Why Every Jurisdiction Should Have Automated Court Reminders
What would it mean for your community if missed court dates were reduced by a third—without adding an extra burden to the criminal justice system?
Many jurisdictions struggle with failures to appear (FTAs) in court. FTAs impose significant costs on the government by means of wasted court time, diverted attorney resources, and the burden of issuing and executing a warrant. Defendants arrested for FTA may face job loss or temporarily lose custody of their children. Most individuals who miss court aren’t trying to avoid prosecution; instead, FTAs happen because they forgot, couldn’t get time off work, or lacked transportation or child care.
A simple and proven solution exists: automated court reminders. Nationwide, jurisdictions using these systems have reduced FTAs by 10 to 60 percent (with most seeing a 20 to 40 percent decline). Yet only six states—Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Texas—provide this type of opt-out reminder system. Automated court reminders save taxpayer dollars, reduce unnecessary jail bookings, improve court efficiency, and help people take responsibility for showing up.
Automatic Enrollment Works Better than Opt-In
Many courts already use reminder systems, but most require defendants to opt in—an extra step that keeps many people from signing up. Those who opt in are usually already more likely to appear in court, and studies show that some states face incredibly low enrollment rates (such as Pennsylvania, with 2 percent). Meanwhile, participation in automated programs is as high as 72 to 90 percent. Behavioral scientists have found that automatic, opt-out systems are far more effective than opt-in systems. More people receive reminders, and this small nudge—similar to a dentist appointment alert—significantly increases court attendance. These messages also encourage individuals to show up with clear warnings about the consequences of missing court.
Collect Phone Numbers Without Legal Risk
Of course, phone numbers must be collected from defendants in order to create an automated reminder system. The most effective way to do this is through the arresting or citing officer. Collecting this information later through jail, pretrial services, or the courts risks missing anyone cited or summonsed into court rather than arrested. Some practitioners have raised concerns that requiring a defendant to provide a phone number could potentially infringe on their right to remain silent or lead to self-incrimination. Legislation can address this by strictly limiting the use of phone numbers to the reminder system while prohibiting use for investigation or prosecution. Notably, there is no known constitutional challenge to such disclosure in the states that currently collect phone numbers. Data privacy safeguards should be put in place to ensure phone numbers are stored securely under data-protection protocols and cannot be accessed for commercial purposes.
Court Reminders Pay for Themselves
Many legislators and court administrators have shown interest in automated court reminders. Although cost concerns may delay action, the status quo also has a significant cost. Under current practices, FTAs cost taxpayers millions every year. Each missed court appearance carries an estimated government cost of $1,496 (conservatively). While implementation and ongoing costs vary by state, research shows that costs are minimal and offset from avoided missed appearances. For example, research from four states—Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, and Minnesota—found that launching and operating an automated reminder system cost less than 1 percent of each state’s annual judicial budget. Startup expenses range from $35,000 to $600,000, with ongoing costs averaging $0.60 to $1 per case. Importantly, states can gradually phase these systems into courts, allowing jurisdictions to manage costs over time while still reaping early benefits.
Ensure TCPA Compliance
Automated court reminders do not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when implemented correctly. While the TCPA restricts calls and texts made through an “automatic telephone dialing system” or using “artificial or prerecorded voice messages” to a number without prior express consent, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), courts, and researchers have clarified that these constraints do not apply to most court reminder systems. For example, the courts have narrowed the definition of “autodialer” to systems that use a random or sequential number generator. Further, the FCC has clarified that when a person voluntarily provides a phone number, it constitutes prior express consent to be contacted at that number for matters closely related to the reason it was given (such as to receive court date reminders). Courts can ensure compliance by including opt-out instructions that allow individuals to withdraw consent if desired.
Other Considerations
Getting defendants to court is of the utmost importance for accountability and responsible use of government resources. Equally important is consistently informing victims of court dates so they can make timely, informed decisions about their safety and participation. While most states have some form of victim notification, many are difficult to access, poorly publicized, or focus on custody changes rather than court hearings. Victims should know about reminder options and have the opportunity to enroll at multiple points in the process, from initial police contact through prosecution.
To ensure these systems work as intended, states should also routinely collect and evaluate data. Tracking usage, delivery rates, and outcomes helps identify gaps, measure effectiveness, and support timely adjustments to improve performance.
Conclusion
Automated court reminders are a practical solution to a preventable problem. Missed court dates cost taxpayers, delay justice, and disrupt lives—often for preventable reasons. In a polarized time, automated reminders are a rare win-win. They help people meet their obligations, ensure accountability, and avoid wasting law enforcement and court resources. Jurisdictions that use them also report fewer warrants and fewer delays. Adoption in every state would reflect a data-informed, cost-effective response to a persistent court problem.