Abstract:This article summarizes the findings of an empirical study of arbitration in Arizona's general jurisdiction civil trial courts. The study found that the arbitration program's primary goals of providing faster and less expensive resolution of cases, reducing the court's workload, and maintaining or enhancing the satisfaction of users, were not entirely being met. Arbitration cases often did not meet court case processing time standards. Cases that had an arbitration hearing appeared more likely to have been diverted from settlement than from trial. The findings, which were consistent with studies in other jurisdictions, suggest that court-connected arbitration does not have negative consequences, but also does not consistently or substantially improve the effectiveness and efficiency of dispute resolution.