RAND Corporation researchers surveyed experts from five states that use a variety of approaches to funding state court systems to assess financing, accounting, and governance issues under various systems.

Who Pays for Justice?

Perspectives on State Court System Financing and Governance

Geoffrey McGovern, Michael D. Greenberg

ResearchPublished Apr 30, 2014

Cover: Who Pays for Justice?
Download PDF
Additional Downloads

Includes other ebook formats

Many state judicial systems experienced significant cuts to their operating budgets following the 2008 financial crisis and during the ensuing years of reduced state treasuries. Researchers surveyed experts from five states that use a variety of approaches to funding state court systems. The report documents that there is ample variation across the states in terms of how their court systems receive their annual funding, how they account for and track their budgets, and how the court systems are governed. An appreciation of these dimensions of difference is crucial for policymakers, court administrators, and those concerned about ensuring high levels of access to justice through the state courts and the long-term stability of the courts as an institution of government.

Key Findings

State and County Revenue Streams Vary Widely

  • Most of the states examined fell somewhere between the extremes of state- and county-level funding for trial court systems.

Funded Services Vary Between State Courts

  • Even trying to put labels on what is included in the state court system within a given state can become ambiguous and complicated.

How State Courts Spend Fee Revenue Varies Significantly

  • A significant financing distinction separates states that permit their court systems to retain control over some portion of court-generated fee revenue from states that do not.

State Court Systems Vary in Their Flexibility to Carry Forward Resources or Revenue

  • When the state court systems recognize revenue and their degree of flexibility in being able to draw on or bank funds can affect a system's agility given revenue volatility and create challenges in meeting cash-flow needs.

Line Items and Fund Allocation Vary Between Systems

  • Some state legislatures provide for many more court system funding line items than others do — a state practice that can thereby reduce a court system's flexibility and autonomy in determining how to allocate appropriated funds.

Disclosure Differs Greatly Between Systems

  • The details of what accounting information gets formally disclosed in the annual report and how this corresponds to the more detailed accounting that is undertaken in the operational management of the court system varies from state to state.

Governance Models Vary Significantly

  • Line items and earmarks for special legislative priorities can frustrate attempts at efficient management of resources and slow the reaction time when funding shortages appear.

Recommendation

  • States' ability to adopt different structures and policies represents an opportunity for comparative research on what approaches work and when.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web-Only
  • Year: 2014
  • Pages: 71
  • Document Number: RR-486-ICJ

Citation

RAND Style Manual
McGovern, Geoffrey and Michael D. Greenberg, Who Pays for Justice? Perspectives on State Court System Financing and Governance, RAND Corporation, RR-486-ICJ, 2014. As of September 23, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR486.html
Chicago Manual of Style
McGovern, Geoffrey and Michael D. Greenberg, Who Pays for Justice? Perspectives on State Court System Financing and Governance. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2014. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR486.html.
BibTeX RIS

The research described in this report was supported by pooled contributions to the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, a program of RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.