U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Budgeting for Court Management

NCJ Number
81431
Journal
State Court Journal Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1982) Pages: 16-22
Author(s)
D E Hardenbergh; S Shostak
Date Published
1982
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This paper describes the National Center for State Courts' examination of the financial and budgeting practices in four western Pennsylvania trial courts and its development of a methodology for identifying program and case costs.
Abstract
The courts -- Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, and Westmoreland Counties -- are 4 of Pennsylvania's 59 courts of common pleas. The project team identified annual operating costs for the courts (those costs that related directly to the daily operation of the courts and case processing). Expenditures were then divided into 11 categories representing the major expenditure items (i.e., juror costs, facilities, salaries and wages, etc.). The data show a great range in the size of court staff and money spent by the four courts. Once all expenditures were identified in each county, they were allocated to five areas: administration, civil, criminal, family, and orphans. Findings indicate that the family program area had the largest complement of personnel in all but Allegheny County, where the criminal area was the largest. Allegheny and Beaver Counties spent the most on the criminal area, and both Butler and Westmoreland spent the greatest amount on the family program. The percentage of court resources devoted to administration and orphans division combined was consistent, ranging between 14 and 16 percent in each county. These costs fall short of the types of financial information needed to make management decisions. Therefore, the project team recommended as a next step the development of subprogram, or functional, cost categories. Overall, to gain greater control over their financial operations, trial courts need to redo their own budgets in the suggested format, urge court-affiliated agencies to adapt their budgets to the same format, and develop performance and workload measures that can be related to program and subprogram costs. Notes and tables are included. A list of offices included in the court costs and an explanation of each item are appended.