NCJ Number
85283
Journal
Justice System Journal Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring 1982) Pages: 6-12
Date Published
1982
Length
7 pages
Annotation
The trend toward State-level funding for courts as opposed to the traditional State-county-local structure requires new approaches to court fiscal management that respond to pressures for accountability and cost-effectiveness.
Abstract
The consequent trend toward State funding generally has been positive since competing needs can be assessed and resources allocated more effectively at the State level. Only State auditing personnel can determine if the funding's purposes are being achieved, and State standards improve local fiscal practices. On the other hand, State financing causes costs borne directly by the court to rise disproportionately as many expenses are identified separately for the first time and has not improved the system's performance in terms of case processing or access. Some legal professionals have mentioned used fees as a potential revenue source for courts, while others, have been concerned with the potential impact of Federal wage controls on State judicial salaries. State and local court administrators should look to the experiences of other jurisdictions to cope with shift to State financing. Examples are New Hampshire's innovative reforms of its court's fiscal structure and the financing of England's magistrates courts. A well-functioning management system resulting from State financing is prerequisite to evaluating the courts' performance. The courts' involvement in fiscal matters has also altered relationships among the branches of government and within the court structure so that the judiciary are no longer isolated from legislative realities. The paper provides 20 references.