skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 234371     Find in a Library
Title: Reducing Courts' Failure to Appear Rate: A Procedural Justice Approach, Executive Summary
Author(s): Brian H. Bornstein ; Alan J. Tomkins ; Elizabeth M. Neeley
Date Published: 2011
Page Count: 11
Sponsoring Agency: NLECTC Small, Rural, Tribal and Border Regional Ctr
United States of America
Grant Number: 2008-IJ-CX-0022
Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF 
Dataset: DATASET 1
Type: Research Paper ; Report (Summary)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper examines the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanants’ Failure-to-appear (FTA) rates.
Abstract: Failure-to-appear (FTA) is a significant problem in the nation’s courts. Misdemeanants (n = 7865) in 14 Nebraska counties were randomly assigned to one of four conditions prior to their court date: no reminder (control), reminder-only, reminder with information on the negative consequences of FTA (reminder-sanctions), or reminder with information on sanctions as well as the procedural justice benefits of appearing (reminder-combined). A subset (n = 452) was surveyed after their scheduled court date to assess their perceptions of procedural fairness and their level of trust/confidence in the courts. Reminders reduced FTA, and more substantive reminders were significantly more effective than a simple reminder. Specifically, the FTA rate was 12.6% in the control condition, 10.9% in the reminder-only condition, 8.3% in the reminder-sanctions condition, and 9.8% in the reminder-combined condition. The FTA rate was higher for some categories of misdemeanors than others, and for defendants with multiple charges (15.4% if two or more charges, versus 5.4% for one charge). The baseline FTA rate was higher for Blacks (18.7%) than for Whites (11.7%) and Hispanics (10.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant when controlling for other factors such as number of offenses and type of offense. Survey results indicated that misdemeanants’ trust/confidence assessments, as well as their perceptions of procedural justice, were related to their appearance in court. Defendants who appeared in court had higher institutional confidence and felt they had been treated more fairly by the criminal justice system (means = 3.23 and 3.52, respectively, on a 5-point scale) than non-appearers (means = 3.02 and 3.23, respectively). Institutional confidence and procedural justice were themselves highly correlated. Defendants with low trust in the courts were less likely to appear than those with higher trust when there was no reminder, but this relationship was not statistically significant when there was a reminder.
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Defendants ; Court delays ; Court procedures ; NIJ final report
Note: This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice (2008-IJ-CX-0022).
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=256328

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.