Study 1
Ferri (2022a) conducted a randomized controlled trial to test the effect of New York City’s live court date reminder phone calls on appearance rates for individuals who had been arrested and issued desk appearance tickets. A total of 2,219 individuals with their first scheduled court date during the study period were randomized to one of three treatment groups: 1) individuals to receive a call 3 days before their scheduled court date (the 3-day call treatment group, n = 640); 2) individuals to receive a call on the same day as their scheduled court date (the same-day call treatment group, n = 419); and 3) individuals to receive calls 3 days before and on the same day as their scheduled court date (the both 3-day and same-day calls treatment group, n = 679). The remaining individuals (n = 481) received no calls. The study by Ferri (2022a) was examined separately for each treatment group. The CrimeSolutions review of Study 1 focused on outcomes for the 3-day call treatment group (n = 640), compared with the control group (n = 481).
The provider began a pilot of the reminder program on October 18, 2017, and spent the first several weeks addressing difficulties associated with training, implementation, data collection, and the software applications. The analysis began after the pilot and included cases of individuals scheduled for their arraignment on or after November 6, 2017, through January 26, 2018—the last day on which the pretrial service provider was the sole provider of reminder calls. Individuals were excluded if they had an ongoing case with an appearance between November 6, 2017, and January 26, 2018, and that appearance occurred before the desk appearance arraignment.
There were no statistically significant differences between individuals in the three treatment groups and individuals in the control group with regard to race, sex, or age. Individuals across all three treatment groups were Black (n = 635), Hispanic (n = 571), white (n = 361), Asian (n = 143), and other races (n = 28), and individuals in the control group were Black (n = 205), Hispanic (n = 148), white (n = 72), Asian (n = 46), and other races (n = 10). Information on age and sex for individuals across all three treatment groups and the control group was not provided. Each day, the provider’s information technology department compiled a list of cases in which the individual had a scheduled court date 3 days in the future, and for whom the police department had obtained a phone number during the processing of the individual’s arrest. Using a pseudo-random number generator, each case was assigned an integer and then ranked in numerical order. Initially, the first 40 percent of cases were flagged to receive a reminder phone call 3 days before the scheduled court date, and later it was increased to 60 percent of cases. The 3-day reminder phone calls were conducted as described in the Program Description section.
Only executed warrants were analyzed to measure the outcome of interest, the failure-to-appear rate. An intent-to-treat analysis was used to examine differences in appearance rates between the 3-day call group and the control group. A logistic regression model in which the only predictor variable was the intended treatment was also run to provide the odds ratio for each treatment group relative to the control group. A subgroup analysis was conducted by race with all individuals in the three treatment groups combined compared with those in the control group.
Study 2
The CrimeSolutions review of Study 2 (Ferri 2022b) focused on outcomes for individuals randomized to the same-day call treatment group (n = 419) compared with individuals in the control group that did not receive any reminder call (n = 481).
The methodology was the same as described in Study 1 (Ferri 2022a), except that each day the provider’s information technology department compiled a list of cases in which the individual had a scheduled court date on that same day. As mentioned above, there were no statistically significant differences among individuals in the three treatment groups and individuals in the control group with regard to race, sex, or age of the individuals. The same number generator and assignment policy was used. Initially, the first 40 percent of cases were flagged to receive a reminder call on the morning of their scheduled court date, which was increased to 50 percent of individuals who received a reminder attempt the morning of their appearance. The same-day reminder phone calls were conducted as described in the Program Description section. The analytical method for Study 2 was the same as described in Study 1 above. A subgroup analysis was conducted by race with all individuals in the three treatment groups combined compared with those in the control group.
Study 3
The CrimeSolutions review of Study 3 (Ferri 2022c) focused on outcomes for individuals randomized to the 3-day and same-day calls treatment group (n = 679), compared with individuals in the control group who did not receive any reminder call (n = 481). The methodology and analytical methods were the same as described in Studies 1 and 2 above (Ferri 2022a; Ferri 2022b). As mentioned above, there were no statistically significant differences among the three treatment groups and the control group with regard to race, sex, or age of the individuals. A subgroup analysis was conducted by race with all individuals in the three treatment groups combined compared with those in the control group.