COURT REFORMERS HAVE TENDED TO SEE STATE FINANCING AND UNITARY BUDGETING AS THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION TO THE FISCAL DILEMMA OF LOCAL COURTS. EXAMINATION OF AVAILABLE DATA, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT INCREASES IN STATE FUNDING HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY RESISTED BY STATE LEGISLATURES AND LOCAL COURTS ALIKE. TABLES PRESENT FIGURES GATHERED BY THE CENSUS BUREAU UNDER A LEAA GRANT. THESE DATA, PRESENTING A STATE-BY-STATE SUMMARY OF JUDICIAL EXPENDITURES FUNDED BY STATE RATHER THAN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (SHOWN AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL JUDICIAL EXPENDITURES), COVER THE YEARS 1968 TO 1972 AND 1972 TO 1974. THEY SHOW THAT OVERALL STATE FUNDING INCREASED ONLY SLIGHTLY OVER THE 6-YEAR PERIOD. ONLY COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO SHIFTED MORE THAN 25 PERCENT, AND BOTH OF THESE STATES ADOPTED MAJOR COURT REFORM PROPOSALS. OF THE 10 MOST POPULOUS STATES, 9 SHOWED LITTLE CHANGE. THE GREATEST STATE FUNDING IS FOUND IN THE SMALLEST STATES. REASONS FOR OPPOSING STATE FUNDING ARE EXAMINED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT MOST COURT REFORMERS TIE STATE FUNDING TO UNITARY BUDGETING, WHICH IGNORES THE DESIRE OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR CONTROL OVER THEIR COURTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A GRANT SYSTEM, SUCH AS THAT WHICH IS USUALLY USED FOR SCHOOLS, MIGHT ENGENDER LESS OPPOSITION. SUCH A SYSTEM IS USED IN PENNSYLVANIA. ALTHOUGH IT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT FAIRNESS OF THE FORMULA, IT IS STILL MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC THAN UNITARY BUDGETING. REASONS WHY THE LOS ANGELES COURT SYSTEM HAS OPPOSED UNITARY BUDGETING AS ALSO EXAMINED. REFORMERS ARE URGED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DIVERSITY OF LOCAL COURTS AND THEIR NEEDS. FOOTNOTES CONTAIN REFERENCES. (GLR)