MacCoun, R. J. (1991). Unintended consequences of court-annexed arbitration: A cautionary tale from New Jersey. Justice System Journal, 14, 229-243.

Arbitration programs are expected to reduce delay and costs by providing a more efficient substitute for trial. But since most disputes are already resolved without adjudication, an arbitration program is likely to divert more cases from settlement than from trial. The net effect can be an increase in delay and congestion in the courts. This pattern is illustrated by a recent study of court-annexed automobile arbitration in New Jersey. Following the introduction of arbitration, there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cases settled without third-party intervention, but no reliable decrease in the trial rate, and a significant increase in filing-to-termination time for auto cases assigned to the program. Arbitration programs appear to meet a demand for fair, adjudicative third-party hearings, but in doing so, they don't always improve court efficiency.