skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 98019 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Court-Annexed Arbitration in the State Trial Court System
Author(s): D R Hensler
Corporate Author: Rand Corporation
The Institute for Civil Justice
United States of America
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 15
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Rand Corporation
Santa Monica, CA 90406
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

Rand Corporation
The Institute for Civil Justice
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90406
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This statement, prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, discusses the use of court-annexed arbitration in the State trial courts and evaluates its effectiveness in Pittsburgh and California.
Abstract: Court-annexed arbitration programs may be established by State statute, by State supreme court rule, or by local court rule; such programs are neither voluntary nor binding. Cases are normally heard by private attorneys or retired judges who volunteer to serve, usually pro bono. Since the institution of the first court-annexed program in Philadelphia in 1952, 12 States have authorized such programs. All programs share certain key features but differ on others, such as arbitrators' qualifications. Research suggests that arbitration can contribute significantly to reducing court costs and delay; however, its effectiveness depends on program and implementation designs. In both California and Pittsburgh, about 60 percent of civil money suits are diverted to arbitration. In California, arbitration costs are higher (about $140 as opposed to $75 in Pittsburgh), appeal rates are higher (50 percent as opposed to 15 to 25 percent), and time to disposition is longer (9 months to more than 3 years as opposed to 3 months). The Pittsburgh program offers an efficient and essentially fair procedure for resolving civil disputes to a broad cross section of citizens, many of whom obtain some compensation from the arbitrators. The majority of the litigants interviewed were quite satisfied with the programs; winners, however, were more satisfied than losers. One table is included.
Index Term(s): Alternative dispute settlement; Arbitration; California; Pennsylvania; State courts
Note: Prepared for Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.