Download eBook for Free
|PDF file||1 MB||Best for desktop computers.
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
|ePub file||2.4 MB||Best for mobile devices.
On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view ePub files. Calibre is an example of a free and open source e-book library management application.
|mobi file||1.9 MB||Best for Kindle 1-3.
On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view mobi files. Amazon Kindle is the most popular reader for mobi files.
- How are court systems financed in different states?
- How is state-level funding obtained?
- What is considered part of different state court systems?
- Can systems carry unused funding forward to subsequent years?
- How specific are appropriations?
- How do systems allocate and manage funds?
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.
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.
- States' ability to adopt different structures and policies represents an opportunity for comparative research on what approaches work and when.
Table of Contents
Introduction: Why Study State Judicial Funding?
State Court System Financing and Accounting Show Significant Variations
State Court Governance: Autonomy and Flexibility Can Mitigate the Effects of Fiscal Crises
Conclusions and Going Forward