BUDGETING FOR NEW YORK COURTS IN THE PAST WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF 172 SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, AND COURT OPERATIONS WERE FUNDED BY COUNTIES AND CITIES. A CONSTITUTIONAL ADMENDMENT PASSED IN 1976 GAVE THE STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION PERMANENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARING A SINGLE BUDGET FOR THE STATE'S COURT SYSTEM. THE FIRST UNIFIED BUDGET WAS PRODUCED FOR 1977-78. BY 1980, THE STATE WILL HAVE ASSUMED THE FULL COSTS OF COURT OPERATIONS. THE APPROACH TAKEN TO CENTRALIZING THE BUDGETING PROCESS INVOLVED EFFORTS TO RESOLVE BUDGETING AND POLICY ISSUES, SOME OF WHICH REMAINED AFTER THE BASIC UNIFIED BUDGET PROCESS WAS SUCCESSFULLY INTRODUCED. SUCH ISSUES INCLUDE THE 1,200 TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS THAT WERE OMITTED FROM THE CENTRAL BUDGETING AND FINANCING STRUCTURE DUE TO A LACK OF DATA ON THEIR OPERATIONS; AND THE NEED FOR GREATER LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE COURTS' FISCAL AFFAIRS, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE STATE JUDICIAL BUDGET HAS TREBLED SINCE FINANCING WAS CENTRALIZED. NEW YORK MOVED AWAY FROM LINE-ITEM BUDGETS, WHICH MERELY LISTED PERSONS TO BE EMPLOYED AND RESOURCES TO BE CONSUMED, TO PURPOSE BUDGETS, WHICH RELATE THESE ITEMS TO THE RESULTS THE COURT ADMINISTRATION AGENCY INTENDS TO PRODUCE. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND METHODS USED IN CALCULATING FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH COURT OPERATIONS ARE DESCRIBED. THE POSSIBILITY IS RAISED THAT A FORMAT FOR ASSESSING COURT EFFECTIVENESS MIGHT BE FASHIONED BY COMBINING ACCOUNTING TOOLS USED TO CALCULATE OPERATING COSTS, SURVEYS AND OBSERVER EVALUATIONS USED TO ASSESS SOCIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS, AND WORKLOAD INDICATORS USED IN PERFORMANCE REVIEW SYSTEMS. ISSUES SURROUNDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR IMPOSING FEES ON CIVIL LITIGANTS INCLUDE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT A RISE IN FEES UNACCOMPANIED BY IMPROVEMENTS IN COURT SERVICES WOULD CAUSE MANY POTENTIAL LITIGANTS TO TURN TO PRIVATE ARBITRATION SERVICES, THEREBY REDUCING BOTH COURT USE AND STATE REVENUES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT BUDGET, AS IT IS EMERGING IN NEW YORK, CAN BE USED TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF COURT DELAYS, BURGEONING COSTS, INEFFICIENT USE AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES, AND EXCESSIVELY IMPERSONAL JUSTICE. (LKM)