skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 223973 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Adequate, Stable, Equitable, and Responsible Trial Court Funding: Reframing the State vs. Local Debate
Author(s): Alan Carlson; Kate Harrison; John K. Hudzik
Corporate Author: Justice Management Institute
United States of America
Date Published: April 2008
Page Count: 155
Sponsoring Agency: Justice Management Institute
Denver, CO 80203
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Rockville, MD 20849
Grant Number: 2003-IJ-CX-1026
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Case Study; Report (Study/Research)
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report presents case studies of how three States fund their trial courts and their funding mechanisms’ impacts on the adequacy and stability of funding, the equity of funding across trial courts in a State, and accountability for the fiscal management of trial courts.
Abstract: Two of the States (Florida and New Jersey) had recently shifted to primary State funding, and the trial courts in the third State (Washington State) were primarily locally funded. The study concluded that there was no clear overall advantage to either primary State funding or primary local funding based on the criteria of adequacy, stability, equity, and accountability: however, locally funded courts often complained about insufficient funding, but greater State funding apparently did not produce significantly more funding. Primary State funding provided an opportunity to equalize funding across trial courts. The experiences of the two States with primary State funding suggest that judiciaries under this funding mechanism developed more of a statewide perspective of the operation of the judiciary and the services it provided. Primary State funding also heightened the visibility of spending on the judiciary and encouraged greater accountability. Neither State nor local revenue sources apparently provided more stable or predictable funding for courts. More complete information about actual expenditures did not necessarily mean that spending was more cost-effective, was used for the most critical needs, or provided a higher quality of justice. Neither mechanism of primary court funding necessarily produced better management. Data sources included information collected through site visits, interviews, focus groups, and review of laws and reports. Information was obtained from representatives of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches at the State and local levels in each State. 4 tables, 26 references, and appended research design and methodology, demographic characteristics of the three States, and a discussion chart for the context of State trial court functions for funding in Washington State
Main Term(s): State court funding
Index Term(s): Comparative analysis; Court research; Florida; New Jersey; NIJ final report; State courts; Washington
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.