Addressing Court No-Shows Effectively

Missed court dates often evoke assumptions of evasion or defiance. But for many, the cause is far more mundane and the solutions quite simple.

Millions of people fail to appear (FTA) for a scheduled court date every year. Most FTAs involve low-level charges and are not willful attempts to evade the law; rather, they typically result from unavoidable barriers or forgetfulness. A one-size-fits-all response leads to poor outcomes and strains court resources. To better understand the issue and develop effective responses, more consistent and standardized data collection is essential. In the meantime, the reality remains that while FTAs harm defendants, victims, courts, and communities, practical solutions can reduce them.

What is an FTA? It depends.

There is no standard definition of a missed court date across jurisdictions. Some states, including Mississippi and South Dakota, count any time a person is not in court at the scheduled time, even if they appear later that day. Others, such as Georgia, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, allow a grace period or excuse the absence if the person appears within a set number of days. Some go further by distinguishing between intentional flight (when someone deliberately avoids prosecution) and simple missed appearances.

The way FTAs are counted adds even more complexity. Rates can be measured per case, per defendant, or per occurrence. A single defendant with multiple cases—or several missed dates within one case—can inflate the numbers depending on the method used. Each approach has its rationale, but without consistent standards or clear methods, FTA rates cannot be properly evaluated or reliably compared.

Who is mostly likely not to appear?

Not every missed appearance is the same. Research shows many people miss court due to real-life obstacles or simple forgetfulness. Someone might forget to show up in court because they lack stability and/or a way to track the date. For example, homeless individuals are often arrested for an FTA—unsurprising, given they likely do not own a phone, much less a calendar. Others may lack transportation, child care, or a job that allows time off. Missing a day’s work could mean missing rent or even being fired. While it does not excuse missing court, these consequences can compound legal issues and further destabilize already vulnerable individuals.

It is defendants facing nonviolent or minor offenses like traffic or low-level misdemeanors who most often fail to appear. A North Carolina study revealed that 82 percent of FTAs statewide were for traffic misdemeanors. While dated, other studies show that citations and summonses generate a disproportionately high volume of FTAs compared to formal arrests. This may stem from confusing or unclear paperwork that is hard to read or full of legal jargon, leaving people unsure of when or where to appear.

Among those arrested, the strongest predictor of court nonappearance is a history of prior FTAs and a criminal history. Studies show that when cash bail is imposed, money does little to ensure court attendance. Many defendants pay nonrefundable fees to bail bond agents but face no additional financial risk if they miss court. The penalty is paid up front in these cases, thereby removing any potential added incentive to appear.

What happens when someone misses court?

Responses to an FTA vary by jurisdiction. Some issue a bench warrant, others a new summons. Yet others may suspend a driver’s license or file additional charges. In North Carolina, more than 800,000 driver’s licenses were suspended in 2018 due to a missed court appearance. That same year in Michigan, FTA arrests outnumbered any single criminal offense. And in New Mexico, FTA warrants accounted for 61 percent of all warrants issued.

FTAs also delay accountability and disrupt the process meant to deliver timely and fair resolution, extending their impact far beyond the defendant alone. Victims may be left in limbo, and the public may fear that repeat offenders are free to commit new crimes. The delay in accountability can also weaken deterrence and erode trust in the justice system.

Missed court dates are also a drain on resources. Prosecutors and defenders prepare and appear for court only to have the hearing delayed. Already short-staffed offices lose time they cannot afford. Bench warrants then require police to locate the person or wait for another law enforcement encounter. Thus, preventable FTAs divert attention from individuals who are purposely avoiding accountability.

What do statewide FTA rates look like?

As noted previously, data on FTAs is limited and highly variable depending on local court practices, definitions, and collection methods. The following table uses findings from several studies to illustrate the wide range and collection of FTA rates.

What are some practical solutions?

Jurisdictions should first establish clear definitions and consistent tracking methods to support more effective solutions and evaluation. The next priority should be preventing avoidable nonappearances, with punitive actions reserved for repeat or high-risk defendants. Some practical solutions include:

• Adopting opt-out reminder systems that use text, phone, and email to notify defendants of upcoming court dates. A 2020 report from the National Center for State Courts found that reminders—especially text-based, opt-out systems—can cut FTA rates by 10 to 60 percent. That suggests many people simply need a nudge, not a warrant. In Colorado, courts automatically enroll all defendants in reminder systems unless they opt out, raising appearance rates to 94 percent. Unfortunately, states underuse or ineffectively implement this research-backed tool.
  
• Expanding virtual/flexible routine pretrial appearances can reduce FTAs by removing logistical barriers like lack of transportation, inflexible work schedules, child care responsibilities, or health challenges—obstacles that disproportionately affect low-income individuals. Remote or after-hours hearings make participation more accessible and convenient while improving court efficiency and maintaining accountability. Research is limited, but some jurisdictions have seen significant reductions in FTAs after implementing remote hearings.
• Warrant-clearance events or dockets offer a supportive alternative for addressing outstanding warrants. Since many FTAs result in a bench warrant, hosting a dedicated event or recurring court docket where people know they can safely resolve their warrants can reduce barriers, restore compliance, and allow individuals to get back on track. For instance, Spokane County’s May 2024 Warrant Fest cleared 18 warrants and connected individuals—many of whom faced housing instability—to services. Similar, more permanent models also exist where courts have instituted specialized warrant-clearance dockets.
• Jail sanctions or pretrial detention can be appropriate in limited, clearly defined situations. While FTAs should not be treated as conclusive evidence of guilt, repeated absences, deliberate evasion, or an absence combined with a credible public safety risk may justify stronger measures. Jail sanctions can serve as a short-term consequence to reinforce court obligations, while pretrial detention may be necessary when no conditions can reasonably mitigate flight or safety risks.
  

Conclusion

Some view FTAs as a disregard for the basic responsibility of showing up to fulfill a legal obligation. Others argue that FTA rates are overstated or responses excessive. There is no question that a better understanding of the data and the underlying causes and characteristics of FTA is needed. Still, setting aside disagreements and frustrations to focus on practical solutions for improving court attendance is key to reducing harm and a better use of limited justice system resources. What matters most now is making the system work better for everyone.