Court date reminders reduce court nonappearance: A meta-analysis

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Samantha A. Zottola, William E. Crozier, Deniz Ariturk, Sarah L. Desmarais
{"title":"Court date reminders reduce court nonappearance: A meta-analysis","authors":"Samantha A. Zottola,&nbsp;William E. Crozier,&nbsp;Deniz Ariturk,&nbsp;Sarah L. Desmarais","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research summary</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined whether providing people with a postcard, phone call, or text message reminder of their court date reduces their likelihood of failing to appear in court. We included 12 studies (<i>N</i> = 79,255) that compared court appearance rates between groups of people who received a reminder to groups who did not receive a reminder. Results showed that reminders significantly reduce the odds of failure to appear in court. Further, charge type moderated reminder effectiveness; court reminders had a slightly larger effect in studies that did not include people with felony charges. However, the difference in effect size as a function of charge type was small and reminders significantly reduced the odds of failure to appear in both studies that did and did not include people with felony charges. In contrast, there was no evidence that retaining people who could not be contacted in a reminder treatment group (versus excluding them from the study or intentionally assigning them to the nonreminded control group) moderated reminder effectiveness. Finally, a narrative synthesis of studies revealed that studies using more rigorous designs generally produced smaller effects compared to studies with less rigorous designs and that effects did not differ systematically as a function of reminder formats (e.g., postcard, phone call) or frequencies (e.g., one reminder or multiple).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Court date reminders effectively reduce failures to appear across studies, so they are an inexpensive tool for jurisdictions seeking to implement pretrial reform efforts. However, reminders offer only a modest reduction in failures to appear because they only address failures to appear that result from missing or forgetting information. Thus, reminders are not a panacea to court nonappearance. Jurisdictions should consider other programs and interventions as well. Courts could address low-barrier nonappearances with reminders and then efficiently focus more involved resources to help more people get to court.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"22 1","pages":"97-123"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12610","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Research summary

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined whether providing people with a postcard, phone call, or text message reminder of their court date reduces their likelihood of failing to appear in court. We included 12 studies (N = 79,255) that compared court appearance rates between groups of people who received a reminder to groups who did not receive a reminder. Results showed that reminders significantly reduce the odds of failure to appear in court. Further, charge type moderated reminder effectiveness; court reminders had a slightly larger effect in studies that did not include people with felony charges. However, the difference in effect size as a function of charge type was small and reminders significantly reduced the odds of failure to appear in both studies that did and did not include people with felony charges. In contrast, there was no evidence that retaining people who could not be contacted in a reminder treatment group (versus excluding them from the study or intentionally assigning them to the nonreminded control group) moderated reminder effectiveness. Finally, a narrative synthesis of studies revealed that studies using more rigorous designs generally produced smaller effects compared to studies with less rigorous designs and that effects did not differ systematically as a function of reminder formats (e.g., postcard, phone call) or frequencies (e.g., one reminder or multiple).

Policy implications

Court date reminders effectively reduce failures to appear across studies, so they are an inexpensive tool for jurisdictions seeking to implement pretrial reform efforts. However, reminders offer only a modest reduction in failures to appear because they only address failures to appear that result from missing or forgetting information. Thus, reminders are not a panacea to court nonappearance. Jurisdictions should consider other programs and interventions as well. Courts could address low-barrier nonappearances with reminders and then efficiently focus more involved resources to help more people get to court.

法院日期提醒减少不出庭:一项荟萃分析
研究摘要我们对研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,研究了向人们提供明信片、电话或短信提醒他们出庭日期是否会降低他们无法出庭的可能性。我们纳入了12项研究(N=79255),比较了收到提醒的人群和没有收到提醒的群体的出庭率。结果显示,催告大大降低了不出庭的几率。此外,收费型适度提醒有效性;在不包括重罪指控者的研究中,法庭提醒的效果稍大。然而,作为指控类型的函数,效果大小的差异很小,提醒显著降低了在两项研究中失败的几率,这两项研究都包括和不包括重罪指控的人。相反,没有证据表明,将无法联系的人保留在提醒治疗组中(与将他们排除在研究之外或故意将他们分配到无意识对照组相比)会降低提醒的有效性。最后,研究的叙述性综合显示,与设计不太严格的研究相比,使用更严格设计的研究通常产生较小的效果,并且效果没有系统地因提醒格式(如明信片、电话)或频率(如一个或多个提醒)而不同。政策影响法院日期提醒有效地减少了研究中未能出庭的情况,因此对于寻求实施审前改革的司法管辖区来说,它们是一种廉价的工具。然而,提醒只能适度减少出现故障的次数,因为它们只解决由于信息丢失或遗忘而导致的出现故障。因此,催告并不是不出庭的灵丹妙药。司法管辖区也应考虑其他方案和干预措施。法院可以通过提醒来解决低门槛的不出庭问题,然后有效地集中更多的相关资源,帮助更多的人上法庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信