What Predicts Failure to Appear for Court Hearings?

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231180806
• Author: Cassia Spohn
• Date: 01 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231180806

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(4) 387 –410

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034231180806

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

What Predicts Failure to

Appear for Court Hearings?

Cassia Spohn1

Abstract

Despite its importance, the pretrial process has not been subjected to the type

of scrutiny directed at judges’ sentencing decisions. The goal of this project, which

uses data on defendants released pretrial in four Arizona counties, was to identify

the factors that predict failure to appear (FTA) for court hearings and to determine

whether these predictors vary across defendants. We found that the likelihood of

FTA was affected by a combination of defendant characteristics, case characteristics,

and the jurisdiction where the case was adjudicated; the FTA prediction score, which

is obtained from the risk assessment instrument used in all Arizona counties, also had

a significant effect on the likelihood of FTA. Discussion focuses on inter-jurisdictional

differences in FTA rates, the fact that the type of pretrial release did not predict FTA,

and the fact that the defendant’s race/ethnicity affected the FTA prediction score and

most of the Public Safety Assessment factors.

Keywords

pretrial release, failure to appear, public safety assessment

More than six decades ago, Caleb Foote (1956) observed that pretrial decisions deter-

mine almost everything that subsequently occurs in the criminal justice system.

Although Professor Foote tackled several important issues, including police miscon-

duct, his most important work focused on bail practices and pretrial detention. He was

an early champion of bail reform, advocating policy changes designed to increase the

number of defendants released on their own recognizance and decrease the pretrial

detention rate. He also argued that decisions made during the pretrial process have

spillover effects on defendants’ decisions to plead guilty, prosecutors’ charging and

1Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

Corresponding Author:

Cassia Spohn, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004,

USA.

Email: cassia.spohn@asu.edu

1180806CJPXXX10.1177/08874034231180806Criminal Justice Policy ReviewSpohn

research-article2023

388 Criminal Justice Policy Review 34(4)

plea bargaining decisions, and judges’ sentencing decisions. As we enter the third

decade of the 21st century, the concerns he raised continue to evoke controversy and

spark debate. As evidence of this consider the fact that Stevenson and Mayson (2017)

noted in their review of scholarship on pretrial detention and bail that the “pretrial

system is ripe for reform” (p. 46).

Despite its importance, the pretrial process has not been subjected to the type of

scrutiny directed at judges’ sentencing decisions (for a review of this research, see

Spohn, 2000, 2015; Tonry, 1996); There is a fairly robust literature on bail practices

(Goldkamp, 1979; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988), pretrial risk assessment

(Stevenson & Mayson, 2017; Taxman, 2016), and disparities in bail decision making

(Bridges, 1997; Clarke & Koch, 1976; Demuth, 2003; Demuth & Stefensmeier, 2004;

Pinchevsky & Steiner, 2016). Social scientists and legal scholars also have docu-

mented the effects of pretrial detention on subsequent stages of the criminal justice

process (Grifftin & Wooldredge, 2006; Pinchevsky & Steiner, 2016; Spohn, 2009).

More recently, researchers have begun to examine the ways in which pretrial detention

contributes to the cumulative disadvantage that defendants experience during the life

course of a criminal case (Kutateladze et al., 2014; Stolzenberg et al., 2013; Sutton,

2013). However, there is very little research that addresses the prevalence and predic-

tors of pretrial failure (Bechtel et al., 2011, 2017), and the research that does exist

lacks methodological rigor (Bechtel et al., 2017).

Research on defendants’ failure during the pretrial period focuses on identifying the

factors that predict failure to appear (FTA) for court hearings and/or criminal activity

while on pretrial release (Fennessy & Huss, 2013; Gehring & Van Voorhis, 2014;

Maxwell, 1999; Zottola & Desmarais, 2022). A meta-analysis of 13 studies examining

the predictors of pretrial failure (Bechtel et al., 2011) found that for each of the out-

come measures examined (i.e., re-arrest, failure to appear, new crime, and any failure),

the strongest predictors were static factors such as criminal history, juvenile arrest, and

prior failure to appear. The defendant’s assessed risk level also predicted pretrial fail-

ure (Zottola & Desmarais, 2022). Other research revealed that community ties are not

a strong predictor of failure to appear (Goldkamp & Vilcica, 2009), but that failure-to-

appear rates are higher among indigent individuals (Zettler & Morris, 2015) and those

with substance abuse disorders (Kopak & Singer, 2022).

There is also limited research on the effectiveness of strategies for reducing the

failure-to-appear rate (Bornstein et al., 2011; Brough et al., 2022; Goldkamp & White,

2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2018). These studies indicate that notification reminders can

be effective (Bornstein et al., 2011), but that the likelihood of pretrial failure is not

reduced substantially by use of interventions such as electronic monitoring, substance

abuse testing, transportation subsidies, and pretrial supervision (Brough et al., 2022;

Goldkamp & White, 2006; VanNostrand et al., 2011; VanNostrand & Keebler, 2009).

There are several limitations to the research that has been produced to date. A major

limitation is that there is very limited research that attempts to determine whether

release type affects the likelihood of failure to appear. There is an assumption that

those released on more restrictive conditions (i.e., released on bond or to the supervi-

sion of pretrial services rather than released on personal recognizance) will have lower