THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION INVOLVED QUESTIONNAIRES ADMINISTERED TO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD WARRANTS AGAINST THEIR NAMES, AND A SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOCUSED ON REASONS WHY DEFENDANTS FAILED TO APPEAR IN COURT. PERSONAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND CRIMINAL HISTORY DATA WERE OBTAINED. INTERVIEWS WERE CARRIED OUT WITH 193 DEFENDANTS IN 3 CITY BOROUGHS (BROOKLYN, THE BRONX, AND MANHATTAN). SINCE ONLY DEFENDANTS WHO RETURNED TO COURT WERE INTERVIEWED, THE SAMPLE POPULATION WAS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT POPULATION ON THE WARRANT POPULATION. THE SAMPLE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE WARRANT RETURN POPULATION, INCLUDING BOTH VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY RETURNS. OF THE 193 DEFENDANTS, 34 WERE PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY (PTSA) RETURNS ON WARRANT, 51 WERE VOLUNTARY RETURNS, 85 WERE REARRESTS, AND 23 WERE WARRANT SQUAD RETURNS. IN ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE PTSA NOTIFICATION PROCESS ON THE WARRANT RETURN POPULATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT 59 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLE WERE RETURN-ON-WARRANT DEFENDANTS. ALMOST HALF OF THE DEFENDANTS RELEASED ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE DID NOT REMEMBER RECEIVING A PTSA COURT DATE SLIP OR CARD AT ARRAIGNMENT. AMONG DEFENDANTS RECEIVING A PTSA NOTIFICATION LETTER, ONLY 10 PERCENT THOUGHT THEY HAD RECEIVED ACCURATE INFORMATION. THERE APPEARED TO BE CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION AMONG DEFENDANTS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AND JUST PRIOR TO COURT APPEARANCES. WARRANTS CAUSED BY IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. REMAINING WARRANTS WERE DUE TO UNPREVENTABLE CAUSES, INCLUDING PERSONAL OR FAMILY REASONS, FINANCIAL REASONS, EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS, AND UNAVOIDABLE DELAYS (IN HOSPITALS, BY CORRECTIONS, OR ELSEWHERE). WHILE LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT SYSTEM MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PRIMARY CAUSE OF WARRANTS, IT APPEARED TO BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. THE WARRANT RATE WAS HIGHER AMONG DEFENDANTS WITH LIMITED COURT APPEARANCES, DEFENDANTS SCHEDULED TO MAKE A FINE APPEARANCE, DEFENDANTS WITH ONLY ONE ARREST, AND DEFENDANTS WITH WEAK SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS (MALE, UNMARRIED, UNEMPLOYED, AND WITH NO CHILDREN). THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS IS CENTRAL TO EFFORTS OF THE PTSA TO REDUCE THE WARRANT RATE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PTSA CONSIDER NOTIFICATION ON THE TWO KEY COURT DATES OF SENTENCE-IMPOSED APPEARANCE AND FINE PAYMENT APPEARANCE, THAT ANY NOTIFICATION TO DEFENDANTS FOR APPEARANCES AFTER ARRAIGNMENT FOLLOW DEFENDANTS MAKING FINE APPEARANCES UNTIL THEY HAVE PAID OFF THE ENTIRE FINE, THAT THE EXTENT OF DEFENDANT IGNORANCE BE REDUCED THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS, THAT A MORE ACTIVE ROLE BY COURT REPRESENTATIVES BE IMPLEMENTED, AND THAT THE PHONE AND LETTER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM BE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE WHY SOME DEFENDANTS ARE NOT CONTACTED. SUPPORTING DATA ON THE ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANTS ARE TABULATED. (DEP)