Can we reduce opt-out rates by improving missing person alerts?

Let's talk about AMBER Alerts. Again. It really is the alert type that pops up as one of the most problematic with public message receivers in terms of messaging and policy. The messages tend to lack actionable details and the timing at which they are sent is frequently questioned. In fact, these two issues, combined with the geographical scope of the alert itself, appear to contribute to the majority of people opting out of AMBER Alerts on their phones. Because the problems from AMBER-specific alerts carry into other missing and endangered person alerts, we also see opt-outs in other categories including public safety and imminent threat.

I'm a firm believer that if we figure out how to improve AMBER Alerts, we're going to improve the overall satisfaction with WEA.

This means we need more attention, more awareness, and more training for emergency managers, 911-dispatchers, and law enforcement agencies that have been given the keys to issue WEAs.

In today's post, I'm sharing three AMBER Alerts that were sent in Georgia. All three look similar, meaning we can talk about them as a group and highlight some key features.

All three of these messages were issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, on behalf of a jurisdiction in Georgia. This is a common practice for AMBER Alerts where organizations working on AMBER cases can reach out to NCMEC to request assistance to send an AMBER message. In this case, NCMEC sent each message statewide - perhaps at the request of the originating organization.

The consistency of these three messages makes me wonder if NCMEC followed their internal protocols and structure for a 90-character WEA and applied it to the 360 character messages. If so, they are using the following format:

1) location (of the requesting jurisdiction)

2) name of the message (AMBER Alert)

3) license plate number

4) state

5) vehicle year

6) color/make/model of vehicle

There is clearly room for improvement based upon the recent research that has been conducted, peer-reviewed, and published in the leading academic journals for policing. For instance, see Cain et al. 2025 and Cain et al. 2026.

In 2025, my team at the University at Albany established the Missing and Endangered Persons Message Framework. The MEP framework is an adaptation of the work done by Dennis Mileti on effective hazard warnings (known as the Warning Response Model . By applying the MEP framework to AMBER and MEP messages, we can quickly identify the contents that need to be included to make an alert more effective (i.e., actionable). This includes 1) the name of the sending organization; 2) a time/date of the abduction/missing event, 3) the location where the person was last seen, 4) a description of the missing person, and 5) a description of the person of interest, 6) the mode of transportation, as well as 7) guidance about what people can do to be helpful.

In the case of each of these example messages, we find that there is:

• no sending organization,

• no time/date,

• no location,

• no description of the abducted person,

• no description of the person of interest,

• no guidance about what to do.

And perhaps most interesting in the comparison with most AMBER Alerts we see, there is no link to additional information.

An AMBER Alert issued statewide listing the location of Atlanta

An AMBER Alert issued statewide listing the location of Rex, GA

An AMBER Alert issued statewide listing the location of Thomasville, GA

At the Warn Room, we don't write about WEAs to shame organizations or as an exercise in bullying. These are publicly available messages, issued in good faith. But they frequently demonstrate bad message qualities. In this case, they are incomplete, lacking key details that could directly affect the outcome of the search for the missing person. For a 360-character message, there is no reason not to include this additional useful information.

And I want to call attention to one more thing. We have empirical evidence that when incomplete and non-actionable messages like these are issued, they affect the credibility of the sending organization. Furthermore, they directly impact people's willingness to remain engaged with the alerting platform (i.e., remain opted in).

We know how to do this better; it's time to spread the word and help alerting authorities to adopt the tools and the practices to improve their messages.

For more on effective warning messages, be sure to download the Warning Lexicon. And if you want to hear more about AMBER Alerts, listen to this podcast on The Alerting Authority that focuses on the AMBER program.