OF THE 22 STATES, WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY OR TOTALLY FUND THEIR COURT SYSTEMS, 20 RESPONDED TO THIS STUDY'S QUESTIONNAIRE COVERING VARIOUS COURT INFORMATION AND FUNDING QUESITONS. ALTHOUGH VARIATIONS IN FUNDING AND COURT PRACTICES PREVENT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE MODEL, SEVEN FUNDING MODELS DO EMERGE IN GENERAL, THEY INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN COURT BUDGETING AND FISCAL ADMINISTRATION, HIGHLY CENTRALIZED FISCAL ADMINISTRATION, AND RETICENCE BY COURTS TO INVOKE SEPARATION OF POWERS ON FISCAL MATTERS, PERHAPS DUE TO GOOD EXECUTIVE-COURT RELATIONS. A MAJOR CRITICISM BY COURTS IS THE LACK OF COURT PARTICIPATION IN BUDGETARY PREPARATION AND CORRESPONDING LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF COURTS' NEEDS BY STATE OFFICIALS. DETAILS OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN BUDGETING, METHODS OF ALLOCATION, AND AUDITING ARE ALSO DISCUSSED. PER CAPITA SPENDING FOR 19 OF THE STATES RETURNING THIS INFORMATION DID NOT VARY, MOST OF IT BEING SPENT FOR TRIAL COURTS. SITE VISITS TO COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, KENTUCKY, NEW MEXICO, AND SOUTH DAKOTA REVEAL A UNANIMOUS DISATISFACTION WITH THE LOW-LEVEL OF STATE FUNDING, BLAMED ON UNRESPONSIVE STATE LEGISLATURES AND INADEAUATE COURT-LEGISLATURE COMMUNICATIONS. APPENDICES INCLUDE AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY, PROFILES OF STATES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY, THE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND A LIST OF OFFICIALS INTERVIEWED DURING THE SITE VISITS. FOOTNOTES, EXTENSIVE TABULAR DATA, AND CHARTS ARE PROVIDED. (PAP)