes are to improve court efficiency and the quality of justice or to enhance user satisfaction. The application of alternative dispute resolution is more genuinely alternative in criminal courts. The effectiveness of dispute resolution processes is generally either negative or uncertain; the uncertainly partly results from methodological problems. Findings suggest that courts considering the use of alternative dispute resolution should proceed cautiously and consider several policy decisions. The first step should be to consider whether dispute resolution should be annexed to the court or left to private and community agencies. Figures, tables, footnotes, list of persons interviewed, and approximately 150 references