The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community 

Corrections Professionals 

Author(s): Erin L. Bauer, M.A., Carol A. Hagen, Ph.D., 

Angela D. Greene, M.A., Scott Crosse, Ph.D., 

Michele A. Harmon, Ph.D., Ronald E. Claus, 

Ph.D.

Document No.: 250174

Date Received: August 2016

Award Number: 2011-IJ-CX-0010

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally 

funded grant report available electronically. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Kiosk 

Supervision

A Guidebook for Community 

Corrections Professionals 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk 

Supervision

A Guidebook for Community 

Corrections Professionals

December 2015

Authors

Erin L. Bauer, M.A.

Carol A. Hagen, Ph.D.

Angela D. Greene, M.A.

Scott Crosse, Ph.D.

Michele A. Harmon, Ph.D.

Ronald E. Claus, Ph.D.

Suggested Citation: Bauer, Erin L., Carol A. Hagen, Angela D. Greene, 

Scott Crosse, Michele A. Harmon, and Ronald E. Claus. Kiosk Supervision: 

A Guidebook for Community Corrections Professionals. Rockville, MD: 

Westat, 2015.

This project was supported by Award No. 2011-IJ-CX-0010, awarded by 

the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 

expressed in this guidebook are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 

National Institute 

of Justice

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals i

Table of Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

About this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1 What are the Current Challenges Facing 

Community Supervision Agencies? . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.2 Emerging Evidence-Based Practices 

in Community Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3 Emerging Technology 

and Community Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter 2 What Do Community Supervision 

Agencies Need to Know about 

Kiosk Reporting? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.1 Current Evidence on the Effects of 

Kiosk Reporting on Clients’ Recidivism 

and Related Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.2 Supervision Models for Kiosk Reporting . . . . . 18

2.3 Benefits of Kiosk Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4 Challenges and Criticisms of 

Kiosk Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.5 Satisfaction with Kiosk Reporting among

Agency Staff and Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 3 Adoption and Implementation 

Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.1 An Introduction to 

Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.2 Stage 1: Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.3 Stage 2: Adoption and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.4 Stage 3: Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.5 Moving Forward in the 

Program Implementation Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Chapter 4 Stage 4: Evaluation/Assessment . . . . 49

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.1 Introduction to Evaluation: Purpose, Type, 

and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

 4.2 Preparing for an Evaluation: Selecting 

an Evaluator and Developing a Clear 

Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.3 Developing and Implementing 

an Evaluation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Appendix A Kiosk Supervision Site Profiles . . . . 60

Appendix B Checklist for Agencies Considering

Kiosk Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix C Kiosk Vendors Identified by 

Study Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals ii

List of Tables

Table 1-1 . Emerging Evidence-Based Practices 

for Community Supervision . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3-1 . Criteria Used to Determine Client 

Eligibility for Kiosk Supervision . . . . . . 40

Table 3-2 . Community Supervision Agencies’ 

Applications of Kiosk Reporting . . . . . . 43

Table 3-3 . Dimensions of Client Reporting 

Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3-4 . Kiosk Features and Capabilities . . . . . . 46

Table 4-1 . Sample Logic Model for 

Kiosk Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 4-2 . Simple Chart Summarizing 

Evaluation Questions, Data 

Sources, Data Collection Methods, 

and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table A-1 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – 

Site 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table A-2 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – 

Site 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table A-3 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – 

Site 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table A-4 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – 

Site 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table A-5 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – 

Site 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 . Program Implementation 

Cycle for Kiosk Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3-2 . Components of 

Successful Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 1

Foreword

Automated kiosk reporting systems have gained popularity in recent years as community 

supervision agencies strive to provide quality supervision services at reduced costs. 

This guidebook, which provides community supervision agencies with an overview of 

automated kiosk reporting systems, is based primarily on the findings of a multi-jurisdiction 

kiosk study on the use of automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients placed 

under community supervision. The multi-jurisdiction kiosk study was conducted by 

Westat, an employee-owned research firm in Rockville, Maryland, and funded by the U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This research was designed to 

gather as much information as possible on automated kiosk reporting systems from the 

field—i.e., community supervision agencies that were currently using, seriously considered 

using, or formerly used automated kiosk reporting systems to supervise clients—and to 

compile and disseminate the information collected to community supervision agencies 

that may be exploring alternatives to traditional officer supervision.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 2

The multi-jurisdiction kiosk study consisted of three main components: 

1 TELEPHONE SCREENER AND INTERVIEWS 

2 IMPLEMENTATION AND COST STUDY

3 OUTCOME STUDY 

1 TELEPHONE SCREENER 

AND INTERVIEWS

The first study component, telephone screener and 

interviews, included telephone screener calls and indepth telephone interviews . The screener instrument 

was administered by telephone to 492 community 

supervision agencies in five regions throughout the 

United States in 2012 . The screener instrument was 

designed to collect information on the number of 

community supervision agencies currently using 

reporting kiosks to supervise their clients, whether the 

agencies had used or considered using kiosks in the 

past, and whether the agencies were using alternative 

methods of remote reporting for their clients . 

Next, in-depth interviews were conducted between 

September 2012 and March 2013 with 21 agencies 

currently using kiosk reporting, three agencies 

that previously used kiosks, and six agencies that 

had seriously considered using kiosks but never 

implemented a kiosk reporting program . Respondents to 

the in-depth interviews ranged from those with highranking positions within the community supervision 

agency (e .g ., Director, Deputy Chief) to officers within 

the agency . The in-depth interview protocol was an 

open-ended, structured interview that addressed topics 

including rationale and development of a kiosk reporting 

program, technological aspects of the kiosk, target 

population, and reporting requirements .

2 IMPLEMENTATION 

AND COST STUDY

For the second study component, implementation and 

cost study, site visits and in-depth interviews were 

conducted with community supervision agencies in 

five jurisdictions (implementation sites) that currently 

used kiosks to supervise their clients . A broad range 

of information was collected during the site visits 

including an overview of the kiosk reporting program, 

support for and/or resistance to a kiosk reporting 

program, agency and client satisfaction with the kiosk 

reporting program, and program effectiveness . 

3 OUTCOME STUDY

The outcome study included the analysis of 

administrative data from two sites, with separate study 

designs for each site . One study design compared 

outcomes for clients assigned to kiosk supervision to 

clients assigned to traditional officer supervision . The 

second study compared outcomes for clients assigned 

to kiosk supervision to clients assigned to telephone 

reporting via interactive voice response (IVR) with 

voiceprint technology . 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 3

About this Guide

This guidebook provides a practical framework for community supervision agencies to use to 

assess whether kiosk reporting may be a safe and cost-effective alternative to traditional officer 

supervision for some of their populations under community supervision. The content of this 

guidebook is based on a combination of findings from a multi-jurisdiction kiosk study on current 

and former users of kiosk reporting (or those that seriously considered its use), feedback from 

experts on community corrections, and scholarly literature and research from a variety of key 

disciplines (e.g., implementation and criminal justice). This section first provides an overview 

of the main objectives of this guidebook, then presents a brief summary of the content of this 

guidebook, and finally introduces the terminology used throughout the guidebook.

This guidebook sets out to:

Provide an overview of challenges many 

community supervision agencies currently face;

Introduce emerging evidence-based practices 

in the field of community supervision relevant to 

kiosk reporting;

Define kiosk reporting and discuss how kiosk 

reporting may help address these challenges;

Summarize the current research base on kiosk 

reporting as well as the potential benefits and 

challenges/criticisms of this technology;

Define program implementation and discuss 

how the quality of implementation can affect the 

success of a program;

Introduce the four stages of implementing 

a kiosk reporting program (i .e ., exploration, 

adoption and planning, implementation, and 

evaluation/assessment);

Encourage community supervision agencies 

to clearly identify their current needs and goals, 

gather as much information on kiosk reporting as 

possible, and determine whether kiosk reporting is 

a good fit for their agency;

Encourage community supervision agencies to 

develop a clear vision of change, establish strong 

leadership to communicate their vision of change, 

and engage and obtain buy-in from community 

stakeholders;

Offer guidance to community supervision 

agencies on conducting a preliminary assessment 

of the staffing and financial resources they have 

available to support a kiosk reporting program;

Encourage community supervision agencies to 

develop a plan for implementing kiosk reporting in 

their jurisdiction, document policy-level decisions, 

and prepare a manual that outlines standard 

operating procedures for kiosk reporting;

Provide an overview of the possible features and 

capabilities of reporting kiosks that agencies may 

want to consider when developing their own kiosk 

reporting program;

Provide community supervision agencies with 

an overview of how to evaluate whether their 

kiosk reporting program is being implemented as 

intended and meeting its objectives; and

Provide additional resources to agencies 

considering a kiosk reporting program including an 

implementation checklist and a list of kiosk vendors .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 4

CONTENT

This guidebook consists of four chapters . Each chapter 

begins with a list summarizing the key points . Chapter 

1 provides an overview of current challenges many 

community supervision agencies face, emerging 

evidence-based practices (EBPs) for community 

supervision, and kiosk reporting and other innovative 

technologies that agencies may want to consider to 

address their needs and meet their goals . Chapter 

2 begins with a summary of research findings to 

date on kiosk reporting programs, followed by an 

overview of how community corrections agencies 

have used or are currently using kiosk reporting in 

their jurisdictions . Chapter 2 also includes suggested 

or known benefits and drawbacks of kiosk reporting . 

Readers already familiar with EBPs and reporting 

kiosks may wish to skip the first two chapters and 

begin with Chapter 3 . Chapter 3 presents a step-bystep guide on the exploration, adoption and planning, 

and implementation of a kiosk reporting program . 

Chapter 4 provides general guidance to community 

supervision agencies on how to assess and evaluate 

their kiosk reporting program to ensure the program is 

implemented well and meeting its objectives .

The appendices include profiles of the five 

implementation sites that participated in the multijurisdiction kiosk study and currently use automated 

kiosk reporting systems to supervise some clients 

under community supervision . The appendices also 

include an implementation checklist community 

supervision agencies can use as a guide through the 

exploration, adoption and planning, implementation, 

and evaluation/assessment stages of implementing a 

kiosk reporting program . Finally, the appendices include 

a list of kiosk vendors mentioned by community 

supervision agencies that participated in the multijurisdiction kiosk study .

TERMINOLOGY

It is necessary to define the terminology used 

throughout this guidebook . First, “community 

supervision” refers to all forms of supervising 

individuals in the community, including probation, 

parole, and pre-trial supervision . The term “community 

supervision agency” refers to any agency that 

supervises individuals placed under community 

supervision . Individuals who are assigned to community 

supervision are referred to as “clients” and can include 

probationers, parolees, and defendants released to 

community supervision pre-trial . Finally, officers who 

supervise clients placed under community supervision 

are referred to as “probation/parole officers” (PPOs) 

or “community supervision officers .” Most of the 

community supervision agencies that participated in 

the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study used kiosk reporting 

to supervise clients assigned to probation . However, 

some agencies employed kiosk reporting to supervise 

clients on parole and/or defendants released from 

jail pre-trial . Hence, the definitions of community 

supervision, community supervision agency, client, and 

PPO/community supervision officer are broadened to 

include all forms of community supervision .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 5

Acknowledgements

The authors of this guidebook would like to thank all of the community supervision agencies 

and their staff who participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study, especially the five 

sites at which the authors conducted site visits. We are very grateful for the invaluable 

information agency staff shared with us regarding their experience with automated kiosk 

reporting systems, upon which this guidebook is based. The authors would also like to thank 

Mr. William D. Burrell, an independent corrections management consultant, for sharing 

his expertise in community supervision with us and for providing insightful comments on 

multiple drafts of this guidebook. Finally, we would like to thank Victoria Castleman (Westat), 

Amy Dezember (Westat), Dr. Eileen M. Ahlin (Penn State Harrisburg), and Dr. Maria João Lobo 

Antunes (Towson University) for their contributions to the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 6

Chapter 1 

Introduction

KEY POINTS 

1 Community supervision agencies are facing many challenges including 

an ever increasing population under community supervision, larger 

caseloads, increased workloads, caseloads consisting of higher-risk 

clients, increasing costs, and limited financial resources.

2 It is becoming increasingly more common for community supervision 

agencies to incorporate evidence-based practices (EBPs) into their 

supervision services—practices with demonstrated effectiveness in 

the research literature. For example, some agencies are expanding the 

role of the probation/parole officer (PPO)/community supervision officer 

from control to control and care, matching the intensity of supervision 

to clients’ risk of reoffending, using risk and needs assessment tools 

to develop individualized treatment/supervision plans, targeting 

supervision based on criminogenic needs and dynamic risk factors, 

and using graduated sanctions and incentives/rewards to respond to 

clients’ behavior.

3 Although insufficient research has been conducted to establish kiosk 

reporting as evidence-based, it is a promising approach that incorporates 

some of the current EBPs in the field of community supervision.

4 Many community supervision agencies are turning to technology to help 

address their challenges and meet their goals. Automated kiosk reporting 

systems are one such technology. Other technologies are also available.

5 A reporting kiosk is a device, typically a computer or an ATM-like 

machine, to which clients under community supervision can report 

as an alternative or supplement to traditional face-to-face meetings 

with a PPO.

6 Kiosk reporting can help community supervision officers to better 

manage high caseloads of low-risk clients and redirect some of their 

time and attention to supervising higher-risk clients with greater needs.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 7

Overview

Policymakers in the United States are increasingly turning to community corrections 

to help manage the growing population under correctional supervision, particularly in 

jails and prisons, and to help control corrections costs. Community supervision has the 

potential to supervise offenders, reduce reoffending, and protect public safety more 

economically, efficiently, and effectively. However, the increasing reliance on community 

corrections without additional resources has led to a burgeoning population under 

community supervision, larger caseloads, and caseloads with higher-risk clients, which all 

have the potential to prevent community supervision agencies from reaching their public 

safety goals. 

Fortunately, innovative practices, programs, and technologies are constantly emerging with 

the potential to help community supervision agencies and their probation/parole officers 

(PPOs)/community supervision officers safely manage the ever increasing population under 

community supervision in the most cost-effective way. One such technology, automated 

kiosk reporting systems, has helped some community supervision agencies and PPOs 

better manage larger caseloads and address other challenges. A reporting kiosk is a device, 

typically a computer or automated teller machine (ATM)-like machine that individuals 

under community supervision can use for all or part of their regularly scheduled reporting, 

as an alternative to reporting in-person to a PPO.

This chapter first provides an overview of the current challenges many community 

supervision agencies face. Next, the chapter reviews some of the emerging evidence-based 

practices (EBPs) in community supervision, which agencies often incorporate into their kiosk 

reporting programs. Finally, this chapter concludes with an overview of kiosk reporting and 

introduces several other innovative technologies that have emerged in recent years to help 

community supervision agencies overcome their challenges and meet their goals. 

. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 8

1 .1 What are the Current Challenges 

Facing Community Supervision Agencies?

Community supervision agencies currently face a 

wide range of challenges . The increasing population 

under correctional supervision, particularly in jails 

and prisons, has led to exploding corrections costs . 

Because community supervision is less expensive 

than institutional supervision and can also serve as 

a mechanism to improve public safety by providing 

clients with individualized assessments, supervision, 

and services, policymakers have called for the 

redirection of incarcerated individuals from jails 

and prisons to supervision in the community, when 

possible .1

 In fact, as part of the Justice Reinvestment 

Initiative, some states have implemented strategies 

to reduce prison growth and corrections spending 

that shift incarcerated individuals from institutional 

to community supervision .2

 These strategies include 

sentencing fewer people to jail/prison, releasing people 

sooner from jail/prison, and reducing revocations—

that is, not revoking clients’ probation or parole for 

violating the terms of their community supervision 

sentence . For example, in the early 2000s, Michigan 

began moving prison populations to community 

supervision through several policy changes, including 

repealing mandatory minimum sentencing for drug 

offenses . Michigan successfully reduced the prison 

population by 14 .5 percent from 2006 to 2010, lowered 

spending on prisons by 8 .9 percent, and increased 

spending on community corrections by 20 percent .3

Because Michigan’s reduction in spending on prisons 

($148 million) far outpaced its increased spending on 

community corrections ($36 .5 million), the state did 

achieve an overall net corrections savings .4

This section takes a closer look at some of the key 

challenges facing community supervision agencies, 

including an increasing population under community 

supervision, larger caseloads, increased workloads, 

caseloads with higher-risk clients, and higher costs and 

disproportionate allocation of resources . 

A LARGE AND INCREASING 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

POPULATION

The size of the population under correctional supervision 

in the United States is daunting . An estimated one out of 

every 100 adults is in prison or jail and one in 50 adults is 

under community supervision .5

 An estimated 6,899,000 

adults were under correctional supervision at year-end 

2013, the majority—7 out of 10—of whom are under 

community supervision .6

 An estimated 3,910,600 adults 

were on probation and 853,200 adults were on parole 

at year-end 2013, for a total of 4,751,400 adults under 

community supervision .7

The population under correctional supervision, including 

prison and jail inmates as well as individuals under 

community supervision, has increased substantially over 

the past quarter century . Specifically, between 1982 and 

2007, the total number of people in custody increased 

by 274 percent with an additional 1,680,661 inmates, 

bringing the total population in custody to 2 .3 million .8

During the same period, the total number of people under 

community supervision increased by 3,535,660, bringing 

the total population under community supervision to 5 .1 

million .9

 Therefore, in absolute numbers, the number of 

probationers and parolees grew by more than twice as 

much as the number of adults in prison or jail between 

1982 and 2007 .10 In more recent years—between 2010 

and 2013—both the number of individuals in prison or 

jail and the number of individuals under community 

supervision have decreased slightly .11

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 9

LARGER CASELOADS 

AND INCREASED WORKLOADS

The increasing correctional population and associated 

costs have resulted in the expanded use of community 

supervision, in part by moving individuals out of 

expensive jails and prisons and into supervision in 

the community .12 Unfortunately, this expanded use 

of community supervision has led to larger caseloads 

(i .e ., number of clients) and/or increased workloads 

(i .e ., cumulative activities required to manage all cases) 

for PPOs without additional resources . 

In the 1970s, parole officers supervised an average 

caseload of 45 parolees .13 In 2003, probation officers 

supervised an average caseload of 130 clients and 

parole officers supervised an average caseload of 70 

clients .14 Today, on average, probation caseloads are 

much higher, averaging about 180 offenders per officer .15

In addition, PPOs are more likely to supervise higherrisk clients as inmates are diverted from prison/jail 

and redirected to community supervision . Caseloads 

consisting of higher-risk clients may result in higher 

workloads for PPOs because such clients often require 

more attention . Both larger caseloads and increased 

workloads can reduce the amount of time PPOs can 

spend with each client . 

HIGHER RISK LEVEL 

OF PERSONS UNDER 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

Efforts to reduce prison populations by expanding the 

use of community supervision can result in populating 

PPOs’ caseloads with higher-risk clients and placing 

further financial strain on community supervision 

agencies .16 Higher-risk clients often have greater needs 

than lower-risk clients and may require more time and 

resources to adequately supervise . This presents a 

unique challenge to PPOs who are supervising a high 

caseload of low-risk clients and an increasing number 

of higher-risk clients—PPOs may not have the time 

or resources available to address all of the needs of 

higher-risk clients .

HIGHER COSTS AND 

DISPROPORTIONATE ALLOCATION 

OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Costs for corrections have increased along with the 

number of individuals under correctional supervision . 

Between 1982 and 2001, total state corrections 

expenditures increased steadily from $15 .0 billion to $53 .5 

billion .17 Between 2002 and 2010, total state corrections 

expenditures fluctuated up and down between $53 .4 

billion and $48 .4 billion18 and have increased annually 

between 2011 ($52 .0 billion)19 and 2013 ($53 .3 billion) .20

Total state corrections expenditures are expected to 

reach $55 .5 billion in 2014 .21

A review of state correctional budgets shows that spending 

is not proportional to the number of people served by 

the various components of the corrections system . The 

majority of state correctional budgets are devoted to 

correctional institutions whereas most individuals serve 

their sentences in the community . One study found that 

across 34 states, nearly nine out of 10 correctional dollars 

went toward prisons—$18 .6 billion was spent on prisons 

and just $2 .5 billion was spent on probation and parole 

during fiscal year 2008 .22 This is particularly concerning 

given that 70 percent of the correctional workload falls 

on community supervision agencies and that in absolute 

numbers, the number of people under community 

supervision grew twice as much as the number of people 

in prison or jail during the past quarter century . Supervising 

individuals in the community, when done well, can result 

in significant cost savings and improved public safety 

outcomes .23 However, many community supervision 

agencies have insufficient staffing and other resources to 

adequately supervise larger caseloads and/or caseloads 

consisting of higher-risk clients with greater needs .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“Our probation department was mandated 

to cut...our budget. At that time through 

attrition, our number of supervising DPOs 

and staff in general decreased. So to be 

able to supervise the number of offenders 

that we had, we needed to do something.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 10

1 .2 Emerging Evidence-Based Practices 

in Community Supervision

Given these challenges, particularly the increasing 

costs of and limited resources available for community 

supervision, elected officials, policy-makers, and 

community supervision agencies themselves are 

exploring ways to “do more with less .” For example, 

elected officials and policymakers are encouraging 

community supervision agencies to adopt and 

implement evidence-based practices (EBPs)—that 

is, practices with demonstrated effectiveness in 

the research literature .24 The use of practices that 

are determined to be “evidence-based” helps to 

ensure that any new programming is of high quality, 

efficient, and effective and reflects fairness, justice, 

and accountability .25 Despite these benefits, some 

community supervision agencies find it challenging to 

adopt and implement EBPs because of the additional 

time and resources it requires to research, select, and 

implement new practices . 

Although an in-depth discussion of EBPs for community 

supervision is outside the scope of this guidebook, 

some of the emerging EBPs in the field most relevant 

to automated kiosk reporting systems are presented 

in Table 1–1 .

Community supervision agencies may want to consider 

these EBPs when planning and implementing a kiosk 

reporting program to maximize positive outcomes for 

their clients, agency, and surrounding communities . 

It is important to note that kiosk reporting is not an 

established evidence-based program in the research 

literature . However, it is a promising approach that 

often incorporates practices that are evidencebased . For example, the use of kiosk reporting is 

fundamentally based on the EBP of matching the 

intensity of supervision to clients’ risk of reoffending .

Typically, agencies will assign lower-risk clients to kiosk 

supervision, a population that requires less intensive 

supervision, as their primary method of supervision . 

However, higher-risk clients (who have greater needs 

and require more intensive supervision) may be 

assigned to kiosk supervision as a supplement to 

traditional officer supervision . Community supervision 

agencies that wish to learn more about evidencebased programs and practices can consult the Office 

of Justice Program’s website CrimeSolutions .gov, which 

summarizes what works (and what does not work) 

in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim 

services (http://www .crimesolutions .gov/default .aspx) .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 11

Table 1–1 . Emerging Evidence-Based Practices for Community Supervision

Evidence-Based Practices Brief Description

Redefining Agency Goals 

and PPOs’ Roles

 Dual Role of Community Supervision 

Agency – Surveillance and Success

 Dual Role of PPO – Control and Care

The surveillance and enforcement approach to community supervision 

is ineffective at reducing recidivism .26 Research suggests supervision 

must include a social services component and that PPOs must place 

an equal emphasis on control and care .27

Matching Intensity of Supervision to 

Risk of Reoffending

The intensity of supervision that officers provide should be proportional 

to their clients’ risk of reoffending . Research suggests low-risk clients 

can be successfully monitored at lower levels of intensity without 

increasing the likelihood of recidivism .28 Monitoring low-risk clients more 

than is necessary can actually increase the likelihood of reoffending .29

Providing less intense supervision to lower-risk clients allows 

community supervision agencies to dedicate more time and resources 

toward supervising higher-risk clients, who have more needs 

and pose a greater threat to public safety .30

Using Risk and Needs Assessment 

Tools to Develop Individualized 

Treatment/Supervision Plans

Community supervision agencies can use risk and needs assessment 

tools to assess a client’s static and dynamic risk factors, criminogenic 

needs, and protective factors to inform the development of an 

individualized supervision/treatment plan and effectively allocate 

supervision and service resources .31 

Targeting Supervision Based on 

Criminogenic Needs and Dynamic 

Risk Factors

Correctional interventions and treatment should target 

a client’s criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors 

that contribute to criminal behavior (e .g ., substance abuse, antisocial 

personality, problematic circumstances at home and school) .32

Using Graduated Sanctions and 

Incentives/Rewards to Respond 

to Clients’ Behavior

A system of graduated sanctions provides supervision officers 

with the flexibility to respond to every infraction with a sanction 

proportional to the severity of the violation and risk of the client to 

public safety . A system of incentives/rewards allows PPOs to provide 

positive reinforcement to clients for positive behavior . This continuum 

of responses enables PPOs to respond to their clients’ behavior swiftly 

and appropriately, which increases accountability and discourages 

future criminal behavior .33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 12

1 .3 Emerging Technology 

and Community Supervision

Many community supervision agencies are looking to 

technology to help mitigate the challenges they face . 

Fortunately, recent technological advancements have 

provided community supervision agencies with a range 

of possible alternatives to traditional officer supervision . 

Among the most innovative technological advancements 

in the field of community corrections are automated kiosk 

reporting systems, electronic communication among 

agency staff, electronic monitoring, computerization of 

the field (with improved access to data), and more recent 

technologies for electronic monitoring by the Global 

Positioning System (GPS) .34

This section provides an overview of kiosk reporting as 

well as a discussion regarding how kiosk reporting can 

help community supervision agencies address their 

challenges . It then introduces several other technologies 

community supervision agencies may want to consider, 

depending on their current needs and goals .

DEFINITION OF 

KIOSK REPORTING 

A reporting kiosk is a device, typically a computer 

or an ATM-like machine, used by individuals under 

community supervision to report instead of having 

(or as a supplement to) face-to-face meetings with a 

PPO .35 Kiosks are often located in probation offices, 

courthouses, or police departments, and they typically 

use biometric identification (e .g ., handprint or fingerprint 

scan) to verify an individual’s identity . After an individual 

reporting via kiosk logs in and is identified, the kiosk 

system will usually prompt the person to answer several 

questions that would typically be asked by a PPO 

during a face-to-face visit . Reporting kiosks can gather 

information on topics such as housing, employment 

status, and recent involvement with the criminal justice 

system (e .g ., arrests) .

Many kiosks also permit clients to pay fees and fines 

by using a credit card or depositing funds into a secure 

lockbox attached to the kiosk machine . Some kiosks can 

be programmed to issue a receipt for the visit . Some 

reporting kiosks can also direct the client to report for a 

drug test or ask him or her to see a PPO, if a response 

provided by the client requires followup .

Exhibit 1-1. Probation Office Kiosks

Kiosk supervision offers clients greater flexibility in 

terms of when they report (i .e ., as long as they report 

during the kiosk’s operating hours and within the 

timeframe or date specified by their PPO) and does not 

require clients to schedule an appointment, which may 

be necessary for face-to-face reporting with their PPO . 

Additionally, kiosk reporting does not usually require 

interaction with a PPO or staff member, although 

many agencies have an attendant available to answer 

technical questions and/or a PPO on call for clients who 

would like to speak to an officer . 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 13

HOW REPORTING KIOSKS CAN 

HELP PPOs SUPERVISE CLIENTS

Community supervision agencies generally view kiosk 

reporting as a user-friendly, safe, and convenient 

method for supervising low-risk clients .36 Most often, 

community supervision agencies use kiosk reporting 

to better manage and monitor high caseloads of lowrisk clients . Some community supervision agencies 

also use kiosk reporting as a supplement to traditional 

officer supervision for higher-risk clients . Typically, 

community supervision agencies assess individuals 

assigned to community supervision using risk and 

needs assessment tools to determine the amount and 

type of community supervision they require . Clients 

determined to have a lower risk of recidivating, fewer 

needs, and who are not deemed to be a threat to the 

community may be assigned to kiosk supervision as 

their primary mode of supervision . Those determined 

to have a higher risk of reoffending, greater needs, 

and who are deemed a threat to public safety may be 

assigned to traditional officer supervision and kiosk 

supervision as a supplement .

The adoption of kiosk reporting is, at first, an 

agency-level decision to manage larger caseloads and 

increased workloads . When agencies adopt a kiosk 

reporting program, PPOs are then empowered to refer 

clients to kiosk supervision to help manage their large 

caseloads and increased workloads . By assigning 

lower-risk cases to kiosk supervision, PPOs can better 

manage their workload and redirect their time and 

attention to providing more in-depth face-to-face 

contact with higher-risk clients and those in need of 

special services .37

OTHER TECHNOLOGIES USED FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

Although an in-depth discussion of all technologies used by community supervision agencies to address current 

challenges is beyond the scope of this guidebook, an annotated list of technologies is presented here . The 

technologies on this list were identified by community supervision agency staff who participated in a 2012–2013 

telephone survey as part of the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study . Note that in some cases, clients have the option to 

report via multiple technologies, which may or may not include kiosk reporting .

1 Telephone Reporting/Automated Telephone Reporting via Interactive Voice Response (IVR) 

with Voiceprint Technology — Clients assigned to IVR or telephone reporting are permitted to report via 

telephone using a designated phone number in lieu of face-to-face meetings with their PPO . The system first 

verifies the client’s identity through voice recognition software . The client is then prompted to respond to a series 

of questions . Systems can be set up to call clients to remind them of when they are required to call in and selfreport . The system may also call clients when they fail to report by a specific date/time . The reminder calls prompt 

clients to call, giving clients the opportunity to report and remain compliant with the conditions of their community 

supervision sentence .

2 Website/Internet-Based Reporting — Clients are permitted to report via a website by signing in with a 

designated username and password .

3 Video Conferencing — This allows PPOs to virtually “meet” with clients who live in rural areas far from 

the community supervision department . This saves both PPOs and their clients the time and expenses (e .g ., 

money for gas) required to meet in person .

4 Non-automated Alternative Electronic Reporting Methods — Some clients are permitted to report using 

a non-automated alternative electronic reporting method such as via email, voicemail, or fax .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 14

1 .4 Summary

Community supervision agencies face many challenges 

including larger caseloads, higher workloads, caseloads 

consisting of higher-risk clients, and limited financial 

resources . Emerging EBPs in the community corrections 

field, such as carefully matching client needs and risk 

of reoffending to the intensity of supervision, can help 

agencies address these challenges . Kiosk reporting is 

a promising approach that incorporates some EBPs . A 

reporting kiosk is a computer or an ATM-like machine, 

through which individuals under community supervision 

can report, instead of, or as a supplement to, in-person 

meetings with a community supervision officer . Kiosk 

reporting may help agencies supervise lower-risk clients 

more efficiently and allow PPOs to reallocate their time 

and attention to higher-risk clients with greater needs . 

The next chapter delves into the specifics of kiosk 

reporting and provides a summary of what is currently 

known about this technology .

Exhibit 1-2. Probation Field Office

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 15

Chapter 2

What Do Community Supervision Agencies 

Need to Know about Kiosk Reporting?

KEY POINTS

1 The findings from previous studies as well as the current multi-jurisdiction kiosk 

study suggest low-risk clients assigned to kiosk supervision are no more likely 

to recidivate than are low-risk clients assigned to traditional officer supervision.

2 Findings from the current multi-jurisdiction kiosk study show:

 Kiosk reporting is most frequently used as a primary method of 

supervision for low-risk clients. However, some community supervision 

agencies also use kiosk reporting as a supplement to traditional officer 

supervision for high-risk clients.

 Current and former users of kiosk supervision reported many benefits 

of this technology. Community supervision agencies indicated kiosk 

reporting increased supervision efficiency, improved administrative and 

recordkeeping efficiency, resulted in high rates of compliance among 

clients, and improved overall monitoring of clients. Community supervision 

agencies also mentioned several client-level benefits including improved 

convenience, enhanced options for graduated sanctions and rewards, 

increased use of receipts and reminders, and increased accountability.

 Current and former users of kiosk reporting also described some 

challenges and criticisms of the technology, some of which were 

improved or resolved as the technology advanced and staff and clients 

became more familiar with it. Challenges and criticisms reported include: 

time burden on PPOs and/or office staff, concern about less interaction 

with clients, difficulty establishing eligibility criteria, dissatisfaction with 

kiosk system design and/or available features, and resistance among 

agency staff and stakeholders to the technology.

 Despite the challenges and criticisms reported by current and former 

users, agency staff and their clients were satisfied with the kiosk reporting 

technology overall.

 Although implementing a kiosk reporting program may require a financial 

investment up front, findings from the cost analysis suggest the use of 

kiosk reporting can save resources over time.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 16

Overview

This chapter provides an overview of what is currently known about the use of reporting 

kiosks. Community supervision agencies can use the information presented here to help 

determine whether kiosk reporting is a good fit for their agency. This chapter begins with 

a summary of research study findings on the effects of kiosk reporting on recidivism. The 

remainder of this chapter, which is primarily based on input from community supervision 

agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study, discusses the use of kiosk 

reporting, benefits and challenges of this technology, and overall satisfaction among 

agency staff and clients.

2 .1 Current Evidence on the Effects 

of Kiosk Reporting on Clients’ Recidivism 

and Related Outcomes

Given that community supervision agencies’ primary goal is to protect public safety, agencies need to know 

how the use of kiosk reporting affects their clients’ likelihood of reoffending compared with traditional officer 

supervision . Community supervision agencies are not likely to adopt and implement a kiosk reporting program 

unless clients assigned to kiosk supervision are at no greater risk of reoffending than clients assigned to traditional 

officer supervision—that is, the use of kiosk supervision cannot pose any additional threat to public safety . This 

section provides a summary of the current evidence, including findings from existing studies and the current multijurisdiction kiosk study, on the effects of kiosk reporting on recidivism and related outcomes .

PRIOR STUDIES

To date, few studies have evaluated the effects of kiosk 

reporting on recidivism . However, two jurisdictions, New 

York City and the state of Maryland, have evaluated 

whether their kiosk reporting programs achieved 

the ultimate goal of protecting public safety . Both 

jurisdictions implemented a kiosk reporting program 

to meet public safety goals in two ways: (1) assigning 

a large number of low-risk probationers to a reporting 

system that required substantially fewer probation 

officers and allowed for the reallocation of resources 

from low-risk to high-risk probationers, and (2) providing 

high-risk probationers with more intensive supervision . 

Both jurisdictions found encouraging results .38

In New York City (NYC), the Department of Probation 

(DOP) began using reporting kiosks as a pilot program 

in the mid-1990s with a small number of low-risk 

probationers . Due to the success of the pilot program, 

the DOP expanded the use of kiosk reporting to all 

low-risk probationers under community supervision 

in 2003 . A 2007 evaluation of reporting kiosks in NYC 

compared two-year rearrest rates among two cohorts 

of probationers . The first cohort consisted of individuals 

who entered probation supervision between January 

1, 2000, and June 30, 2000, prior to NYC’s expansion of 

kiosk reporting in 2003 .39 The second cohort was made 

up of individuals who entered probation supervision 

between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2004, after NYC’s 

expansion of kiosk reporting .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 17

This study found that recidivism decreased from 31 

percent (2000 cohort) to 28 percent (2004 cohort) among 

the low-risk probationers, suggesting the expansion of 

kiosk reporting was associated with a decline in twoyear arrest rates among low-risk probationers .40 Rearrest 

rates for high-risk probationers declined from 55 percent 

(2000 cohort) to 47 percent (2004 cohort), suggesting 

that the high-risk probationers’ more intensive 

supervision, made possible by the assignment of lowrisk probationers to kiosk reporting and thus reallocating 

resources from low- to high-risk probationers, was 

associated with a decline in two-year rearrest rates .41

The decreases in two-year rearrest rates for lowand high-risk probationers were largely attributed 

to decreases in drug arrests . Although this study 

established an association between kiosk supervision 

and declines in rearrest rates, given the limitations in the 

study’s research methods, a causal relationship between 

the two cannot be established (i .e ., it is not possible 

to conclude that kiosk reporting caused a decrease in 

rearrest rates .) Also, the rearrest rates were measured 

during a period in which crime was declining throughout 

NYC, providing a possible alternative explanation for 

this decrease .

The Maryland study found similarly positive results . 

In February 2001, the Maryland Department of Public 

Safety and Correctional Services launched a pilot study 

of reporting kiosks .42 As part of the study, they monitored 

the rearrest rate for 147 offenders assigned to kiosk 

in the city of Hyattsville . Between July and December 

of 2001, only 2 percent (n=3) were rearrested . The 

study compared the 2 percent rearrest rate with the 

average arrest rate of offenders under traditional officer 

supervision, which was 10 percent for low-risk offenders 

within 90 days of assignment to supervision .43 The 

study concluded that the rearrest rate among offenders 

assigned to kiosk supervision was less than the rearrest 

rate among offenders assigned to traditional officer 

supervision .44 However, similar to the research in NYC, 

given the methodological limitations of this study, it is 

not possible to say that kiosk reporting caused rearrest 

rates to decline .

Although the decreases in recidivism are seemingly 

small in these studies, the effect of kiosk reporting on 

recidivism can be thought of in a different way, namely 

that the studies suggest kiosk reporting did not increase 

recidivism among clients assigned to kiosk supervision 

(compared with clients assigned to traditional officer 

supervision) . These studies also provide support for the 

importance of assessing risk among clients, aligning the 

intensity of supervision with clients’ risk of reoffending, 

and reallocating resources to allow higher-risk clients to 

receive more intensive supervision .

CURRENT MULTI-JURISDICTION 

KIOSK STUDY

The current multi-jurisdiction kiosk study, upon which 

this guidebook is based, includes two outcome 

studies from two of the sites currently using kiosk 

reporting . The first outcome study compared outcomes 

for probationers assigned to kiosk supervision and 

telephone reporting via interactive voice response 

(IVR) with voiceprint technology in a large metropolitan 

area . First introduced in Chapter 1, Section 1 .3, 

IVR technology, which allows clients to report via 

telephone, is a system that first verifies clients’ 

identities through voice recognition software and then 

asks clients to answer a series of questions they would 

otherwise answer at a face-to-face meeting with a 

PPO . Overall, the study found similar outcomes among 

probationers reporting via kiosk and IVR . Specifically, 

probationers reporting via kiosk were as likely to 

successfully complete probation as those reporting via 

IVR . Further, probationers reporting via kiosk were as 

likely to be rearrested as those reporting via IVR .

The second outcome study compared probationers 

assigned to kiosk supervision and traditional officer 

supervision in a large urban county . The kiosk reporting 

program in this city was rolled out gradually, first at 

one office and then followed by other offices . Because 

of this gradual implementation, the outcome study 

consisted of two “sub-studies .” The first study focused 

on the original implementation office, where low-risk 

probationers were contemporaneously distributed into 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 18

traditional officer supervision and kiosk supervision 

groups; both groups had a similar demographic makeup 

and criminal history . This study found probationers 

assigned to kiosk supervision were no more likely to 

receive a violation or be rearrested than those assigned to 

traditional officer supervision . The second study focused 

on all of the remaining offices . It compared low-risk 

probationers supervised by an officer prior to the kiosk 

implementation, with low-risk probationers who reported 

via kiosk after kiosk implementation . Like the first of the 

two sub-studies, this retrospective comparison also found 

that probationers in the kiosk group were no more likely 

to receive a violation or be rearrested than were those on 

officer supervision .

Exhibit 2-1. Reporting Kiosks in Probation 

Office Lobby

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH

ON KIOSK REPORTING

The findings from previous studies as well as the 

current multi-jurisdiction kiosk study suggest that lowrisk clients assigned to kiosk supervision are no more 

likely to be rearrested than are low-risk clients assigned 

to traditional officer supervision or to telephone 

reporting via IVR with voiceprint technology . Additional 

research is needed to determine whether higher-risk 

clients assigned to kiosk supervision are any more 

likely to recidivate than are similar clients assigned 

to traditional officer supervision . Further, although 

insufficient research has been conducted to establish 

kiosk reporting as an evidence-based program, studies 

to date suggest kiosk reporting is a promising approach 

for safely supervising low-risk clients . Additional 

benefits, as well as challenges and criticisms of kiosk 

reporting current and former users mentioned as part 

of the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study, are discussed in 

Sections 2 .3 and 2 .4, respectively .

2 .2 Supervision Models for Kiosk Reporting

Community supervision agencies considering the use of kiosk reporting also may want to know how agencies use 

this technology to supervise their clients .

Among community supervision agencies participating in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study,

the use of kiosk reporting varied across agencies in three primary dimensions:

DIMENSION 1 : WHO – Who is supervised via kiosk reporting

DIMENSION 2 : HOW – The manner in which kiosk reporting is used to supervise

DIMENSION 3 : WHEN – At what point in the criminal justice process is kiosk supervision being used

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 19

Depending on the jurisdiction, the use of reporting kiosks may be governed by agency-level policy and/or the 

discretion of the PPOs . Regardless, the use of kiosk reporting is highly influenced by the interests of and buy-in 

from community stakeholders, such as law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, pre-trial service agencies, 

probation agency personnel, and community organizations . As will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, 

Section 3 .3, community supervision agencies’ use of kiosk reporting is most successful when it aligns with the 

interests of community stakeholders across the three dimensions (i .e ., who, how, and when) . The remainder of this 

section explores variations in the use of kiosks within each of the three dimensions .

DIMENSION 1 : WHO

Before assigning clients to kiosk supervision, most 

community supervision agencies that participated 

in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study emphasized the 

importance of assessing clients’ risk of reoffending . 

Many agencies used one or more risk assessment tools 

to determine the risk-level of each client . Agencies could 

then use the results of the risk assessment instrument(s) 

to assign each client to supervision with an intensity 

proportional to his or her risk of reoffending .

Although kiosk supervision has been used with clients 

of all risk levels, agencies most frequently used kiosk 

reporting to supervise low-risk clients . Low-risk clients 

assigned to kiosk supervision are often required to 

initially report to their PPO for a face-to-face meeting . 

However, after the initial in-person meeting, clients 

assigned to kiosk supervision typically report via kiosk 

thereafter, unless they violate the conditions of their 

community supervision term or commit a new crime . 

Although less common, some community supervision 

agencies use kiosk reporting as a supplement to 

traditional supervision for monitoring medium- or 

higher-risk clients .

Some agencies also use kiosk reporting to supervise hardto-reach populations, such as the homeless, as well as 

populations that may require closer monitoring, such as 

sex offenders .

For example, kiosks have been used for supervising 

homeless populations as a means to weed out individuals 

who are not actually homeless . Specifically, some PPOs 

require homeless clients to report via kiosk daily; thus, 

individuals who are hesitant to provide their home 

address are deterred from withholding that information 

and pretending to be homeless .

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“Success starts with the classification of 

the actual population you are going to use 

– who are you targeting ... what goals you 

are trying to achieve. For example, if you 

are trying to reduce recidivism through the 

use of a kiosk, I don’t believe that’s a good 

tool for that. However, if you are looking 

to release some administrative duties, 

still keep good supervision on a low-risk 

population, that is where you would find

a kiosk as a good option for you.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 20

DIMENSION 2 : HOW

The interests of local stakeholders as well as the 

clients’ risk of reoffending greatly influence how

kiosk reporting is used .

Exhibit 2-2. Entrance to Kiosk Reporting Office

When current and former kiosk users were

asked how they used the technology to supervise 

clients, two primary models emerged:

• Primary Method of Supervision

Most often, community supervision agencies used 

kiosk reporting as the primary method of supervision 

for low-risk clients . Clients who are assigned to kiosk 

supervision as their primary method of supervision are 

sometimes required to report to their PPO for a set 

period of time before reporting via kiosk, or to attend 

an initial in-person meeting with their PPO and then 

report via kiosk . Clients assigned to kiosk supervision 

are also sometimes required to have periodic contact 

with their PPO . Community supervision agencies do 

not typically use kiosk reporting as the primary method 

of supervision for higher-risk clients, who require more 

intensive supervision .

• Supplement to Traditional Officer Supervision

When higher-risk clients were assigned to kiosk 

supervision, it was usually as a supplement to 

traditional officer supervision . Occasionally, 

community supervision agencies used kiosk 

supervision as a supplement to traditional officer 

supervision for lower-risk clients, especially when

the jurisdiction’s political environment required

PPOs to be more actively involved with their clients .

 Some community supervision agencies also 

incorporated kiosk reporting as a graduated 

sanction (i.e., as a punishment for noncompliance) 

and/or a graduated incentive

or reward (i.e., as a reward for compliance).

• Graduated Sanction

Clients who are noncompliant may be required to report 

to the kiosk more frequently as punishment or may have 

the privilege of reporting via kiosk revoked altogether .

• Graduated Incentive/Reward

Clients may be granted the privilege of kiosk reporting 

as a reward for compliance or as a step-down (i .e ., less 

intensive supervision) from more intensive supervision .

DIMENSION 3 : WHEN

Most community supervision agencies reported using 

kiosks to supervise individuals assigned to probation, 

post-conviction . However, some agencies also have 

used reporting kiosks for supervising parolees – that is, 

individuals released from a correctional institution (e .g ., 

prison or jail) and/or individuals released from jail pretrial . Regardless of when it is used, kiosk technology 

allows PPOs to better manage large caseloads of lowrisk clients and dedicate more time and resources to 

higher-risk clients .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 21

2 .3 Benefits of Kiosk Reporting

Community supervision agencies considering a kiosk reporting program may want to know the potential benefits 

of using this technology to supervise clients . The benefits recounted by current and former users of kiosk reporting 

generally fall within one of two main categories: (1) agency- and PPO-level benefits and (2) agency-reported clientlevel benefits . This section first provides an overview of the potential agency-level benefits reported by current 

and former users of kiosk reporting, including increased supervision efficiency, improved administrative and 

recordkeeping efficiency, higher rates of compliance, and improved monitoring . Next, client-level benefits reported 

by community supervision agency staff are presented, including convenience, enhanced options for graduated 

sanctions and rewards, and more accurate recordkeeping .

AGENCY-/PPO-LEVEL BENEFITS

1 Increased Supervision Efficiency

• Reallocating Resources from Low- to HighRisk Clients

The use of kiosk reporting for supervising low-risk

clients allows community supervision agencies

and PPOs to redirect their time and resources to

higher-risk clients, who require more intensive

supervision and have greater needs . Research

consistently suggests that intensive supervision

and treatment have the greatest benefit for

moderate- and high-risk clients and that intensive

supervision and treatment do not reduce recidivism

for low-risk clients .45

• More Efficient and Appropriate Monitoring

of Low-Risk Clients

The use of kiosk reporting allows PPOs to supervise

large caseloads of low-risk clients more efficiently

because it minimizes the need for regular faceto-face meetings . Research strongly suggests that

oversupervising low-risk clients can cause more harm

than good and may jeopardize the very circumstances

that contributed to their classification as low-risk .

For example, requiring low-risk clients to meet with

their PPOs on a regular basis, particularly during

business hours, may result in time away from work,

transportation challenges, and child care issues .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“Kiosk reporting allows for us to then 

allocate our human resources to our high 

risk clients. Those who are in need of 

treatment, those who are in need of faceto-face interaction, those that are in need of 

high levels of supervision because they’re 

high risk and we need to employ those 

skill sets that we’ve developed on behalf of 

those officers to ensure that we hold those 

clients accountable, that they’re moving 

in the positive direction of treatment 

and . . . hold them accountable to the public 

safety standards of our community.”

• Better Case Management, Increased

Coverage, and Time Savings

Kiosk reporting allows PPOs to better manage large

caseloads, which in turn saves time that PPOs can

redirect to other productive activities . For example,

PPOs can redirect their time to visiting clients in

the field, engaging in more substantive discussions

and interventions, working with informal social

networks, and developing stronger relationships

with treatment providers .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 22

2 

Improved Administrative and 

Recordkeeping Efficiency

• Better Maintenance of Current Information 

on Clients

PPOs should maintain current information on their 

clients so they can locate and monitor them . Less 

invasive monitoring techniques, such as monthly 

mail-in post cards with updated information, are 

often time-consuming and difficult to keep current . 

Kiosk reporting allows agencies to better maintain 

a client’s current address, employment status, law 

enforcement contacts, and other information .

• Reduction in Paperwork and More Efficient 

Report Generation

Current and former users frequently cited 

reduction in paperwork as one of the benefits 

of kiosk reporting . Kiosk reporting reduces the 

need for administrative tasks, such as data 

entry and filing . In addition to the reduction in 

paperwork, some reporting kiosks allow PPOs to 

generate reports automatically . This eliminates the 

need for PPOs to create their own tracking and 

reporting protocols .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“Our resources are very scarce, and it 

became important for us to make better 

use of staff time...We eliminated all these 

monthly report forms coming in, so it 

streamlines operations and makes for more 

efficient operations and gives us a greater 

level of accountability on the offenders.”

3 Higher Rates of Compliance

Many current and former users found kiosk reporting 

increased compliance among their clients, with some 

agencies reporting compliance rates close to 100 

percent . Clients on kiosk supervision understand they 

are still being monitored and will be held accountable 

if they do not report as instructed . Some agencies 

associated increased compliance with reductions in 

recidivism and increased employment stability .

4 Improved Monitoring

Overall, PPOs regarded kiosk reporting as a useful tool 

for improved monitoring of their clients .

Three ways that kiosk reporting improves client 

monitoring are:

• Increased Accuracy of Reporting

Kiosk reporting provides PPOs with a more accurate 

record of who is reporting and when (i .e ., date and 

time) compared with more traditional methods of 

non-face-to-face reporting (e .g ., reporting through 

mail) . Because reporting kiosks use technology to 

identify clients, such as biometric identification 

using handprints, fingerprints, or facial recognition 

using photographs, PPOs know with certainty who 

is reporting .

Exhibit 2-3. Biometric Identification

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 23

• Increased Standardization and Accessibility 

of Data

The use of kiosks for community supervision also 

increases standardization and accessibility of data . 

Kiosks can collect the same information from each 

client, and some machines allow PPOs to access 

data in real time .

• Increased Accountability

Reporting kiosks provide data with increased 

accuracy and accessibility, which allow PPOs to 

hold clients accountable if they do not report in

a timely manner .

AGENCY-REPORTED CLIENT-LEVEL BENEFITS

1 Convenience

• Increased Flexibility in Reporting Times

and Locations

Kiosk reporting often allows clients to report at a 

time (e .g ., before work, after work) and sometimes 

a place (i .e ., some agencies have kiosks in multiple 

locations) that is convenient for them .

• Time Savings

Kiosk supervision minimizes the time clients might 

otherwise have to spend waiting for and meeting 

face-to-face with a PPO .

2

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“It takes them two minutes ...They don’t 

have to come in and wait and see somebody, 

but they’re also being responsible and 

coming in and checking in. So I think they 

find it very convenient as well.”

 

Reduced Potential Adverse Effects 

of Community Supervision on 

Low-Risk Clients

• Reduction in Disruptions to Pro-Social 

Activities

The efficiency and convenience kiosk supervision 

offers allows clients to report as required with 

minimal disruptions to their prosocial activities 

(e .g ., school or employment) .

• Promote and Maintain Low-Risk Status

Assigning low-risk clients to kiosk supervision 

can reduce the exposure of these clients to the 

potential negative influences of higher-risk clients 

in waiting areas . Long wait times to meet with a 

PPO are not uncommon for clients assigned to 

traditional officer supervision and may require 

clients to spend a significant amount of time in 

waiting areas . Low-risk clients who spend time 

in waiting areas may be exposed to the negative 

influences of higher-risk clients . Kiosk supervision 

can reduce the amount of time low-risk clients 

spend in waiting areas and thus their exposure to 

higher-risk clients .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“It (kiosk reporting)...separates our low-risk 

clients from our high- or moderate-risk 

clients so that we can keep them at low 

risk and not intermingle them in any way, 

shape, or form with our moderate- or 

high-risk clients. Thus, preserving their 

low-risk qualities.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 24

3 

Enhanced Options for Graduated 

Sanctions and Rewards/Incentives

As noted earlier, many community supervision agencies 

use kiosk reporting as part of their graduated sanctions 

and rewards system . Some PPOs require their clients 

to earn the privilege of reporting to a kiosk (e .g ., when 

all financial obligations have been met, when reporting 

compliance has been consistent, or when courtordered programs have been completed) .

PPOs may also take away the privilege of kiosk 

reporting or require more frequent reporting from 

clients who are not fully compliant with the terms of 

their supervision .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“It benefits all the clients. The clients who 

are referred to kiosk are very, very grateful. 

<Name of court omitted>. . . It’s out in the 

boonies. No bus service, no transportation. 

It is just very difficult for clients to get out 

here . . . So there’s just a lot of obstacles. To 

give somebody the privilege of reporting by 

kiosk is a huge benefit . . . This is a privilege 

and a reward for the clients.”

4 

Increased Use of Receipts

and Reminders

Some reporting kiosks can provide clients with a 

receipt each time they report and/or send reminders to 

clients with upcoming reporting obligations .

5 Increased Accountability

Kiosk supervision can be used to monitor clients

more frequently and closely than would be possible 

under traditional officer supervision . Some clients 

expressed a desire to be closely monitored and were 

in favor of the increased accountability that kiosk 

supervision provided because it gave them opportunities 

to demonstrate they are meeting the expectations of 

their PPO and the terms of their supervision .

2 .4 Challenges and Criticisms of Kiosk Reporting

Kiosk supervision offers many potential benefits to community supervision agencies, PPOs, and clients under 

community supervision . Despite these benefits, current and former users experienced some challenges with 

kiosk reporting and also shared their criticisms of the technology . Keep in mind that some of the challenges and 

criticisms discussed below can be attributed to the fact that kiosk technology was in its infancy, and that these 

challenges were resolved as clients (as well as agency staff) became more familiar with the kiosks or as its 

technology advanced . As with any new program or practice, community supervision agencies did occasionally 

experience challenges with kiosk reporting unrelated to early implementation difficulties .

The challenges and criticisms that current and former users of kiosk reporting mentioned as part of the multijurisdiction kiosk study fell within the following categories: administrative or supervisory issues, technology issues 

(e .g ., equipment failures, glitches, equipment shortcomings such as absence of desired features), PPO and other 

stakeholder issues (e .g ., resistance), location or access issues, and other challenges and criticisms .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 25

ADMINISTRATIVE OR SUPERVISORY ISSUES

Community supervision agencies reported several 

administrative and supervisory issues related to 

implementing kiosk reporting . Challenges and criticisms 

included time burden on PPOs and/or other staff, 

concern over less frequent interactions with clients, 

establishing eligibility criteria, and concern about the 

potential oversupervision of minimal risk clients .

1 Time Burden on PPOs and/or

Office Staff

Some current and former users reported that the initial 

enrollment of clients was time-consuming, especially 

when a large number of clients were enrolled at the same 

time rather than on a rolling basis . Other agency staff 

expressed frustration with the additional time required to 

help resolve such kiosk user issues as clients forgetting 

how to use the kiosk or losing their identification number 

and not being able to log onto the kiosk; some staff 

mentioned problems with utilizing biometric identification .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“It’s been difficult because ...I don’t know 

if their hands are dirty. I don’t know what 

goes on with them, but they receive 

errors when they go to log on. And that’s 

frustrating for our staff because they need 

to go out and work with them or we’re not 

getting the reporting like we should. But 

when it works, it works and it works really 

well. I don’t think I’ve had any negative 

feedback other than the ability of the ...

biometric to actually read their palm print.”

Staff also frequently complained about the additional 

time needed to resolve general technology issues, 

although many reported that technology problems 

have diminished with new advancements in technology 

and as they and their clients became more familiar 

with kiosk-related technologies . Others mentioned the 

additional time required for general maintenance (e .g ., 

changing receipt paper and ink; cleaning the biometric 

scan surfaces), but often dismissed these concerns 

as insignificant .

2 Concern About Less Frequent 

Interactions with Clients

Some agency staff were uncomfortable with the 

idea that kiosk supervision resulted in less frequent 

interactions with clients . Specifically, they expressed 

concern that PPOs might miss something that would 

normally be detected during a face-to-face encounter 

(e .g ., client intoxication, client reporting a fictional new 

address that the system might accept as valid) . Others 

emphasized the importance of establishing rapport 

with clients, which could be lost if reporting was 

reduced to “robot” supervision .

3 Establishing Eligibility Criteria

Both current and former kiosk users reported that 

deciding how to set up the kiosk program and 

determining who should be eligible for the program 

was challenging . Users rated risk level, client need, 

agency history and philosophical approach, as well 

as stakeholder buy-in, as important considerations 

for agencies developing eligibility criteria for kiosk 

supervision . Users cited risk level most frequently as an 

eligibility consideration, emphasizing client need to a 

lesser extent . Others mentioned the challenge involved 

in establishing eligibility criteria that could balance the 

desire for maximizing the benefits of kiosk supervision 

against stakeholder concerns regarding risk and 

community safety .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 26

4 

Concern for Oversupervision of 

Minimal Risk Clients

Although kiosk supervision has been used for clients 

of all risk levels, some agency personnel regard kiosk 

supervision as appropriate only for low-risk clients, 

and they assign only the lowest-risk clients to kiosk 

supervision . The challenge is that “low-risk” status is 

not universally defined or applied to kiosk supervision 

across agencies . As such, some agencies are willing to 

assign only minimal risk clients to kiosk supervision, 

whereas other probation agencies might assign these 

clients to administrative or banked caseloads not 

requiring active supervision . For agency personnel 

who feel kiosk supervision is appropriate only for the 

minimal risk “self-correctors,” kiosk supervision may 

provide a higher level of supervision than necessary, 

potentially resulting in increased recidivism, as 

described in Chapter 1, Section 1 .2 .

TECHNOLOGY FAILURES

Many current and former users of kiosks reported 

challenges related to technology including hardware 

failures (e .g ., CPU, receipt printers, document scanners, 

and touch screens), software glitches, and other 

systems-related issues (e .g ., Internet and intranet 

connections, integration with the case management 

system, slow processing speeds) .

Exhibit 2-4. Out of Order Reporting Kiosk

Users most frequently reported having problems 

with biometrics malfunctions (e .g ., the palm-print or 

fingerprint recognition software was unable to identify 

clients when their hands were dirty, or the hand 

geometry technology was unable to verify clients’ 

hands due to changes, such as longer fingernails or 

large rings not present when the baseline image was 

taken) . Certainly, some of the technological issues have 

been resolved as the kiosk technology has improved 

and agency staff and clients have become more 

familiar with the new system .

1 Dissatisfaction with Kiosk

System Design

Several current and former kiosk users reported being 

dissatisfied with the design of their agency’s kiosk 

system or available kiosk features .

Specific criticisms and challenges regarding 

system design included:

• System not user friendly, requiring PPOs to toggle 

back and forth between screens to access desired 

information

• Kiosk system not fully integrated into agency case 

management system

• Outdated software

• Compatibility issues when replacing failed hardware 

(e .g ., biometric scanners or printers)

• System integration overwriting previous data entered

2 Dissatisfaction with Available

Kiosk Features

Some agency staff reported frustration with the 

limitations of the kiosk systems adopted by their 

agency . Many current and former users reported a 

desire for specific features, which many were unaware 

were actually available to them, whereas others 

expressed regret in not adopting specific features they 

knew were available .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 27

Features in this category include:

• Automatically generating letters to clients

who fail to report

• Confirming identity via biometrics

• Immediately/automatically alerting the PPO

when a client fails to report

• Accepting payment of fines, fees, and court costs

• Utilizing a built-in breathalyzer

PPO AND OTHER

STAKEHOLDER ISSUES

Current and former kiosk users reported two main 

issues related to PPOs and other stakeholders: (1) 

overall fear of change and (2) fear of technology . Some 

PPOs viewed kiosks as an ineffective or inadequate 

reporting modality because they considered faceto-face interaction between PPOs and clients as an 

essential component of community supervision .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“I think the main resistance may have come 

from the fear of technology for the older 

officers and think that overall the fear was 

that you’re going to take my easy cases ...

Officers often refer to the low risk clients 

as a brain saver. I’m going to see these 5 

stressful ones today and now he’s going to 

come in here and I’m going to hold a decent 

conversation and he’s doing everything 

I’ve asked him to do. And I did this when I 

was an officer too – maybe schedule two 

difficult ones and then one or two that are 

not going to be resistant just to help me 

make it through the day.”

Some clients also expressed a desire to meet with a 

PPO and receive personal contact . A few PPOs feared 

kiosks had the potential to replace their positions 

and lead to job loss . Others, especially older PPOs, 

were apprehensive about learning a new technology . 

Community supervision agency staff also reported that 

some clients were not necessarily receptive to change 

or the use of technology .

LOCATION AND ACCESS ISSUES

To improve compliance among clients, kiosks need to 

be readily available and accessible to clients . Some 

agencies reported they could not secure a suitable kiosk 

location with 24/7 access . Others expressed concern 

that clients who live in remote areas might have to travel 

very long distances to a reporting location, which was a 

barrier to regular and timely reporting .

Exhibit 2-5. Community Center Reporting Kiosk

As a strategy to overcome location and access 

challenges and provide more flexibility for their clients, 

some agencies reported choosing a voice- or web-based 

system instead of, or in addition to, the reporting kiosks .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 28

LESSON LEARNED FROM THE FIELD

“Children often mistake the kiosk for a

video game. The close proximity of the 

vending machines tends to draw children

to this location.”

OTHER CHALLENGES

AND CRITICISMS

Respondents reported other challenges and criticisms 

that were not necessarily exclusive to kiosk supervision 

and could actually be a challenge faced when 

implementing other alternatives to traditional face-toface community supervision .

These challenges included cost, program sustainability, 

initial program implementation (e .g ., logistics regarding 

placement and installation of kiosks; IT challenges), 

and communication (e .g ., translation of questions into 

languages other than English, simplifying the question 

language so that it could be understood by clients with 

minimal education) .

The most common “other” challenge reported was 

funding . Several probation personnel we interviewed 

described how the startup of their kiosk reporting 

program was grant funded and once the grant funding 

was expended, agencies struggled with finding 

additional funds to support the continued daily 

operations, maintenance, and technology upgrades 

necessary to successfully operate their programs . 

Faced with sustainability issues, some respondents 

reported identifying less-costly alternatives to kiosk 

supervision (e .g ., telephone- or web-based reporting 

systems) whereby the equipment and services provided 

by vendors was cheaper than kiosk supervision, or the 

costs were passed on to clients .

2 .5 Satisfaction with Kiosk Reporting among

Agency Staff and Clients

Overall, kiosk reporting has been well-received by community supervision agency staff and their clients . Agency staff 

reported being satisfied with kiosk reporting for many reasons, including better management of large caseloads of 

low-risk clients, more time to focus on high-risk clients, improved accuracy in tracking client reporting activities, 

enhanced technological capabilities for accurately identifying clients, and improved compliance among clients .

Agency staff have also received positive feedback, with few complaints from clients about kiosk reporting . For 

example, according to agency staff, clients are more satisfied with kiosk reporting because it offers reporting 

flexibility (with kiosks available at various locations and times), reduces wait-times, minimizes face-to-face 

interactions with PPOs, and is generally more convenient .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 29

2 .6 Summary

Research to date suggests kiosk reporting may be a safe 

alternative to traditional officer supervision, particularly 

for lower-risk clients . Community supervision agencies 

typically use kiosk reporting as a primary method for 

supervising low-risk clients, however, some also use 

kiosk reporting as a supplement to officer supervision 

for higher-risk clients . Overall, community supervision 

agencies, PPOs, and clients are satisfied with the 

technology and indicated kiosk reporting offers many 

agency-, staff-, and client-level benefits . Although some 

agencies experienced challenges with the technology, 

many of the challenges and criticisms resolved over time 

as the technology improved and users became more 

familiar with kiosk reporting . As with any technology, 

kiosk reporting does have its limitations, and community 

supervision agencies will want to carefully consider 

whether kiosk supervision is a good fit for their agency . 

The next chapter provides an overview of what the 

adoption and implementation of a kiosk reporting 

program might look like, to help guide agencies 

considering kiosk reporting through this process .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 30

Chapter 3 

Adoption and Implementation

Considerations

KEY POINTS 

1 The success of a kiosk reporting program depends, in part, on the quality of 

implementation. Community supervision agencies need to think about how 

best to put a kiosk reporting program into place.

2 The “program implementation cycle” for kiosk reporting consists of four 

overlapping stages: exploration, adoption and planning, implementation, 

and evaluation/assessment.

3 During the exploration stage, agencies will conduct a needs assessment and 

identify goals, gather as much information as possible about kiosk reporting, and 

then assess how well kiosk reporting fits with their agency.

4 During the adoption and planning stage, agencies that determined kiosk 

reporting is a good fit for their agency will begin to develop a clear vision of 

change—that is, agencies will want to think about what their kiosk reporting 

program will look like and how it will be rolled out. Community supervision 

agencies will also need to conduct a preliminary assessment of their available 

staffing and financial resources and begin to engage and obtain buy-in from key 

stakeholders. At the end of the adoption and planning stage, agencies will decide 

whether kiosk reporting is feasible for their agency and whether their agency is 

willing to support and commit to the technology.

5 Agencies that determine kiosk reporting is feasible for and supported by their 

agency will engage in more detailed planning, roll-out, and maintenance of 

their kiosk reporting program. Agencies should document their policy changes 

and decisions related to kiosk reporting and also create a manual for staff 

to help standardize kiosk reporting protocols. Program implementation is an 

ongoing process that agencies will engage in for the duration of their use of 

kiosk reporting.

6 The final stage, evaluation/assessment, calls for agencies that are 

implementing kiosk reporting to conduct an evaluation/assessment of their 

program, beginning in the program’s initial stages, to assess how well kiosk 

reporting is being implemented and whether the program is meeting its 

objectives. Agencies can use the findings from their evaluation/assessment to 

either make improvements to their program or as a catalyst for exploring other 

technologies and/or programs that might be a better fit for their agency.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 31

Overview

Innovative policies, programs, and practices in community corrections, such as kiosk 

reporting, are regularly emerging with the promise to help agencies address their 

needs, overcome their challenges, and reach their goals. The success of any new policy, 

program, or practice depends not only on the innovation itself, but also on how well it 

is implemented or put into use. This chapter first provides an introduction to program 

implementation to help community supervision agencies understand what implementation 

is and why the quality of implementation matters. Next, this chapter briefly outlines the 

exploration, adoption and planning, implementation, and evaluation/assessment stages of 

a kiosk reporting program. The remainder of this chapter delves deeper into the first three 

stages and includes specific “Action Items” to help guide community supervision agencies 

through the process of determining whether kiosk reporting is a good fit for their agency, 

and if so, how to put into place a program that fits their needs and available resources. The 

evaluation/assessment stage is discussed in Chapter 4.

3 .1 An Introduction to Program Implementation

DEFINING PROGRAM 

IMPLEMENTATION

Before delving into the adoption and implementation 

considerations specific to a kiosk reporting program, 

community supervision agencies need to understand 

what implementation is and why the quality of 

implementation matters . Implementation can be 

defined as “a specified set of activities designed to 

put into practice an activity or program of known 

dimensions .”46 If a new program or practice is not 

implemented well, it will not have the intended effects . 

Far more programs fail from poor implementation 

than from a poor program design . Therefore, when 

implementing a kiosk reporting program, community 

supervision agencies should consider not only the 

content of a kiosk reporting program itself, but also 

how best to put into place a kiosk reporting program 

to achieve the best outcomes .

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM 

IMPLEMENTATION: CHANGE AT 

THE STAFF AND ORGANIZATION/

AGENCY LEVEL

To successfully implement a new program, such as 

kiosk reporting, community supervision agencies will 

need to implement changes at both the staff level and 

the organization or agency level . Much of the literature 

on organizational change emphasizes the importance 

of assessing how an agency’s current staff roles and 

responsibilities will change as a result of implementing 

a new intervention, what training may be necessary 

to prepare staff for their new roles, and whether an 

agency will need additional staff with specific expertise . 

At the organization/agency level, organizations may 

need to gain new knowledge and skills and adjust their 

infrastructure to support new ways of doing business .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 32

The literature on program implementation features “key 

elements” of organizational change that are necessary 

for successful implementation, some of which are 

relevant to kiosk reporting .47 These key elements of 

organizational change include the identification of key 

areas of change a new program must address, strong 

organizational leadership to communicate the vision 

of change to stakeholders and potential partners, 

willingness to revise the organization’s policies and 

practices as needed to ensure they are consistent with 

the new program, willingness to commit resources 

needed to implement and maintain the new program, 

and ability to conduct an evaluation (and collect 

necessary data) to assess how well the new program 

is working and make refinements as appropriate . This 

chapter highlights these key elements of organizational 

change throughout as they apply to the exploration, 

adoption and planning, and implementation of a kiosk 

reporting program .

IMPLEMENTATION OF KIOSK REPORTING

The successful implementation of a new program, such as kiosk reporting, consists of four primary stages: exploration, 

adoption and planning, implementation, and evaluation/assessment . The four stages make up what could be considered 

the program implementation cycle, as depicted in Figure 3-1 . These stages often overlap in time and activities and 

are not mutually exclusive . The information obtained and decisions made during each stage affect subsequent stages 

and can result in continuous cycling through the four stages, as necessary . This section walks community supervision 

agencies through the program implementation cycle for kiosk reporting .

Figure 3-1 . Program Implementation Cycle for Kiosk Reporting

Program 

Implementation 

Cycle

Exploration 1

Adoption 

and Planning 2

Implementation

3

Evaluation/

Assessment

4

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 33

Stage 1: Exploration

During the exploration stage, community supervision 

agencies considering a kiosk reporting program may 

conduct a needs and/or goals assessment for their 

agency and then gather as much information as 

possible on kiosk reporting . Community supervision 

agencies can use the information gathered during 

this stage to assess whether kiosk reporting has the 

potential to help their agency address their need(s) 

and/or goal(s) . Agencies that determine kiosk reporting 

would be a good fit for their agency can move to the 

adoption and planning stage .

Stage 2: Adoption and Planning

During the adoption and planning stage, community 

supervision agencies will develop a vision of change 

and begin to make decisions regarding the features 

and capabilities of their kiosk reporting program . Once 

agencies have a general idea of what kiosk features 

and capabilities will fit their needs and goals, they 

can estimate the costs associated with putting their 

kiosk reporting program into practice . Community 

supervision agencies will also need to assess what 

financial, staffing, and other resources they have 

available to support a kiosk reporting program and 

make adjustments to their planned program based on 

these resources .

During this stage, agencies will want to establish 

a tentative schedule and plan for rolling out their 

new program . At the conclusion of the adoption and 

planning stage, community supervision agencies should 

be able to answer two questions: “Is kiosk reporting 

feasible for my agency?” and “Is my agency willing 

to commit to supporting the implementation and 

maintenance of a kiosk reporting program?” Agencies 

that answer “yes” to both of these questions can move 

forward to the implementation stage . Agencies that 

determine kiosk reporting is not a good fit may return 

to the exploration stage to consider other available 

technologies and/or programs .

Stage 3: Implementation

During the implementation stage, community 

supervision agencies will focus on how they can 

effectively implement and sustain a kiosk reporting 

program . This stage will consist of more detailed 

planning, roll-out, and maintenance of kiosk reporting . 

Implementation is an ongoing process that occurs for 

the duration of the program .

During the implementation stage, agencies should 

document their agency-level policy decisions regarding 

the kiosk reporting program and develop a manual 

that specifies the kiosk reporting procedures to 

help standardize implementation among agency 

staff . Agencies will make decisions regarding, for 

example, kiosk features, client eligibility, assignment 

and enrollment procedures, reporting protocols, and 

number and location of kiosks . Agencies will also 

develop a detailed roll-out plan for implementing 

kiosk supervision . Once kiosk supervision is fully 

implemented and successful, an agency should 

consider how to institutionalize and maintain it .

Stage 4: Evaluation/Assessment

The final stage, evaluation/assessment, overlaps with 

the implementation stage and involves continuous 

monitoring of an agency’s kiosk reporting program 

to answer two questions: “Is kiosk supervision being 

implemented as intended and meeting its objectives?” 

and “How can kiosk supervision be improved?” The 

answers to these questions lead back to the exploration 

stage—if kiosk supervision is not being implemented as 

intended and/or meeting its objectives, then community 

supervision agencies will want to explore how their 

program can be improved . If kiosk supervision needs 

more significant changes, community supervision 

agencies may want to return to the exploration stage in 

search of a different technology or approach that can 

better meet their needs .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 34

3 .2 Stage 1: Exploration

During the exploration stage, community supervision agencies considering a kiosk reporting program will want 

to begin by assessing their agency’s needs and goals, gathering as much information as possible on kiosk 

supervision, and then determining if kiosk supervision could potentially help address their need(s) and/or goal(s) . 

Agencies determining that kiosk supervision holds promise for their agency can move to the adoption and planning 

stage . Agencies that decide kiosk reporting is unlikely to address their needs and goals may want to explore other 

technologies and programs .

Action Item 1

CONDUCT A NEEDS ASSESSMENT 

AND IDENTIFY GOALS

Community supervision agencies should first assess 

their agency’s needs and identify future goals . 

Community supervision agencies should clearly identify 

what needs and/or goals they would like to address 

before they determine whether kiosk supervision could 

potentially help . Agencies may not need to conduct a 

formal assessment if they are already aware of what 

needs and goals they want to address .

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“Don’t get enthralled with the technology. 

The technology is great, but it’s just a 

tool to do our job. We need to make sure 

that the tool in and of itself is meeting 

the goals and objectives of the probation 

departments and the courts that we serve.”

Many agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction 

kiosk study indicated that improving efficiencies 

related to supervision was one of the primary goals 

behind their adoption of a kiosk reporting program . 

Some agencies also reported concerns regarding 

reporting accuracy and accessibility, compliance rates, 

rapidly expanding caseloads, and understaffing as 

motivation to adopt and implement kiosk reporting . 

Some community supervision agencies also stated they 

began exploring reporting kiosks following a triggering 

event, such as a significant budget cut and/or a grant 

award to fund a kiosk program . 

Action Item 2

REVIEW RESEARCH LITERATURE 

ON KIOSK REPORTING

Community supervision agencies may want to explore 

the literature on kiosk supervision by searching, for 

example, news media sources, probation and parole 

departments’ websites, and research reports . Agencies 

will want to gather as much information as possible on 

kiosk supervision . Chapter 2 of this guidebook provides 

a summary of the current evidence base on kiosk 

reporting, including findings from the multi-jurisdiction 

kiosk study .

Agencies will want to understand what is known 

about the effects of kiosk reporting on reoffending 

and compliance, for example, as well as the potential 

benefits and challenges of this technology . Agencies 

are also advised to check for research that has 

emerged since the publication of this guidebook .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 35

Action Item 3

CONSULT AGENCIES THAT 

CURRENTLY USE OR PREVIOUSLY 

USED REPORTING KIOSKS

Community supervision agencies may want to consult 

and/or visit agencies currently using (or that previously 

used) reporting kiosks. Through consulting and/or 

visiting jurisdictions with a kiosk reporting program, 

community supervision agencies can observe kiosk 

supervision in action and ask current users for advice 

and lessons learned in regards to adopting and 

implementing the technology. Agencies may also want 

to consult former users of kiosk supervision to find out 

why they no longer use the technology. Former users 

may no longer use kiosk reporting because of problems 

with the technology, lack of funding, insufficient staff 

support, or other reasons.

Action Item 4

ASSESS THE MATCH 

BETWEEN NEEDS/GOALS 

AND KIOSK REPORTING

After community supervision agencies conduct their 

needs assessment and gather as much information 

as possible on kiosk supervision, they can assess 

whether kiosk reporting has the potential to help their 

agency address their needs and/or goals. Community 

supervision agencies that determine kiosk reporting 

may help address their current needs and goals can 

move forward with adopting and implementing kiosk 

supervision. Agencies that determine kiosk reporting 

is not a good fit for their current needs and goals can 

continue to explore and consider other innovative 

technologies and/or programs with the potential to 

be a better fit.

3.3 Stage 2: Adoption and Planning

The needs assessment and information gathering that 

occur during the exploration stage often become a 

catalyst for increasing awareness, mobilizing interests, 

and gaining support for an innovative policy, program, 

or technology.48 Community supervision agencies that 

determine kiosk supervision has the potential to address 

their needs and/or goals then move to the adoption and 

planning stage. 

The components of successful planning are depicted 

graphically in Figure 3-2. During this stage, agencies 

develop a clear vision of what their kiosk reporting 

program will look like, how much it will cost, how it 

will be rolled out, and whether their agency has the 

resources to support the technology. Agencies will also 

begin to engage and obtain buy-in from stakeholders, 

which is essential for successful implementation of a 

kiosk reporting program.

Figure 3-2. Components of 

Successful Planning

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 36

At the end of the adoption and planning stage, 

community supervision agencies should answer 

two questions: “Is kiosk reporting feasible for their 

agency?” and “Is their agency willing to support and 

commit to the program?” Agencies that answer “yes” 

to both of these questions can move forward with the 

implementation stage . Agencies that answer “no” to 

one or both of these questions may want to return 

to the exploration stage to explore other possible 

technologies or programs to address their needs .

Action Item 1

DEVELOP A CLEAR VISION OF 

CHANGE – KIOSK FEATURES AND 

CAPABILITIES, COST, AND ROLLOUT PLAN

Community supervision agencies will need to establish 

a clear vision of change for their agency—that is, what 

their kiosk reporting program will look like, how much 

the program will cost, and the plan for rolling out their 

kiosk reporting program . Specifically, agencies will need 

to start thinking about who will be eligible for kiosk 

supervision (e .g ., clients’ risk levels) as well as the 

assignment and enrollment procedures . Agencies will 

also need to decide how kiosk supervision will be used 

(e .g ., primary versus supplementary supervision), what 

features and capabilities their reporting kiosks will have 

(e .g ., identification verification methods, ability to collect 

payments), how many kiosks will be installed and where, 

what information the kiosks will collect from clients, and 

how the kiosks will be maintained over time . (For further 

discussion about the kiosk features, capabilities, and 

protocols, see Section 3 .4 on implementation .)

Although agencies do not necessarily have to work out 

all of the details during this stage, they do need to have a 

general idea of what their kiosk reporting program will look 

like . Once agencies have a general idea about what their 

kiosk reporting program will look like, they can begin to 

estimate how much the implementation and maintenance 

of kiosk supervision will cost . Agencies will also want 

to think about the timeframe for rolling out their kiosk 

reporting program and decide whether they will begin with 

a pilot program or implement a full-scale program .

Action Item 2

ESTABLISH STRONG 

LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATE 

A VISION OF CHANGE

Community supervision agencies must establish strong 

visionary leadership to communicate their vision of 

and goals for a kiosk reporting program to agency 

staff and involve them in the change process .49 Some 

agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk 

study indicated they had a “champion” who led the 

momentum to adopt and implement a kiosk reporting 

program . A champion could be a person or group 

of people, such as community supervision agency 

administrators, PPOs, government officials, and/or 

court services personnel, who believe kiosk reporting 

is a good fit for their agency . Typically, champions 

consistently advocate for an intervention, such as a 

kiosk reporting program, and encourage others to “get 

on board” with the intervention .50

Action Item 3 

CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY 

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL 

STAFFING CHANGES AND 

AVAILABLE STAFFING RESOURCES

Community supervision agencies will want to assess 

how kiosk reporting would impact staffing roles 

and responsibilities, what staffing changes would 

be required, and what staffing resources they have 

available or could obtain to support a kiosk reporting 

program . Adopting and implementing a kiosk 

reporting program may require changes to staffing 

related to PPOs as well as to other agency staff such 

as information technology (IT) and administrative 

personnel . Community supervision agencies may want 

to engage their internal stakeholders, such as IT staff, 

in the assessment process . For example, agencies that 

plan to use their IT staff and resources to support their 

kiosk reporting program may want to consult with their 

existing IT staff as they assess the IT support needs for 

kiosk reporting .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 37

Community supervision agency staff roles and 

responsibilities will certainly change after a kiosk 

reporting program is implemented . For example, kiosk 

reporting can increase PPOs’ caseloads if formerly 

banked caseloads are shifted to kiosk supervision . 

However, kiosk reporting technology can also decrease 

PPOs’ workloads by increasing the efficiency with 

which they can supervise low-risk clients . Many of 

the agencies also indicated that the introduction of a 

kiosk reporting program transformed data entry from 

a manual approach to a more efficient automated 

system, leading to a reduction in paperwork and data 

entry activities for PPOs and support staff .

Kiosk reporting may also require additional staff 

positions and expertise . Some current users reported 

adding “kiosk technicians,” “kiosk attendants,” and 

“field monitor officers” to support the technology . 

These staff members were responsible for overseeing 

the daily use of the kiosk machines and addressing 

standard maintenance tasks, such as adding printer 

paper or notifying their IT office or kiosk vendor of 

system problems .

Other agencies indicated that existing PPOs and 

administrative staff shared the kiosk monitoring and 

maintenance tasks . Some agencies also hired new staff 

with specific expertise in technical areas, especially 

information technology, to facilitate kiosk operations 

and generate data reports .

Community supervision agencies may also need 

to provide training to staff on how to use the kiosk 

system . Some larger agencies, using a “train the 

trainer approach,” conducted formal training seminars 

for a core group of experts who then trained staff at 

different offices . Other agencies indicated staff had 

informal peer-to-peer training or were directed to 

reference manuals or other resources for assistance . 

Agencies will need to assess what changes in staffing 

would be required to implement and sustain a kiosk 

reporting program and whether they have or can obtain 

the resources needed to support these changes .

Action Item 4

CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY 

ASSESSMENT OF COST 

REQUIREMENTS AND AVAILABLE 

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Community supervision agencies will need to 

determine how much their kiosk reporting program will 

cost and whether they have the financial resources 

available to commit to implementing and maintaining a 

kiosk reporting program . Implementing a kiosk 

reporting program does require a financial investment 

up-front (i .e ., start-up costs); however, cost information 

from current users suggests the cost of maintaining 

kiosk reporting is much less and that kiosk reporting 

does free up resources that can be reallocated to 

supervising higher-risk clients . Start-up/implementation 

and maintenance costs varied greatly across agencies 

currently using kiosk reporting .

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“Shop around. Get one [kiosk reporting 

system] that’s got a proven track record. 

Don’t buy one out of a garage from a guy in 

[city name omitted] like we did.”

Community supervision agencies considering a 

kiosk reporting program will first need to decide on

the specific features and capabilities of their kiosk 

reporting program . Once agencies identify the features 

and capabilities of their kiosk reporting program, they 

can begin to estimate how much the implementation 

and maintenance of their kiosk reporting program will 

cost . As part of the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study, five 

agencies currently using reporting kiosks provided cost 

information on the start-up and maintenance of their 

kiosk reporting programs .

Start-up costs varied greatly among the sites and 

ranged from $49,295 to $550,000 . Annual maintenance 

costs ranged from $2,400 to $254,000 . Kiosks rented 

from an outside vendor (as opposed to purchasing) may 

require greater maintenance costs . The wide ranges 

in start-up and maintenance costs are not surprising, 

given the many factors that can affect the cost of 

a kiosk reporting program, including how narrowly/

broadly it will be implemented .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 38

Agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction 

kiosk study indicated a number of interrelated 

factors that can affect the cost of implementing 

and maintaining a kiosk reporting program:

1. Purchase/Rent from External Vendor or Build

Will the kiosks be purchased, rented, or built 

from scratch?

2. Vendor 

What vendor will the kiosks be purchased or 

rented from?

3. Number of Kiosks 

How many kiosks will be placed in the community?

4. Available Discounts 

Are discounts available when a larger number of 

kiosks are installed?

5. Software

Will the kiosk software be purchased from an 

external vendor or developed internally?

6. Integration

Will the new kiosk system be integrated into an 

existing case management system, or will a new 

case management system be implemented that has 

a kiosk component?

7. Identification

What methods will be used to verify the identity 

of clients assigned to report via kiosk?

8. Staffing and Other Administrative Changes 

What staffing or other administrative changes are 

required to implement the kiosk reporting program? 

What processes and staffing should be in place to 

support the daily operations and maintenance of 

the kiosk reporting program?

9. Training and Technical Assistance 

What kind of training and technical assistance 

will clients, PPOs, and administrative staff need 

to ensure the kiosk reporting program runs as 

efficiently as possible while minimizing 

staff burden and maximizing community safety? 

Who will provide this training and technical 

assistance (e .g ., in-house, outside vendor)?

10. Ongoing Maintenance

Who will provide ongoing maintenance for the 

kiosk machines? Will maintenance be handled 

internally or by an external vendor/technician?

Community supervision agencies will need to 

determine whether kiosk reporting is feasible for their 

agency based on the estimated cost of implementing 

and maintaining kiosk supervision and the resources 

the agency has available and is willing to commit to 

the program . Agencies are encouraged to research and 

identify potential sources of funding to support a kiosk 

reporting program .

Three primary sources of funding to support 

a kiosk reporting program emerged from the 

multi-jurisdiction kiosk study:

1 State and federal grants,

2 General funds/agency budget, and

3 Client fees .

Many agencies relied on state or federal grants to fund 

their kiosk reporting program, at least initially . In some 

instances, the use of grants was precipitated by state 

legislation, such as legislation calling for a reduction 

in prison populations . Agencies also sought financial 

aid directly from state resources . Frequently, agencies 

received grant awards to begin a kiosk reporting 

program and then relied on other sources of funding to 

support and maintain the program over time .

Some agencies relied on their own budget, funded 

by state or municipality appropriations, to implement 

and/or maintain their kiosk reporting program . In 

some cases, agencies used grant funds to cover the 

implementation and start-up costs of a kiosk reporting 

program and then relied on their own budget to 

support and maintain the program over time . Compared 

to implementation and start-up costs, some current 

users of kiosk reporting indicated the maintenance 

costs associated with their program were minimal and 

did not require ongoing grant funding . Although less 

common, some agencies relied on client user fees to 

fund their kiosk program .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 39

Action Item 5

ENGAGE AND OBTAIN BUY-IN 

FROM KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Community supervision agencies will need to engage and 

obtain buy-in from community stakeholders throughout 

the adoption and implementation process .51 In this 

context, “stakeholders” refers to personnel from the 

community supervision agency (e .g ., IT staff), colleagues 

from other parts of the criminal justice system (e .g ., 

law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, pre-trial 

service agencies, county officials, social service system 

representatives), and members of the community .52

By engaging and obtaining buy-in from stakeholders, 

leadership within community supervision agencies can 

gradually build support for a kiosk reporting program and, 

at the same time, communicate to their stakeholders how 

a kiosk reporting program will affect them .

Engaging stakeholders also provides opportunities for 

stakeholders to raise their concerns and for community 

supervision agencies to address these concerns . For 

instance, several community supervision agencies 

that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study 

emphasized the importance of educating their staff 

about kiosk reporting and its intended purpose, 

because many PPOs initially feared that reporting 

kiosks would be used to replace their positions . A kiosk 

reporting program can succeed only if key stakeholders 

are on board, making this one of the most crucial steps 

to successfully adopting and implementing a kiosk 

reporting program .53

3 .4 Stage 3: Implementation

Community supervision agencies that determine kiosk reporting would be feasible for their agency and that 

their agency is willing to commit to the technology can move forward with the implementation stage . During the 

implementation stage, agencies will engage in more detailed planning, roll-out, and maintenance of their kiosk 

reporting program . Community supervision agencies will need to solidify the features and capabilities of their 

reporting kiosks as well as establish criteria for determining client eligibility for kiosk supervision . In addition, 

agencies will need to decide how they want to use the technology; how many kiosks to install and where they will 

be located; where and when clients on kiosk supervision can report to kiosk; what data will be collected via kiosk; 

and how to maintain the reporting kiosks . During the implementation stage, community supervision agencies also 

should mobilize resources to start up and maintain their program .

Action Item 1

ESTABLISH A ROLL-OUT PLAN

During the implementation stage, community 

supervision agencies will need to establish a 

more definitive roll-out plan for putting their kiosk 

reporting program into place . Agencies will need to 

determine a timeframe for rolling out their program 

and consider whether they want to first implement a 

pilot program before implementing kiosk reporting at 

full-scale . Several community supervision agencies 

that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk 

study recommended that agencies first implement 

kiosk reporting as a pilot to test the program with 

a limited number of clients and PPOs/other agency 

staff . By conducting a pilot test, agencies can assess 

whether kiosk reporting is a good fit for their agency 

and identify any problems with their program early 

on, before implementing the program full-scale .54 A 

pilot test may involve conducting focus groups and/

or interviews as well as administering surveys to 

clients or supervision officers to find out about their 

experience with the program . Their feedback about 

the program ultimately could be used to improve the 

program’s design, implementation, and effects .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 40

Action Item 2

DOCUMENT DECISIONS AND 

DEVELOP A STAFF MANUAL

Adopting and implementing a kiosk reporting program 

will require many changes at the agency or organization 

level . It is highly recommended that agencies document 

these policy changes to ensure kiosk reporting is 

implemented as intended and that “everyone is on the 

same page .” Implementing a kiosk reporting program 

will require changes in protocols and procedures at 

the staff level . It is also recommended that agencies 

develop a manual of standardized procedures for staff 

to follow when implementing kiosk reporting . Agencies 

could use the manual for training purposes as well as a 

reference source for staff to consult as needed . Doing 

so will help to ensure consistent implementation, which 

will boost the chances of achieving success .

Action Item 3 

DETERMINE WHO WILL BE 

ELIGIBLE FOR KIOSK SUPERVISION

Community supervision agencies will need to 

establish a set of criteria that PPOs can use to assess 

and determine which clients are eligible for kiosk 

supervision . When establishing kiosk eligibility criteria, 

community supervision agencies will want to keep 

their ultimate goal in mind—to protect public safety . 

Agencies need to ensure that the clients assigned to 

kiosk supervision are adequately supervised via kiosk 

and are no more likely to reoffend than clients assigned 

to traditional officer supervision . In some jurisdictions, 

the decision regarding whether a particular client is 

eligible for kiosk supervision is determined by the 

court, often with the use of operating standards and/

or guidelines . In other jurisdictions, this decision is made 

using the community supervision agency’s policies or is 

left to the discretion of the PPOs . Table 3-1 presents the 

most common kiosk eligibility criteria reported by agencies 

that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study . Most 

agencies used a combination of criteria to determine which 

clients were eligible for kiosk supervision .

Table 3-1 . Criteria Used to Determine Client Eligibility for Kiosk Supervision

Criterion Description

Risk level Low, medium, high

Criminal history Recent criminal history, entire criminal history

Offense type May exclude particular crime types – e .g ., sex offenses and/or violent crimes

Criminal justice 

system population Pre-trial, probation, parole

Special circumstances Examples: mental health status, homeless status, sex offender status

Note: This list of criterion is not exhaustive and agencies can customize the kiosk eligibility criteria for their program to fit their 

unique needs and goals .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 41

Community supervision agencies implementing a kiosk 

reporting program should first decide on the risk level 

criterion . Many community supervision agencies 

reported using kiosk reporting to supervise low-risk 

clients; however, some agencies also reported using 

kiosk supervision as a supplement to traditional officer 

supervision for middle- and/or higher-risk clients . 

Community supervision agencies might also want to 

consider their clients’ recent criminal history or entire 

criminal history as well as their clients’ current offense 

type . Some agencies classified certain offense types as 

“ineligible crimes” for kiosk supervision, such as sex 

offenses and/or violent crime, due to the severity of the 

offense and/or their clients’ likelihood of reoffending .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“Once they’ve reached the kiosk ...we’re 

pretty sure that they’re stable. They don’t 

have any violational behavior, they’re not 

testing dirty, [and] they’re current on their 

payments. If they owe restitution, they’re 

making good progress toward making 

restitution payments. They’re deemed 

lower risk to reoffend and so they get a 

lower level of supervision. They’re still 

assigned to an officer who monitors 

the case... if the officer gets notified of 

something going on, they can re-contact 

the offender and say, “Hey you need to 

come in.” Or, if they stop making payments 

or if there’s some circumstance that 

changes that requires them to move back 

to regular field supervision, we’ll do that.”

Community supervision agencies will also need 

to consider whether they would like to use kiosk 

supervision for clients on probation, parole, and/

or released from jail pre-trial and whether clients 

with special circumstances will be eligible for kiosk 

supervision . For example, one agency advised against 

assigning clients currently in substance abuse 

treatment to kiosk supervision . In some jurisdictions, 

community supervision agencies used kiosk reporting 

to supervise clients who may be difficult to keep track 

of and/or require close monitoring due to special 

circumstances, such as clients who are homeless, 

clients with mental health problems, and/or clients 

who are sex offenders .

Action Item 4 

CLEARLY DEFINE 

THE ASSIGNMENT AND

ENROLLMENT PROCESSES

Community supervision agencies will need to 

clearly define how PPOs assign and enroll clients 

in kiosk supervision . PPOs will need to assess their 

clients based on the eligibility criteria for their kiosk 

reporting program . In order to assess a client’s risk 

of reoffending, arguably the most important eligibility 

criterion for successful kiosk supervision, community 

supervision agencies/PPOs should use a standardized 

risk and needs assessment instrument .

Most community supervision agencies that participated 

in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study indicated they 

assessed their clients’ risk of reoffending using risk and 

needs assessment instruments such as Correctional 

Offender Management Profiling for Alternative 

Sanctions (COMPAS), Level of Service Inventory-Revised 

(LSI-R), Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 

(LS/CMI), Youth Level of Service/Case Management 

Inventory (YLS/CMI), Youth Assessment and Screening 

Instrument (YASI), and agency-designed tools . In 

addition to risk level, agencies may also want to 

assess client eligibility for kiosk supervision based on 

the other criteria, some of which may be captured by 

the risk and needs assessment instrument(s), such as 

criminal history . Once community supervision agencies 

determine a client meets the eligibility criteria for and 

assigns the client to kiosk supervision, the next step is 

to enroll the client into the kiosk reporting program .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 42

Community supervision agencies implementing 

a kiosk reporting program will need to decide:

1 Where the enrollment takes place,

2 Who conducts the enrollment, and

3 How the enrollment process works .

Community supervision agencies should think about 

where they would like to enroll clients into the kiosk 

program . Agencies that participated in the multijurisdiction kiosk study enrolled clients into the kiosk 

reporting program at several locations, including at 

an enrollment station (i .e ., with computers designated 

for enrollment only), a regular kiosk, or a PPO’s 

desk/workstation .

Community supervision agencies will also need to 

decide who will enroll clients into the kiosk reporting 

program . Based on input from the field, the enrollment 

process may be conducted by PPOs, community 

supervision technicians/orientation teams, kiosk 

attendants, or even student interns .

Finally, community supervision agencies need to 

establish protocols for enrolling clients into kiosk 

supervision, which could include determining how 

many clients to enroll in kiosk supervision, initial 

verification/validation requirements, and what kind 

of training or orientation to give clients who are new 

to kiosk supervision . Some agencies automatically 

enroll all clients into the kiosk system, whether or not 

the clients are assigned to kiosk supervision . Other 

agencies enroll one client at a time or a subset of 

clients who will likely be assigned to kiosk supervision . 

Typically, the enrollment process begins with an initial 

identity verification/validation assessment, which could 

include biometric identification, photo identification, 

and/or assignment of an identification number and 

password . Some agencies required all clients to 

complete the verification/validation process at intake, 

regardless of whether they would be assigned to kiosk 

supervision right away .

Other agencies only required clients assigned to kiosk 

supervision at the start to complete the verification/

validation process at intake . Agencies that participated 

in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study recommended 

providing clients with an orientation or training to 

teach them how to use the kiosk . This could consist of 

an officer or technician walking the client through the 

reporting process at the time of enrollment—either as 

the client reports for the first time or through a mock 

kiosk system, showing a video or giving a presentation 

to clients that demonstrates how to use the kiosk, or 

providing each client with a pamphlet that outlines 

how to use the kiosk . The enrollment process may 

also involve the completion of intake forms or other 

activities as needed .

Action Item 5 

DECIDE HOW KIOSK REPORTING 

WILL BE USED

Once community supervision agencies decide who 

will be eligible for kiosk supervision, they will need 

to determine how they will use kiosk reporting . Table 

3-2 presents a few examples of how community 

supervision agencies apply kiosk reporting . Agencies 

will need to decide whether they will use kiosk 

reporting as a primary and/or secondary method of 

supervision . Community supervision agencies that 

participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study often 

used kiosk supervision as the primary method of 

supervision for lower-risk clients; however, for higherrisk clients, kiosk supervision was often used as a 

supplement to traditional officer supervision .

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“So if you’re sitting on a medium/high-risk 

caseload and you don’t get arrested and 

you make all your appointments and you 

don’t pee dirty and you do whatever else 

you’re supposed to do, you’ll probably get 

stepped down in about a year. Depending 

if you’re really violent – you won’t...if you 

have a gun charge – you won’t.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 43

Community supervision agencies can assign clients to 

kiosk reporting at the start of their supervision term 

as well as during the middle or at the end of their 

supervision term . Community supervision agencies 

should also consider whether they want to use kiosk 

supervision as a reward for high compliance and/or as 

a sanction for low compliance . Kiosk supervision can 

be used as a graduated reward to help motivate clients 

to comply with the conditions of their supervision (e .g ., 

offering more flexible reporting protocols that are less 

disruptive to clients’ lives, requiring fewer or no faceto-face meetings with an officer) and/or as a graduated 

sanction to hold clients accountable when they do not 

comply with the conditions of their supervision (e .g ., 

adding kiosk supervision as a supplement to traditional 

supervision for closer monitoring or requiring more 

frequent reporting for closer monitoring) .

Table 3-2 . Community Supervision Agencies’ Applications of Kiosk Reporting

Dimension of Use Description

Manner Primary or supplementary method of supervision

Stage of supervision term Start, middle, or end of supervision term

Graduated sanctions and rewards Increase or decrease use of kiosk reporting based on 

client’s level of compliance with terms of supervision

Action Item 6

DETERMINE NUMBER OF KIOSKS, 

LOCATION OF KIOSKS, AND HOURS 

OF OPERATION

Community supervision agencies can control access 

to their reporting kiosks by establishing the following 

three related parameters: (1) number of kiosks, (2) 

location of kiosks, and (3) hours of kiosk operation . 

Agencies can set these parameters to align with 

the amount of flexibility in reporting they want to 

offer their clients . First, agencies adopting a kiosk 

reporting program need to decide how many kiosks 

to install in their jurisdictions . According to the 

multi-jurisdiction kiosk study, the number of kiosks 

installed by community supervision agencies varied 

by jurisdiction—agencies reported installing between 

one and 300 reporting kiosks . The number of kiosks 

installed can vary based on a variety of factors, such 

as the expected number of clients on kiosk supervision 

at any given time, the size of the agency’s jurisdiction, 

resources available, and cost .

Community supervision agencies will also need to 

consider the location(s) at which to place reporting kiosks 

and the number of kiosks to place at each location . Some 

agency reported having both “fixed” and “portable” kiosks 

that they could move to other locations if necessary . 

Agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk 

study reported installing kiosks at between one and 

43 locations, including community supervision offices, 

courthouses, police stations, treatment facilities, jails, 

prisons, community buildings, and a Veteran Affairs 

campus . Some agencies installed kiosks at locations that 

offered constant surveillance to monitor and prevent any 

damage to the machines (e .g ., agency building or police 

station) . Some agencies also installed kiosks in their 

building if they wanted to have an attendant available 

during client reporting hours in case of any difficulties 

or technology malfunctions; doing so also allowed 

community supervision officers to have in-person contact 

with clients—for example, if the client was required to 

provide a urine sample for drug screening .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 44

Finally, agencies will need to set operating hours for 

their reporting kiosks . Operating hours may depend on a 

number of factors such as the location of the kiosks as 

well as the availability of video surveillance, for example . 

Kiosks placed at community buildings or courthouses 

may have more limited hours than kiosks placed in 

buildings open 24 hours, such as a police station . 

In addition, kiosks placed at locations with constant 

surveillance may have broader operating hours than 

kiosks placed at locations without surveillance .

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“When you connect these things, you have 

to make sure that’s where the network 

and the data drop. Build it into the wall. 

We actually have them encapsulated, in a 

locking mechanism, so they can’t just go 

behind the unit and unplug it. The data 

goes into a padlocked, covered device 

that goes to the wall jack. There are just 

things in that regard that we had to make 

sure were taken care of appropriately. Just 

to safeguard the unit, make sure it can’t 

tip over. They’re actually bolted to the 

ground. The kiosks themselves look like 

tanks.”

Three categories of operating hours emerged 

from the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study:

1 24-hour availability,

2 Business hours as well as evening hours, and

3 Business hours only . 

Allowing clients to access the reporting kiosk(s) 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week offers the maximum 

reporting flexibility and could increase compliance . 

Agencies can vary operating hours by location—some 

agencies reported having at least one kiosk open for 

24 hours, 7 days a week (e .g ., at a police station or jail) 

as well as kiosks at other locations with more limited 

operating hours .

Action Item 7

ESTABLISH CLIENT 

REPORTING PROTOCOLS

Community supervision agencies will need to establish 

reporting protocols for their clients assigned to kiosk 

supervision across three dimensions:

1 When,

2 How Often/Frequency, and

3 Where . 

These dimensions are presented in Table 3-3 .

Table 3-3 . Dimensions of Client 

Reporting Protocols

Dimension Description

When Specific days, set timeframe, 

general timeframe

How often / 

frequency

Varies by risk/supervision levels, 

special circumstances

Where Any location, or assigned to 

a specific location

Community supervision agencies that participated in 

the multi-jurisdiction kiosk study indicated that the 

reporting protocols for each client are largely based 

on the client’s risk level of reoffending . Some agencies 

required their clients to report on specific days (e .g ., first 

Monday of each month), during a specific timeframe 

(e .g ., by the 20th of each month), or during a more 

general timeframe (e .g ., any day within the month) . 

Agencies can define the frequency with which clients 

need to report via kiosk . Typically, higher-risk clients 

report to the kiosk more frequently than do lower-risk 

clients; in the majority of cases, clients are required 

to report once per month . Clients may be required 

to report more or less frequently depending on their 

circumstances—for example, some agencies require 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 45

clients who are homeless to report to the kiosk on a 

daily basis to keep better track of their whereabouts .

Finally, community supervision agencies will need 

to tell clients where they can report (i .e ., to which 

kiosk) . Agencies with kiosks in multiple locations can 

require clients to report to a specific kiosk (e .g ., one 

closest to the client’s home or work) or to any kiosk 

within their jurisdiction .

Action Item 8

DETERMINE WHAT INFORMATION 

KIOSKS WILL COLLECT

When implementing a kiosk reporting program, 

community supervision agencies will need to decide 

what information they would like the kiosk to 

collect . Not only will agencies want to consider what 

information they want to collect each time a client 

reports, they should also anticipate what information 

they may want in the future to assess their program . 

This section provides an overview of client-level 

information that agencies might want to collect from 

clients when they report to a kiosk . See Chapter 4 for 

a discussion of additional information that agencies 

might want to collect for assessment purposes .

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“At the very least, FTR reports...Transaction 

reports that monitor language use, as well 

as daily usage reports are needed as well. 

Agencies considering the use of kiosks 

must decide what documentation they 

need to fulfill their own and their State 

supervision requirements. It would be an 

important consideration in dealing with 

their kiosk vendor.”

Typically, clients who report via kiosk are required to 

log into the kiosk system, provide identification, and 

answer several questions . Most kiosks are programmed 

to ask clients a series of standard reporting questions 

similar to the questions PPOs would ask clients during 

face-to-face meetings; however, the questions can 

also be customized to fit the needs of each agency 

and/or PPO . Some kiosks also offer language options, 

which allows clients to select their preferred language . 

The standard reporting questions may ask clients 

for updates on contact information, name changes, 

vehicle registration, court dates and compliance, law 

enforcement contacts, arrests, and convictions . Kiosks 

can also ask clients about their life activities during 

the most recent reporting period such as substance 

use and treatment, employment, and education . Kiosks 

located at community supervision offices can ask 

clients when they report whether they would like to 

meet with their PPO . Clients might also be required 

to follow up with their PPO—for example, if a client 

reports a new offense or a specific life change, such as 

a new address .

Agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction 

kiosk study noted that some kiosks allow PPOs to tailor 

the questions asked to each client—that is, PPOs can 

program the kiosk to ask each client questions specific 

to his or her individualized terms of probation, such 

as whether the client completed drug screens, paid 

outstanding court costs, paid outstanding restitution, 

attended court-mandated classes, and/or attended 

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings . PPOs can also 

communicate with clients through the kiosk—for 

example, by instructing the client to provide urine for a 

drug screen and/or meet with the PPO .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 46

Action Item 9

IDENTIFY KIOSK FEATURES AND 

CAPABILITIES

Community supervision agencies will need to decide 

what hardware and software features and capabilities 

their reporting kiosks must have to meet the needs of 

their agency, staff, and clients . Agencies have several 

options when it comes to the physical kiosk machine . 

Some of the agencies that participated in the multijurisdiction kiosk study purchased their kiosk machines 

from outside vendors . Others decided to rent their 

machines from outside vendors . Some agencies also 

chose to build their own kiosk system using a touch 

screen, a desktop computer, and a box built around the 

machine . The decision whether to purchase, rent, or 

build is tied to what features are available for the kiosk 

machines, how the kiosk machines will be maintained 

over time, and how much the kiosk machines cost . 

Agencies will also want to consider other available 

hardware to enhance their kiosk system including 

biometric technology, document scanners, printers, and 

fee payment systems .

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“No matter how well planned and thought 

out; plan for continual application 

enhancements. Laws change. Reporting 

requirements change. You will also want 

to show the system is providing the 

desired outcomes. Reports are key; and 

ensure there is an easy way to export data 

from the kiosk system for other analysis 

needs and interface to other systems.”

When establishing their kiosk reporting system, 

agencies should also think about the software 

capabilities of their kiosk system including the level of 

integration between their agency’s case management 

system and kiosk system, electronic voice delivery, 

prompts and alerts, messaging, and generation of 

receipts and reports . Table 3-4 presents some of the 

features and capabilities community supervision 

agencies might want to consider integrating into their 

reporting kiosks . Agencies should keep in mind that 

most reporting kiosks are customizable and can be 

adjusted as needed over time .

Table 3-4 . Kiosk Features and Capabilities

Hardware and Software 

Features and Capabilities Description

Kiosk machine

Agencies can purchase, rent, or build their kiosk machine(s) . Kiosk machines 

typically resemble an ATM machine and remain stationary; however, portable 

kiosks are also available . Some kiosk machines are fairly basic, and some models 

are more elaborate with extra features . Agencies also have the option to purchase 

or develop the kiosk software and build their own machine using a computer/

touch screen, desktop, and encasing .

Biometric scanner/

identity verification

The identification verification methods available range from a simple username 

and password to sophisticated biometric scans (using a biometric scanner) such 

as hand shape, palm, or fingerprint and photo identification using an embedded 

camera with facial recognition software or virtual confirmation made by PPOs . 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 47

Table 3–4 . Kiosk Features and Capabilities (continued)

Hardware and Software 

Features and Capabilities Description

Document scanner Some kiosks have scanning capability that can be used to scan, for example, 

clients’ paycheck stubs and court fee/fine payment receipts .

Printer

Some kiosk systems have a printer that can be used for a variety of purposes, 

such as printing receipts . One agency reported using a thermal printer, which 

eliminated the need to replace ink cartridges .

Fee payment system

Some kiosk machines have a fee payment system that allows clients reporting 

to the kiosk to make a payment . Some kiosks also can accept credit cards, 

cash, or both . Kiosks unable to accept credit card and/or cash payment can be 

programmed to prompt clients to give their payment to a cashier or insert their 

payment into a locked box attached to the kiosk case .

Kiosk software 

Agencies have the option to purchase software (either with the kiosk machine 

or separately) or develop their own software . Some agencies mentioned they 

borrowed software from other agencies using kiosks .

Level of integration 

between agency’s case 

management system and 

kiosk system

Kiosk systems can function as stand-alone entities or can be fully integrated with 

an agency’s case management system . Information captured by the kiosk system 

can be fully integrated with the case management system (all data available in 

real-time), automatically downloaded at preset times into the case management 

system, or manually downloaded into the case management system .

Electronic voice delivery Some kiosk machines have electronic voice delivery available in English 

and Spanish .

Prompts and alerts

Some kiosks can be programmed to provide prompts and alerts to both clients 

and agency staff . For example, the kiosk could alert a PPO on his desktop or cell 

phone when a client reports to the kiosk . The kiosk could also prompt a client 

to see his supervision officer . Some kiosk systems have the ability to randomly 

select clients for drug testing .

Messaging capability Some kiosk systems include a messaging capability to facilitate communication 

between PPOs and their clients .

Generate receipts Some kiosks allow clients to print a receipt indicating the date and time 

they reported .

Generate reports

Some kiosks can support administrative tasks by generating reports such as 

client-level reporting summaries, a list of clients who failed to report, and monthly 

statistics . The reports kiosks can generate largely depends on how integrated the 

kiosk system is with an agency’s case management system .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 48

Action Item 10

DEVELOP A MAINTENANCE PLAN

Community supervision agencies will need to develop 

a maintenance plan to address problems with the 

kiosk machines as they arise and to perform regular 

maintenance and updates to the kiosk system . 

Agencies that participated in the multi-jurisdiction kiosk 

study indicated the ongoing maintenance of the kiosk 

machines was managed by information technology 

personnel within their agency, by information 

technology personnel from the county, by the kiosk 

vendor (if applicable), or by a combination of these . 

For the most part, routine maintenance was minimal 

and included things as simple as replacing paper in the 

machine and vacuuming the cabinet, keyboard, and fan 

features of the machine . In some cases, kiosk vendors 

monitored kiosk machines via remote connections 

to address system glitches and ensure smooth daily 

operations . On rare occasions, the kiosk machines 

required a hardware and/or software replacement, 

such as a new touch screen monitor or biometric 

scanner, the cost of which was often covered by 

equipment warranties for repair and replacement . 

VOICE FROM THE FIELD

“We have had a couple of touch screens go 

bad. We keep spare parts here. So we’ll 

actually swap out like the cameras and 

the printer and the touch screen. So we 

always keep that in stock.”

Agencies implementing a kiosk reporting program 

should have a back-up plan for clients who report via 

kiosk when the kiosk machine is not working properly . 

Some agencies had a kiosk attendant keep track of the 

clients who came to report while the kiosk machine 

was out of order . Other agencies required clients to 

meet with a PPO or redirected clients to the nearest 

functioning machine .

3 .5 Moving Forward in the Program 

Implementation Cycle

The implementation of a kiosk reporting program 

is an ongoing process that begins with roll-out 

and continues as long as the program is operating . 

Community supervision agencies that explore, adopt, 

plan, and implement a kiosk reporting program will 

also want to design and implement an evaluation/

assessment of their program to determine how well 

their program is being implemented and whether 

the program is meeting its objectives . Although the 

evaluation/assessment stage is presented as the 

final stage of the program implementation cycle, it is 

important to note that agencies should think about 

and begin designing an evaluation/assessment early 

on in the adoption and planning stage of implementing 

a kiosk reporting program . As is discussed in-depth 

in Chapter 4, agencies can use the findings from 

the evaluation/assessment of their kiosk reporting 

program to determine whether their program is being 

implemented well and meeting its objectives and, if 

not, what improvements should be made . Agencies that 

determine their kiosk reporting program is not meeting 

its objectives and is not a good fit for their agency 

can return to the exploration stage to explore other 

technologies and/or programs that may better address 

their needs and goals .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 49

Chapter 4 

Stage 4: Evaluation/Assessment

KEY POINTS 

1 Community supervision agencies can use evaluation to answer 

important questions about their kiosk reporting program.

2 Agencies should begin planning their evaluation activities early, at the 

same time they are developing and implementing their kiosk reporting 

program, to ensure the data they need for their evaluation is collected 

from the start of their program.

3 Community supervision agencies will need to identify a knowledgeable 

evaluator who can assist them with their evaluation activities.

4 An implementation/process evaluation can answer questions about the 

inputs, activities, and outputs of a kiosk reporting program.

5 An outcome evaluation can answer questions regarding the effects 

(i.e., short-term, intermediate, and long-term) of a kiosk reporting 

program.

6 Community supervision agencies should collaborate with their evaluator 

to develop a plan for evaluating their kiosk reporting program. An 

evaluation plan should clearly identify the evaluation questions, data 

sources, methods for collecting/obtaining data, planned analysis, and 

reporting activities.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 50

Overview

Community supervision agencies will likely have questions about their kiosk reporting 

program, such as how well their program is being implemented, whether their program 

is having the intended effects, or what changes or adjustments could be made to 

improve their program. In order to answer these questions, agencies will need to plan 

and conduct an evaluation/assessment of their program. Program evaluation generally 

involves collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and communicating information about a 

program.55 Community supervision agencies should begin planning and subsequently 

implementing an evaluation of their kiosk reporting program early on—at the same time 

they are developing and implementing their program. Beginning to plan and implement an 

evaluation during the early stages of their kiosk reporting program requires community 

supervision agencies to think carefully about what information or data they will need 

to answer questions about their program, determine how they will collect or obtain the 

information, and begin collecting the information, from the start of the program. Although 

the evaluation/assessment stage is presented as the fourth and final stage of the program 

implementation cycle, evaluation/assessment is an ongoing process that evolves over 

time and continues to provide information about a program for its duration.

Chapter 4 provides community supervision agencies implementing a kiosk reporting 

program with an introduction to evaluation as well as an overview of how to plan and 

implement an evaluation that will help answer key questions about their program. This 

chapter first presents an introduction to the purpose and types of evaluation and provides 

specific recommendations on when to begin the evaluation activities. This chapter also 

discusses who should be involved in developing and implementing the evaluation. The 

remainder of this chapter explores the main components of an evaluation plan, including 

developing clear and specific evaluation questions, identifying and/or developing data 

sources to track the information required to answer the evaluation questions, analyzing 

the data collected, and making use of the evaluation results. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 51

4 .1 Introduction to Evaluation: Purpose, Type, 

and Timing

This section provides an overview of the purpose of evaluation and introduces two types of evaluation that 

community supervision agencies should consider to answer questions about their kiosk reporting program . 

This section also offers guidance to community supervision agencies on when they should begin planning their 

evaluation activities .

PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

In the simplest terms, program evaluations are 

conducted to aid in decisionmaking and to give 

agencies, organizations, and key stakeholders the 

opportunity to make informed decisions about a 

program . Program evaluations are typically designed to 

answer questions about the need for the program (e .g ., 

should the program be continued, improved, expanded, 

or curtailed), the design of the program, the program 

implementation and service delivery, the effectiveness 

of program management and administration, the 

program impact or outcomes (e .g ., is the program 

meeting its objectives and having the intended effects), 

and/or the program efficiency/cost effectiveness .56

Program evaluations can also be used to satisfy the 

accountability requirements of program sponsors as 

well as for conducting quality reviews or providing 

reports to funders or partners .57 Community supervision 

agencies should identify the purpose of their evaluation 

before they begin planning and implementing an 

evaluation/assessment of their program .

TYPE OF EVALUATION

Community supervision agencies can consider 

different kinds of evaluations to assess their kiosk 

reporting program . The evaluation approach community 

supervision agencies should use to assess their kiosk 

reporting program depends on the purpose of the 

evaluation (i .e ., what questions the evaluation needs 

to answer) as well as on a variety of other factors, 

including the developmental stage of the program 

(i .e ., is the program newly implemented or has it been 

established for some time?) and the administrative and 

political context of the program (e .g ., is there conflict 

among stakeholders regarding the values or principles 

of the program?) .58 This section introduces two types of 

evaluation—implementation/process and outcome—

relevant to evaluating a kiosk reporting program . Note, 

process and outcome evaluations are often conducted 

in tandem, which allows for the most thorough 

program evaluation .

Implementation/Process Evaluation

An implementation/process evaluation assesses how 

a program is being delivered or put into practice (i .e ., 

implementation) and whether the program is being 

implemented as intended (i .e ., program fidelity) .59

Implementation/process evaluations can also 

examine acceptability (i .e ., level of agreement among 

stakeholders that the intervention is acceptable), 

appropriateness (i .e ., fit or relevance of intervention to 

context), and cost (i .e ., cost of implementation effort) .60

Furthermore, implementation/process evaluations 

can identify any program quality issues that may 

need to be addressed and inform solutions to these 

issues . Implementation/process evaluations can also 

provide stakeholders with the context necessary for 

understanding the effects of a program .

When implementing a kiosk reporting program, 

community supervision agencies should consider 

using an implementation/process evaluation early 

on . Agencies could use the information gathered 

about their kiosk reporting program in its infancy to 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 52

improve the program’s design, implementation, and 

performance as the program continues to evolve 

and expand .61 Community supervision agencies 

should also consider conducting an implementation/

process evaluation of their kiosk reporting program 

on an ongoing basis—systematically monitoring their 

program—given that the program’s implementation 

could change over time . Process evaluations focus 

on the inputs or resources put into a program (e .g ., 

funding, staff, participants, equipment), implementation 

activities for a program (e .g ., types and quantities of 

services delivered), and outputs or direct products 

of the activities (e .g ., number of program sites 

established, number of staff or participants trained) . 

See Table 4-1 for examples of inputs, activities, and 

outputs of a kiosk reporting program .

Outcome Evaluation

An outcome evaluation measures the effects or impact 

of a program or initiative on the targeted population 

by assessing the change in outcomes the program is 

meant to address .62 For example, outcome evaluations 

can examine changes in client-level outcomes (e .g ., 

reoffending, technical violations), PPO-level outcomes 

(e .g ., caseloads/workloads), agency-level outcomes 

(e .g ., extent of cost savings) and/or community-level 

outcomes (e .g ., crime) . Typically, outcome evaluations 

are best conducted after a program has been fully 

implemented and preferably not until a program is 

well-established and has been operating for some 

time .63 Delaying an outcome evaluation minimizes the 

likelihood that implementation problems or quality 

issues will arise and adversely affect the program 

outcomes . Program outcomes can be short-term 

outcomes (i .e ., short-term changes, such as increase 

in knowledge), intermediate-outcomes (i .e ., the next 

step in the change process, often applying new 

knowledge or skills), or longer term outcomes (i .e ., 

the ultimate goals of a program—lasting behavior 

change) .64 Community supervision agencies planning 

an outcome evaluation of their kiosk reporting program 

should determine their outcomes of interest and then 

think about what information or data they will need to 

measure those outcomes . 

ADVICE FROM THE FIELD

“There’s always time to do it right, never time 

to do it again. . . Take your time. Analyze the 

data. . . The quality assurance piece is very 

important. The follow-up, the data collecting 

of the research, is very, very important.”

See Table 4-1 for examples of relevant short-term 

outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and long-term 

outcomes that community supervision agencies might 

consider when evaluating their kiosk reporting program .

Timing of Evaluation

At the same time they are planning and developing 

their kiosk reporting program, community supervision 

agencies also should begin planning their evaluation 

activities . Developing an evaluation plan early on 

results in an evaluation process that is much easier, 

comprehensive, and more accurate than it would be if 

an evaluation plan were developed after a program’s 

implementation .65 Starting early with developing an 

evaluation plan also encourages agencies and their 

stakeholders to establish specific goals and objectives 

of the kiosk reporting program and the evaluation up 

front and ensures that everyone is on the same page 

before the program and evaluation actually begin . In 

addition, early planning of evaluation activities ensures 

that agencies will collect all of the data required to 

assess their program from the start of the program . 

Community supervision agencies should continue 

evaluating their kiosk reporting program for its 

duration, to identify problems and make improvements 

as needed along the way and thus maintain positive 

outcomes and ensure the program continues meeting 

its goals . Section 4 .3 explores the evaluation activities 

in greater detail .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 53

 4 .2 Preparing for an Evaluation:

Selecting an Evaluator and Developing 

a Clear Program Description

Before community supervision agencies begin planning 

and implementing an evaluation of their kiosk reporting 

program, they should select an evaluator with whom 

to collaborate and develop a clear program description 

(e .g ., using a logic model) to inform the evaluation . 

Community supervision agencies can use the logic 

model to kick-start the development of an evaluation 

plan, which is discussed in Section 4 .3 . This section 

provides “Action Items” to help community supervision 

agencies prepare for an evaluation of their kiosk 

reporting program .

Action Item 1

SELECT AN EVALUATOR

Community supervision agencies should select an 

evaluator who can lead the agency’s evaluation efforts 

and with whom they can collaborate to develop and 

implement an evaluation of their kiosk reporting 

program . Community supervision agencies could rely 

on an internal staff member who is knowledgeable 

about evaluation design and implementation, or hire an 

external evaluator to lead their evaluation, such as a 

university or research company that offers evaluation 

and consulting services . 

Generally, an internal evaluator would be more familiar 

with the program, agency, and community stakeholders 

than an external evaluator . However, hiring an external 

evaluator could result in a more objective evaluation . 

Community supervision agencies should consider the 

advantages and disadvantages of an internal versus 

external evaluator when selecting an evaluator for 

their kiosk reporting program . Community supervision 

agencies should select an evaluator during the 

initial stages of developing and implementing their 

kiosk reporting program to help ensure that the data 

necessary for the evaluation are collected from the 

beginning of the program .

Action Item 2

DEVELOP A CLEAR 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Before planning and implementing an 

evaluation, community supervision agencies should 

develop a clear description of their 

kiosk reporting program . Community supervision 

agencies should consider using a logic model, which 

is one tool frequently used to define a program’s 

planned activities and goals . A logic model, which 

often serves as a “launching point” for an evaluation 

plan, is useful as a program design instrument (i .e ., 

when community supervision agencies are planning 

and implementing their kiosk reporting program) 

and as a program evaluation instrument (i .e ., when 

community supervision agencies are developing their 

evaluation) .66 Further, a logic model serves as a graphic 

representation of what an agency plans to do as part of 

a program as well as what outcomes the agency wants 

the program to achieve .67

Table 4-1 represents a sample logic model for a kiosk 

reporting program . The first three columns—inputs 

(resources), activities, and outputs—represent the 

planned program work . As mentioned in Section 4 .1, 

a process evaluation focuses on a program’s inputs, 

activities, and outputs . The next three columns—shortterm outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and longterm outcomes—represent the expected outcomes 

of a kiosk reporting program and are the focus of an 

outcome evaluation .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 54

Table 4-1 . Sample Logic Model for Kiosk Reporting

Inputs Activities Outputs

Short-Term 

Outcomes

Intermediate 

Outcomes

Long-Term 

Outcomes

Examples:

Community 

supervision 

agency staff

Funding

Community 

partners

Kiosk reporting 

equipment

Space in 

facilities for 

reporting 

kiosks

Standard 

operating 

procedures for 

kiosk reporting 

system

Examples:

Train community 

supervision 

agency staff on 

kiosk reporting 

system

Community 

supervision 

agency staff 

assign and enroll 

clients to kiosk 

supervision 

using prespecified 

eligibility criteria

Clients report 

via kiosk 

supervision at 

pre-specified 

locations 

and times

Examples:

Number of kiosks 

installed

Number of 

agency staff 

trained on kiosk 

reporting system

Number of clients 

assigned to kiosk 

supervision

Number of clients 

reporting via kiosk 

per month

Number of client 

contacts with 

kiosk per month

Examples:

Fewer face-to-face 

meetings with PPOs 

and their clients

Less time that clients 

spend reporting to 

kiosks (compared 

with in-person 

meetings)

Increased reporting 

frequency (clients 

report more often 

to kiosks)

Fewer interactions 

between low-risk 

and high-risk clients 

in waiting room (i .e ., 

reducing low-risk 

clients’ exposure 

to the potential 

negative influences 

of high-risk clients)

Examples:

PPOs spend more 

time with high-risk 

clients

More resources spent 

on high-risk clients

PPOs spend less time 

with low-risk clients

Agencies devote 

fewer resources to 

low-risk clients

Kiosks collect 

reporting data that 

is more accurate 

(compared with 

manual tracking 

by PPO)

Examples:

Strengthened 

positive 

social bonds 

(e .g ., fewer 

disruptions to 

work and family 

life compared 

with in-person 

meetings)

Lower recidivism 

rates

Higher 

compliance 

rates

Fewer “failure 

to report” 

violations

4 .3 Developing and Implementing an Evaluation Plan

Community supervision agencies should work with their 

evaluator to develop an evaluation plan that summarizes 

the purpose and type of evaluations they want to conduct 

as well as the specific questions their evaluations will 

answer, what data will be collected, how the data will be 

collected, and how the findings of the evaluation will be 

used . Community supervision agencies can use the logic 

model of their kiosk reporting program (see Section 4 .2) 

to inform the development of their research questions 

and other aspects of their evaluation . When developing an 

evaluation plan, community supervision agencies should 

involve key stakeholders of their kiosk reporting program, 

to ensure that they have selected the optimal evaluation 

design and that the staff and resources will be available 

and committed to carrying out the evaluation .68 This 

section presents “Action Items” to help guide community 

supervision agencies through the process of developing 

and implementing an evaluation of their kiosk reporting 

program . This section also presents a simple chart that 

community supervision agencies can use when planning 

their evaluation to organize their specific evaluation 

questions and the corresponding data source(s), data 

collection plan(s), and analysis .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 55

Action Item 1

IDENTIFY PURPOSE AND TYPE OF EVALUATION

Community supervision agencies will first need 

to identify the purpose and type of evaluation 

to conduct of their kiosk reporting program . The 

purpose and type of evaluation will be closely 

tied to the questions they would like to answer about 

their program .

An implementation/process evaluation can address 

questions related to the implementation of a kiosk 

reporting program and focuses on the program inputs, 

activities, and outputs (i .e ., the first three columns in 

the logic model) . 

Community supervision agencies could use a 

process evaluation to answer such questions as:

• How many reporting kiosks were installed, and 

where were they installed?

• Are clients being assessed using risk and needs 

assessment instruments before being assigned to 

kiosk supervision?

• How many clients are being assigned to kiosk 

supervision as their primary method of reporting?

• How many higher-risk clients are being assigned to 

kiosk supervision?

• Is the kiosk reporting program being implemented 

as planned?

• Are clients satisfied with kiosk supervision?

• What is going well (or not going well) with the kiosk 

reporting program?

An outcome evaluation can address questions related 

to the effects of a kiosk reporting program and focuses 

on the short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes 

(i .e ., the last three columns in the logical model) . 

Community supervision agencies could use an 

outcome evaluation to answer questions such 

as the following:

Agency-Level Questions

• Does the use of kiosk reporting increase, decrease, or 

have no effect on agency-level reoffending rates?

• Does kiosk supervision increase agency-level 

compliance rates?

PPO-Level Questions

• Does the use of kiosk reporting increase the amount 

of time PPOs have available to focus on higher-risk 

clients?

• Does the use of kiosk reporting allow PPOs to 

supervise larger caseloads of low-risk clients?

Client-Level Questions

• Does the use of kiosk supervision increase, 

decrease, or have no effect on clients’ likelihood of 

reoffending compared with clients under traditional 

officer supervision?

• Does kiosk supervision increase compliance rates 

among clients compared with clients under traditional 

officer supervision?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 56

Regardless of the evaluation approach, 

community supervision agencies should follow 

the five main steps of evaluation, which are:

1. Form clear and specific evaluation questions;

2. Identify information or data sources for answering 

those questions;

3. Develop and implement data collection plans;

4. Analyze data; and

5. Report/communicate evaluation results .

The following “Action Items” guide community 

supervision agencies through the process of developing 

and implementing an evaluation plan .

Action Item 2

FORM EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Community supervision agencies planning an evaluation 

should establish what questions they would like their 

evaluation to answer . They should consider their 

own needs and goals as well as the interests of their 

stakeholders when forming their evaluation questions . 

Agencies may want to begin with general questions 

and then form more specific questions . For example, 

as part of a process evaluation, agencies may begin 

with a general question about the implementation 

of their kiosk reporting program such as, “Were the 

intended clients assigned to kiosk supervision?” A more 

specific evaluation question regarding assignment to 

kiosk supervision might be, “Did PPOs assign at least 

70 percent of their low-risk clients (based on one or 

more risk assessment instruments) to kiosk supervision 

during the first six months of the program?” As part of an 

outcome evaluation, agencies may begin with a general 

question about the effect of kiosk supervision on clients’ 

recidivism . A more specific question might be, “Are clients 

assigned to kiosk supervision any more or less likely 

to recidivate than similar clients assigned to traditional 

officer supervision during the first three months under 

community supervision?” These example evaluation 

questions are presented in Table 4-2 as part of a simple 

chart that community supervision agencies can use when 

planning and implementing their evaluation .

Action Item 3 

IDENTIFY INFORMATION OR DATA 

SOURCES FOR ANSWERING THE 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Once community supervision agencies have formed their 

evaluation questions, they should identify the information 

or data sources they need to answer them . Program 

evaluators often rely on a variety of data sources and 

methods to collect the information they need, including 

administrative records, surveys, observations, focus 

groups, and in-depth interviews . 

Agencies should keep in mind the following 

points as they identify data sources and data 

collections methods for their evaluation.69

• Existing data. Community supervision agencies 

should consider what data are already being collected 

or available that could be used as a data source 

for their evaluation, either internally, within their 

community, and/or by their partners . Agencies can 

also expand existing data sources to collect additional 

information required for the evaluation (e .g ., adding 

additional questions about criminal behavior to the 

kiosk system for clients to complete when reporting) .

• Multiple sources. Community supervision agencies 

could also pool data from multiple sources to address 

an evaluation question . For example, agencies 

could program kiosk machines to ask clients about 

their offending behavior (self-report) and also use 

arrest records as a second source for measuring 

recidivism . Agencies should consider the strengths and 

weaknesses of each data source as well as its feasibility .

• Data collection procedures. Agencies can collect 

data not only from multiple sources but also by using 

a variety of methods . For example, evaluators can 

collect self-report data over the telephone, through the 

mail, via the Web, or in person . Agencies may want to 

consider multiple information collection methods, to 

help compensate for the weakness of any one method .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 57

• Resources. Different types of data sources and data 

collection methods require varying levels of effort in 

terms of time and money . For example, asking clients 

about their offending behavior via kiosk is certainly 

less time consuming and less expensive than visiting 

each client at their home to ask the same questions .

Table 4-2 presents some potential data sources 

that community supervision agencies could use to 

answer evaluation questions about the population 

assigned to kiosk supervision as well as how kiosk 

supervision affects recidivism among individuals under 

community supervision .

Table 4-2 . Simple Chart Summarizing Evaluation Questions, Data Sources, 

Data Collection Methods, and Analysis

Evaluation Question Data Sources Data Collection Methods Analysis

1. Were the intended clients assigned to kiosk supervision?

Did PPOs assign at least 

70 percent of their lowrisk clients (based on one 

or more risk assessment 

instruments) to kiosk 

supervision during 

the first six months 

of the program?

Administrative 

records on PPOs’ 

assignment 

decisions regarding 

which clients are 

assigned to kiosk 

supervision .

Abstract data from administrative 

records on PPOs’ assignment 

decisions during the first six months of 

an agency’s kiosk reporting program .

Abstract data from administrative 

records on clients’ scores on risk 

assessment instruments .

Compute the percentage 

of low-risk clients (based 

on risk assessment 

instruments) assigned to 

kiosk supervision during 

the first six months of the 

program and compare it 

with the 70 percent target .

2. What is the effect of kiosk supervision on recidivism?

Are clients assigned 

to kiosk supervision 

any more or less likely 

to recidivate than 

similar clients assigned 

to traditional officer 

supervision during the 

first three months under 

community supervision?

Administrative 

records on PPOs’ 

assignment 

decisions regarding 

which clients are 

assigned to kiosk 

supervision and 

which clients 

are assigned to 

traditional officer 

supervision .

Police arrest 

records .

Clients’ self-reports .

Abstract data from administrative 

records on PPOs’ assignment 

decisions for new clients during a prespecified time period (six months) .

Abstract data from police arrest 

records on all clients assigned to 

kiosk supervision and traditional PPO 

supervision during a pre-specified 

time period (three months post-date 

of assignment) .

Collect information on offending 

behavior that clients provide 

each time they report via kiosk, or 

administer a paper survey each time 

a client reports in person .

For new clients during 

a pre-specified time 

period (e .g ., six months): 

Compare the rate of 

recidivism for clients 

assigned to kiosk 

supervision and the rate 

of recidivism for clients 

assigned to traditional 

officer supervision during 

the first three months 

of their community 

supervision sentence, 

while controlling for 

differences between the 

two groups .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 58

Action Item 4

DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT DATA 

COLLECTION PLANS

Once community supervision agencies identify the 

information and data sources necessary to answer their 

evaluation questions, they will need to develop and 

implement a data collection plan that specifies how 

to obtain the information . For example, agencies that 

need to collect data from clients about their offending 

behavior should develop specific questions to include 

in the kiosk system, an interview protocol PPOs can 

administer to their clients who report in person, and/or 

a questionnaire clients can complete when they report . 

Agencies may also need to develop review forms that 

can capture information from administrative records 

that are not available in an electronic format nor easily 

extracted from a database . 

Community supervision agencies should 

keep in mind the following points when 

developing questionnaires or other data 

collection instruments:

• Link instruments to evaluation questions 

as closely as possible. When developing data 

collection instruments or forms, community 

supervision agencies should try to tie the instruments 

to the evaluation questions as closely as possible . 

Agencies will want to ensure that they collect 

the information they need, without collecting 

extraneous information and placing an unnecessary 

burden on respondents (e .g ., PPOs, community 

supervision clients) .

• Minimize respondent burden. When developing 

their data collection plan, community supervision 

agencies should keep in mind the level of burden that 

will be placed on any respondents . Agencies should 

design instruments that collect all of the necessary 

information without placing an undue burden on 

those who complete the instruments .

• Obtain human subjects protection. Research 

involving human subjects may require review by an 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee 

to assess the risks and benefits to study participants . 

Any research involving human subjects must protect 

their rights, safety, and well-being . Community 

supervision agencies may need to prepare and 

submit an application to their organization’s (or 

external) IRB/ethics committee and obtain approval 

for their evaluation before they begin . Community 

supervision agencies that do not have their own IRB/

ethics committee may want to consider partnering 

with a public entity’s IRB, such as a local hospital’s 

or university’s IRB, or explore private companies that 

provide IRB services .

• Ensure confidentiality. Given the fact that 

community supervision agencies will be evaluating a 

kiosk reporting program for clients under community 

supervision, some of the information they collect 

will be of a sensitive nature . For example, clients 

may be asked to self-report their criminal behavior . 

Community supervision agencies should take 

the steps necessary to protect the information 

they collect for the evaluation and reassure 

respondents that any information collected will 

remain confidential .

• Test the draft instruments. Community 

supervision agencies will need to develop one 

or more instruments to collect the information 

necessary to conduct their evaluation . As part of 

the instrument development process, agencies will 

want to consider pre-testing draft instruments with 

a limited number of respondents to ensure they 

capture the necessary information and that the 

information is usable .

• Plan the data analysis. When developing data 

collection instruments, agencies also should think 

about how they plan to analyze the data . Given 

the fact that some analyses require data to be in a 

specific format, community supervision agencies 

must ensure that the data they collect fits with 

the analyses they plan to conduct as part of 

their evaluation .

Once community supervision agencies develop the data 

collection instruments necessary for their evaluation, 

they can begin using these instruments to collect the 

information they need to evaluate their kiosk reporting 

program . Table 4-2 presents several potential methods 

for collecting data related to assigning clients to kiosk 

supervision and reoffending behavior among individuals 

under community supervision .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 59

Action Item 5

ANALYZE DATA

To answer their evaluation questions, community 

supervision agencies will need to analyze their 

collected data . Depending on the data, agencies may 

conduct quantitative analyses, qualitative analyses, 

or a combination of the two . Examples of quantitative 

data analyses include counts, percentages, averages, 

hypothesis testing, and multivariate analyses . Qualitative 

data are generally descriptive and analyzed thematically 

using some sort of coding scheme . Regardless of the 

type of analyses, agencies will need to interpret the 

results to answer their evaluation questions . Examples of 

analysis approaches are presented in Table 4-2 .

Action Item 6

REPORT/COMMUNICATE RESULTS

The final step of the evaluation process—and 

perhaps the most important one—entails community 

supervision agencies interpreting the findings of their 

evaluation and reporting/communicating the results . 

Agencies must effectively communicate the results 

of the evaluation to their audiences . Community 

supervision agencies can use the evaluation results 

for a variety of purposes, such as to identify problems 

with their kiosk reporting program and make the 

improvements necessary to yield the best possible 

outcomes . The evaluation results can also be used 

to determine whether a kiosk reporting program is 

having the intended effects, such as reducing PPOs’ 

workloads or improving compliance among clients 

under community supervision . 

Community supervision agencies can disseminate 

the findings of their evaluation through a variety of 

avenues including written documentation (e .g ., reports, 

articles, issue briefs, newsletters), oral presentations 

(e .g ., conference presentations), and other events (e .g ., 

community meetings, advisory groups) . Community 

supervision agencies will need to communicate 

the results of their evaluation to key stakeholders 

to maintain support and resources for their kiosk 

reporting program over time .

4 .4 Summary

This chapter provided community supervision agencies with an overview of how to evaluate the implementation 

and effects of their kiosk reporting program . Community supervision agencies should begin planning their 

evaluation activities at the same time they are planning their kiosk reporting program—at the very beginning . 

Community supervision agencies also should involve a qualified evaluator in the development and implementation 

of their evaluation plan to ensure the findings of the evaluation are meaningful . Agencies should involve their 

stakeholders in the evaluation process to ensure the evaluation addresses the interests and concerns of 

stakeholders, who are often a source of financial and political support . Finally, community supervision agencies 

should identify their key evaluation questions, develop a data collection plan that specifies the source(s) 

and data collection methods for key measures, analyze the data obtained, and communicate the evaluation 

findings effectively .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 60

Appendix A

Kiosk Supervision Site Profiles

Table A-1 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 1

Attribute/Characteristic Description

1 Level of implementation (i .e ., municipal, 

county, regional, multi-regional) County

2 Length of implementation Less than 10 years

3

Kiosk approach (i .e ., kiosk-only, kiosk 

as supplement to PPO supervision, or a 

combination of kiosk-only and kiosk as 

supplement to PPO supervision)

Supplement: Clients report monthly to the kiosk . Clients also 

report to their PPO every three months .

4 Percentage of community supervision 

clients assigned to kiosk reporting Less than 5%

5 Risk level of clients assigned to 

kiosk reporting Low risk only

6 Risk assessment tool used Level of Service Inventory–RevisedTM (LSI-RTM)

7 Eligibility criteria

Only low-risk clients are eligible for kiosk reporting . Clients are 

carefully screened using a risk assessment instrument and other 

criteria . Even if clients score low on an assessment instrument, 

their criminal history and/or having committed certain types of 

offenses during the last five years could make them ineligible 

for kiosk supervision . Offenses that made clients ineligible (if 

committed recently or during the last five years) include: murder, 

intoxicated assault with vehicle, intoxicated manslaughter with 

vehicle, kidnapping, any offenses regarding children (e .g ., enticing, 

harboring, indecency, injury, kidnapping, incest, abandonment, 

endangerment, child pornography), any aggravated offense, 

any sexual offense, domestic violence assault or violation of a 

protective order, any assaultive offense, arson, vehicular homicide, 

any weapons offense, and any DWI offense .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 61

Table A-1 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 1 (continued)

Attribute/Characteristic Description

8 Use as graduated sanction/reward Reward

9 Location of kiosks Probation offices

10 Number of locations 6

11 Number of kiosk machines 6

12 Hours of operation/availability Business hours

13 Kiosk attendant Yes

14 Frequency of kiosk reporting 1x/month

15 Reporting timeframe requirements Monthly - anytime during the calendar month

16 Method of confirming identification Clients are required to enter their case number and then have 

their palm print verified using a palm-scan reader .

17 Use of biometrics to confirm identity Yes, by using a palm-scan reader

18 Number of questions asked 10

19 Special features Reporting kiosks provide two language options: English 

and Spanish .

20 Purchase or lease equipment/hardware Purchase

21 Funding source(s) for start-up costs Grant plus local funding

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 62

Table A-2 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 2

Attribute/Characteristic Description

1 Level of implementation (i .e ., municipal, 

county, regional, multi-regional)

Multi-regional (includes multiple jurisdictions across multiple 

regions within one state) 

2 Length of implementation More than 10 years

3

Kiosk approach (i .e ., kiosk-only, kiosk 

as supplement to PPO supervision, or a 

combination of kiosk-only and kiosk as 

supplement to PPO supervision)

Combination: Some clients are assigned to kiosk-only 

(supervision of clients from out-of-state), but most are required 

to report to their PPO as well as the kiosk .

4 Percentage of community supervision 

clients assigned to kiosk reporting 70%

5 Risk level of clients assigned to kiosk 

reporting

The primary use of reporting kiosks is for medium- and high-risk 

clients as a supplement to PPO supervision . Originally, low-risk 

clients were assigned to kiosk-only reporting . Currently, kioskonly supervision is limited to low-risk clients from out of state . 

6 Risk assessment tool used Static Risk Assessment

7 Eligibility criteria

Assessment of risk determines eligibility for kiosk reporting . 

Most clients are assigned to kiosk reporting as a supplement to 

officer supervision and at the discretion of the supervising PPO . 

Clients placed on probation by another state but supervised by 

department may be assigned to kiosk-only reporting . 

8 Use as graduated sanction/reward Sanction/reward

9 Location of kiosks

Probation offices, prison/work release, police departments 

(including five portable kiosks that rotate locations on a 

schedule)

10 Number of locations 64

11 Number of kiosk machines 128

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 63

Table A-2 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 2 (continued)

Attribute/Characteristic Description

12 Hours of operation/availability Business hours with late hours offered at many sites

13 Kiosk attendant No 

14 Frequency of kiosk reporting Varies – based on client’s individualized reporting schedule as 

determined by the assigned PPO

15 Reporting timeframe requirements Variable – at the discretion of the PPO

16 Method of confirming identification

Clients are required to enter a client ID number and have their 

hand scanned by a hand-geometry reader; in addition, a photo is 

taken that can later be visually confirmed by the PPO if needed .

17 Use of biometrics to confirm identity Yes, by using a hand-geometry reader (top of the hand)

18 Number of questions asked

In addition to three mandatory questions, PPOs can select from 

63 questions to customize a list of kiosk reporting questions for 

each client .

19 Special features

PPOs can leave messages for probationers checking into the 

kiosk, and clients can send a message to their PPO during each 

kiosk reporting session . Reporting kiosks provide two language 

options: English and Spanish .

20 Purchase or lease equipment/hardware Lease

21 Funding source(s) for start-up costs Agency operation funds

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 64

Table A-3 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 3

Attribute/Characteristic Description

1 Level of implementation (i .e ., municipal, 

county, regional, multi-regional) Municipal

2 Length of implementation More than 10 years

3

Kiosk approach (i .e ., kiosk-only, kiosk 

as supplement to PPO supervision, or a 

combination of kiosk-only and kiosk as 

supplement to PPO supervision)

Combination: Most clients assigned to kiosk reporting only report 

to the kiosk . However, if clients have special conditions or have 

violated a condition of their probation, they may be required to 

report to the kiosk as well as a PPO . 

4 Percentage of community supervision 

clients assigned to kiosk reporting 63%

5 Risk level of clients assigned to kiosk 

reporting

Most clients assigned to kiosk-only reporting are low risk . Clients 

originally assessed as medium or high risk may qualify to step 

down to kiosk reporting once specific conditions of probation 

have been met .

6 Risk assessment tool used Level of Service Inventory–Revised: Screening Version 

(LSI–R:SVTM); LSI–RTM

7 Eligibility criteria

Risk level determines eligibility for kiosk, but exceptions can be 

made (for or against assignment to kiosk) on a case-by-case 

basis . Checks at three points in time (initial assessment, intake, 

and supervision) could affect the assignment to kiosk . Clients 

may start out probation by being assigned to kiosk-only reporting 

(low risk) or may step down to kiosk-only supervision after 

successfully completing higher levels of probation supervision . 

A person initially classified as the highest risk category can 

potentially progress down to the kiosk-only supervision (with the 

exception of individuals with sex- or gun-related offenses; they 

are not eligible for kiosk reporting) . 

8 Use as graduated sanction/reward Sanction/reward

9 Location of kiosks Probation offices

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 65

Table A-3 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 3 (continued)

Attribute/Characteristic Description

10 Number of locations 5

11 Number of kiosk machines 22

12 Hours of operation/availability Business hours with some extended evening hours

13 Kiosk attendant Yes

14 Frequency of kiosk reporting 1x/month

15 Reporting timeframe requirements Monthly - during the week in which birthdate falls

16 Method of confirming identification

Biometrics (hand-scan reader); 7-digit code/PIN used to login; 

picture taken at enrollment: when clients enter the code, their 

picture pops up on a computer screen that is monitored by kiosk 

attendants, the PPO of the day, and the branch chief .

17 Use of biometrics to confirm identity Yes, by using a hand-scan reader

18 Number of questions asked 6

19 Special features

PPOs may leave messages for probationers checking into the 

kiosk . Alert messages may be standardized, such as “Please see 

the kiosk attendant,” or they may be customized messages, such 

as those instructing the client to submit proof of employment 

or restitution . These messages flash on the screen and also 

are printed out on their receipt . Reporting kiosks provide four 

language options: English, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese .

20 Purchase or lease equipment/hardware Purchase

21 Funding source(s) for start-up costs Tax levy

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 66

Table A-4 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 4

Attribute/Characteristic Description

1 Level of implementation (i .e ., municipal, 

county, regional, multi-regional)

Regional (a collaboration that includes one county and multiple 

municipal jurisdictions)

2 Length of implementation Less than 10 years

3

Kiosk approach (i .e ., kiosk-only, kiosk 

as supplement to PPO supervision, or a 

combination of kiosk-only and kiosk as 

supplement to PPO supervision)

Kiosk-only

4 Percentage of community supervision 

clients assigned to kiosk reporting 18%

5 Risk level of clients assigned to kiosk 

reporting

Most clients assigned to kiosk reporting are low risk . Some 

clients initially assessed as medium or high risk may also be 

assigned to kiosk reporting near the end of their probationary 

period at the discretion of the supervising PPO . 

6 Risk assessment tool used Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Community Supervision 

Tool (CST)

7 Eligibility criteria

Low-risk clients must earn the privilege of being assigned to 

kiosk reporting, which usually occurs within six months from the 

end of the probationary period . Clients originally assessed as 

medium or high risk may qualify to step down to kiosk reporting 

once they meet specific conditions of probation . Individuals with 

severe mental health issues and sex offenders are not eligible 

for kiosk reporting . Depending upon the supervising jurisdiction, 

some individuals receiving substance abuse treatment services 

are not eligible for kiosk reporting until they have completed 

treatment and have been sober for one year . Although most 

clients are assigned to kiosk reporting as a condition of 

probation, some clients are assigned to kiosk reporting as a 

condition of pre-trial release .

8 Use as graduated sanction/reward Reward

9 Location of kiosks Police departments, work-release, courthouse, community center

10 Number of locations 5

11 Number of kiosk machines 5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 67

Table A-4 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 4 (continued)

Attribute/Characteristic Description

12 Hours of operation/availability

All locations provide kiosk access during regular business hours . 

Some locations also offer extended evening and weekend hours 

or 24/7 access .

13 Kiosk attendant No

14 Frequency of kiosk reporting 1x/month

15 Reporting timeframe requirements

Monthly: Depending upon the jurisdiction, clients may be 

required to report within a specific seven-day window or anytime 

during the calendar month .

16 Method of confirming identification

Clients are required to enter a 8-digit code (month and day of 

birthday) plus the last four numbers of their Social Security 

number . The kiosk also takes a photo of the client at each 

reporting session . The supervising PPO individually confirms the 

identity of each client by photo comparison each time the client 

checks in .

17 Use of biometrics to confirm identity No

18 Number of questions asked

Twenty-eight possible questions are available, and each 

participating jurisdiction can select any combination of these 

questions for their clients to answer . The number of questions 

asked of kiosk clients ranges between five and 11, depending 

upon the customization specifications of the supervising 

jurisdiction .

19 Special features

The kiosk allows clients to scan payment receipts, paycheck 

stubs, GED certificates, and other documents to provide evidence 

of compliance . Clients can leave a personalized message for 

their PPO through the kiosk . PPOs are able to leave messages 

for probationers checking into the kiosk . Alert messages may be 

standardized, such as “You must contact your PPO,” or they may 

be customized messages, such as those instructing the client to 

submit proof of employment or restitution . These messages flash 

on the screen and also are printed out on their receipt .

20 Purchase or lease equipment/hardware Purchase

21 Funding source(s) for start-up costs Grant

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 68

Table A-5 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 5

Attribute/Characteristic Description

1 Level of implementation (i .e ., municipal, 

county, regional, multi-regional) County

2 Length of implementation Less than 10 years

3

Kiosk approach (i .e ., kiosk-only, kiosk 

as supplement to PPO supervision, or a 

combination of kiosk-only and kiosk as 

supplement to PPO supervision)

Combination: Some clients are assigned to kiosk reporting only, 

while others may be required to report to kiosk and their PPO . 

Clients may start out as PPO-only and as they make progress and 

successfully meet conditions of probation, they may earn the 

right to substitute visits with their PPO for kiosk reporting and 

eventually step down to kiosk reporting only .

4 Percentage of community supervision 

clients assigned to kiosk reporting 36%

5 Risk level of clients assigned to kiosk 

reporting

Most clients assigned to kiosk reporting are minimal risk (banked 

cases) or low risk . Some medium-risk clients are also assigned to 

kiosk reporting . Homeless clients may also be assigned to kiosk 

as a supplement to PPO supervision, regardless of risk level . 

6 Risk assessment tool used

Three-question proxy pre-assessment (6-point scale based on 

age of first offense, number prior arrests, and current age); 

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative 

Sanctions (COMPAS) Risk and Need Assessment for those scoring 

a 5 or 6 on the pre-assessment .

7 Eligibility criteria

Risk level and assessment of need determines eligibility for kiosk . 

Low-risk/low-need clients are eligible for kiosk reporting . Clients 

originally assessed as medium or high risk/need may qualify to 

step down to kiosk reporting at the discretion of the supervising 

PPO . Homeless clients may be required to report daily to the 

kiosk in addition to meeting with their PPO .

8 Use as graduated sanction/reward Sanction/reward

9 Location of kiosks Probation offices

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 69

Table A-5 . Kiosk Supervision Site Profile – Site 5 (continued)

Attribute/Characteristic Description

10 Number of locations 9

11 Number of kiosk machines 18

12 Hours of operation/availability Business hours

13 Kiosk attendant No

14 Frequency of kiosk reporting

Typically, 1x/month for low-risk/banked cases but can be reduced 

in frequency (e .g ., 1x/3 months) at the discretion of the PPO if 

the client continues to comply with all conditions of probation . 

Homeless clients may be required to report daily until they 

secure housing .

15 Reporting timeframe requirements Monthly - within a seven-day window beginning 30 days after the 

last reporting date .

16 Method of confirming identification

Clients are required to enter a 6-digit code, confirm their name 

retrieved by the system, and enter the last four digits of their 

Social Security number . The kiosk also takes a photo at each 

check-in that can be later viewed by PPOs to visually confirm 

identity .

17 Use of biometrics to confirm identity No

18 Number of questions asked 3

19 Special features

The kiosk offers an audio feature, which allows clients to listen 

to rather than requiring them to read each question before 

responding . Reporting kiosks provide two language options: 

English and Spanish .

20 Purchase or lease equipment/hardware Purchase

21 Funding source(s) for start-up costs Grant

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 70

Appendix B

Checklist for Agencies Considering

Kiosk Supervision

Stage 1: Exploration

 Conduct a Needs Assessment 

and Identify Goals

 Research Literature on Kiosk Reporting

 Consult Agencies That Currently Use or 

Previously Used Reporting Kiosks

 Assess the Match Between Needs/Goals 

and Kiosk Reporting

Stage 2: Adoption and Planning

 Develop a Clear Vision of Change – 

Kiosk Features and Capabilities, 

Cost, and Roll-Out Plan

 Establish Strong Leadership and 

Communicate a Vision of Change

 Conduct a Preliminary Assessment 

of Potential Staffing Changes and 

Available Staffing Resources

 Conduct a Preliminary Assessment 

of Cost Requirements and Available 

Financial Resources

 Engage and Obtain Buy-In from 

Key Stakeholders

Stage 3: Implementation

 Establish a Roll-Out Plan

 Document Decisions and Develop 

a Staff Manual

 Determine Who Will Be Eligible for 

Kiosk Supervision

 Clearly Define the Assignment 

and Enrollment Processes

 Decide How Kiosk Reporting Will Be Used

 Determine Number of Kiosks, Location 

of Kiosks, and Hours of Operation

 Establish Client Reporting Protocols

 Determine What Information Kiosks 

Will Collect

 Identify Kiosk Features and Capabilities

 Develop a Maintenance Plan

Stage 4: Evaluation/Assessment

 Select an Evaluator

 Develop a Clear Program Description

 Identify Purpose(s) and Type(s) 

of Evaluation

 Form Evaluation Questions

 Identify Information or Data Sources 

for Answering Evaluation Questions

 Develop and Implement Data 

Collection Plans

 Analyze Data

 Report/Communicate Results

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 71

Appendix C

Kiosk Vendors Identified by Study Participants

Disclaimer: Each of the vendors described in this appendix was mentioned in interviews with staff of the 

community supervision agencies that participated in the NIJ-funded multi-jurisdiction kiosk study . Hence, the 

list of vendors is not comprehensive . The descriptions of vendors are based on information posted on their 

websites in September 2015 .

Neither Westat nor NIJ endorses any of the vendors listed . Vendors represent themselves and are not 

affiliated with Westat in any way . 

C-1 . Automon, LLC

Website: http://www.automon.com/

Contact Information:

10450 N . 74th St ., Suite 210

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

(480) 368-8555 or (888) 726-8110

Email: Support@automon .com or Sales@automon .com

C-2 . DynaTouch Interactive Technologies 

Website: http://www.dynatouch.com

Contact Information:

9901 Broadway

San Antonio, TX 78217

(210) 828-8343 or (800) 594-2042 

Email: No email address listed, but website includes a 

form to fill out on the Contact Us page .

C-3 . Hamer Enterprises

Website: http://www.hecorp.com

Contact Information:

4200-A N . Bicentennial Drive

McAllen, Texas 78504

(956) 682-3466, (956) 682-0906, or (800) 926-3466

Email: hesales@hecorp .com or hesupport@hecorp .com

C-4 . Kiosk Information Systems

Website: http://kiosk.com

Contact Information: 

346 South Arthur Avenue

Louisville, CO 80027

(800) 509-5471 or (303) 466-5471

Email: No email address listed, but website 

includes a form to fill out on the Contact Us page .

C-5 . Northern Ohio Regional Information 

System (NORIS)

Website: http://www.noris.org/

Contact Information:

1 Government Center #1720

Toledo, OH 43604

(419) 213-3800

Email: contact@noris .org

C-6 . Olea Kiosks, Inc.

Website: http://www.olea.com

Contact Information:

13845 Artesia Boulevard

Cerritos, California 90703

(800) 927-8063

Email: info@olea .com

C-7 . Sentinel Offender Service 

Website: http://www.sentrak.com

Contact Information:

201 Technology Drive

Irvine, CA 92618

5 Concourse Parkway, Suite 775

Atlanta, GA 30328

(678) 443-9525, ext . 104 (GA), (949) 453-1550 (CA), 

or (800) 589-6003 (CA)

Email: sales-east@sentrak .com (GA) or 

sales-west@sentrak .com (CA)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 72

Endnotes 

 1 Subramanian, Ram, and Rebecca Tublitz . “Realigning 

Justice Resources: A Review Of Population and Spending 

Shifts in Prison and Community Corrections .” VERA 

Institute of Justice . (2012) . Retrieved February 27, 2015, 

from http://www .vera .org/files/Full%20Report .pdf .

 2 LaVigne, Nancy, Samuel Bieler, Lindsey Cramer, and Helen 

Ho, et al . “Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment 

Report .” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute (2014) .

 3 Subramanian, et al . “Realigning Justice Resources: A 

Review Of Population and Spending Shifts in Prison and 

Community Corrections .”

 4 Ibid.

 5 Jackson, Brian A ., Joe Russo, John S . Hollywood, 

Dulani Woods, Richard Silberglitt, George B ., Drake, 

John S . Shaffer, Mikhail Zaydman, and Brian G . 

Chow . “Fostering Innovation in Community and 

Institutional Corrections .” Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation (2015) . Retrieved February 26, 2015, from 

https://www .ncjrs .gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248580 .pdf .

 6 Glaze, Lauren E ., and Danielle Kaeble . “Correctional 

Populations in the United States, 2013 .” Washington, DC: 

U .S . Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014) . Retrieved February 9, 

2015, from http://www .bjs .gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13 .pdf .

 7 Ibid.

 8 Pew Center on the States . “One in 31: The Long Reach 

of American Corrections .” Washington, DC: The Pew 

Charitable Trusts (2009) . Retrieved June 21, 2015 from 

http://www .pewtrusts .org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/

pcs_assets/2009/PSPP1in31reportFINALWEB32609pdf .pdf .

 9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Glaze, et al ., “Correctional Populations in the United 

States, 2013 .”

12 VERA Institute of Justice . “The Potential of Community 

Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceration .” 

VERA Institute of Justice . (2013) . Retrieved March 1, 2015 

from http://www .vera .org/sites/default/files/resources/

downloads/potential-of-community-corrections .pdf .

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Latessa, Edward J ., and Paula Smith . Corrections in the 

Community (5th ed .) . New York: Anderson (2011) .

16 DeMichele, Matthew, and Brian K . Payne . “Probation 

and Parole Officers Speak Out – Caseload and Workload 

Allocation .” Federal Probation 71 (2007) (3): 30–35 . 

Retrieved August 9, 2015 from http://www .uscourts .gov/

statistics-reports/publications/federal-probation-journal/

federal-probation-journal-december-2007 .

17 Kyckelhahn, Tracey . “State Corrections Expenditures, 

FY 1982-2010 .” Washington, DC: U .S . Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (2014) . Retrieved February 27, 2015, from 

http://www .bjs .gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210 .pdf .

18 Ibid.

19 National Association of State Budget Officers . “State 

Expenditure Report . Examining Fiscal 2010-2012 State 

Spending .” Washington, DC: National Association of State 

Budget Officers (2012) . Retrieved February 27, 2015, 

from http://www .nasbo .org/sites/default/files/State%20

Expenditure%20Report%20%28Fiscal%202010-2012%29 .pdf .

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Pew Center on the States . “One in 31: The Long Reach of 

American Corrections .”

23 Ibid.

24 VERA Institute of Justice . “The Potential of Community 

Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceration .”

25 Ibid.

26 Gleicher, Lily, Sarah M . Manchak, and Francis T . Cullen . 

“Creating a Supervision Tool Kit: How to Improve Probation 

and Parole .” Federal Probation 77 (1) (2013): 22–27 . 

Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www .uscourts .gov/

statistics-reports/publications/federal-probation-journal/

federal-probation-journal-june-2013 .

27 Ibid.

28 Barnes, Geoffrey C ., Jordan M . Hyatt, Lindsay C . Ahlman, 

and Daniel T .L . Kent . “The Effects of Low-Intensity 

Supervision for Lower-Risk Probationers: Updated Results 

From a Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Crime and 

Justice 35 (2) (2012): 200–220 .

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 73

29 Lowenkamp, Christopher T ., Edward J . Latessa, and 

Alexander M . Holsinger . “The Risk Principle in Action: 

What Have We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 

Correctional Programs?” Crime and Delinquency 52 

(2006):77–93 .

30 VERA Institute of Justice . “The Potential of Community 

Corrections to Improve Safety and Reduce Incarceration .” 

31 Ibid.

32 DeMichele, Matthew, and Brian Payne . “Electronic 

Supervision and the Importance of Evidence-Based 

Practices .” Federal Probation 74 (2) (2010): 4-11 . Retrieved 

February 8, 2015, from http://www .uscourts .gov/statisticsreports/publications/federal-probation-journal/federalprobation-journal-september-2010 .

33 Fabelo, Tony, Geraldine Nagy, and Seth Prins . “A Ten-Step 

Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce 

Recidivism .” New York: Council of the State Governments 

Justice Center (2011) . Retrieved February 4, 2015, from 

https://www .bja .gov/Publications/CSG_10Step_Guide_

Probation .pdf

34 Jackson, et al . “Fostering Innovation in Community and 

Institutional Corrections .”

35 This definition of kiosk reporting is based on text (with 

minor revisions) from Ahlin, Eileen M ., Carol A . Hagen, 

Michelle A . Harmon, and Scott B . Crosse . “Kiosk Reporting 

Among Probationers in the United States .” The Prison 

Journal (in press) .

36 Ahlin, et al . “Kiosk Reporting Among Probationers in the 

United States .”

37 DeMichele . et al ., “Electronic Supervision and the 

Importance of Evidence-Based Practices .”

38 Jannetta, Jesse, and Robin Halberstadt . “Kiosk Supervision 

for the District of Columbia .” Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute (2011) . Retrieved March 14, 2012, from: http://

www .urban .org/uploadedpdf/412314-Kiosk-SupervisionDC .pdf; and Maryland Department of Public Safety and 

Correctional Services . “Kiosk Reporting System: A Report 

to the Budget Committees of the Maryland General 

Assembly .” Annapolis, MD (2002) .

39 Wilson, James A ., Wendy Naro, and James F . Austin . 

“Innovations in Probation: Assessing New York City’s 

Automated Reporting System .” Washington, DC: The JFA 

Institute (2007) . Retrieved September 18, 2012 .

40 Ibid.; and Wilson, James A ., James F . Austin, and Wendy 

Naro . “Implementing Automated Kiosk Reporting for LowRisk Probationers: Does It Work?” Executive Exchange, 

Winter (2008): 2-10 . Retrieved February 6, 2015, from: 

http://www .napehome .org/documents/pub/winter_2008 .pdf .

41 Wilson, et al ., “Innovations in Probation: Assessing New 

York City’s Automated Reporting System;” and Wilson, et 

al . “Implementing Automated Kiosk Reporting for Low-Risk 

Probationers: Does It Work?”

42 Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional 

Services, “Kiosk Reporting System: A Report to the Budget 

Committees of the Maryland General Assembly .”

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Jannetta, et al ., “Kiosk Supervision for the District of 

Columbia”; and Maryland Department of Public Safety and 

Correctional Services, “Kiosk Reporting System: A Report to 

the Budget Committees of the Maryland General Assembly .”

46 Fixsen, Dean L ., Sandra F . Naoom, Karen A . Blasé, Robert 

M . Friedman, and Frances Wallace . “Implementation 

Research: A Synthesis of the Literature .” Tampa, FL: 

University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida 

Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation 

Research Network (FMHI Publication 231) (2005) . 

47| Ibid.; and Howe, Meghan, and Lore Joplin . “Implementing 

Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections .” Boston, 

MA: The Crime and Justice Institute . Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division 

(2005) . Retrieved June 23, 2015, from https://s3 .amazonaws .

com/static .nicic .gov/Library/021258 .pdf .

48 Fixsen et al ., “Implementation Research: A Synthesis of 

the Literature .”

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Kiosk Supervision: A Guidebook for Community Professionals 74

51 Ibid.

52 Howe et al ., “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections .”

53 Guevara, Meghan, and Enver Solomon . “Implementing 

Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community 

Corrections .” Washington, DC: National Institute 

of Corrections, U .S . Department of Justice (2009) . 

Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://static .nicic .gov/

Library/024107 .pdf .

54 Howe et al ., “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections .”

55 Rossi, Peter H ., Howard E . Freeman, and Mark W . Lipsey . 

Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (6th ed .) . Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc . (1999) .

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

59 Howe et al ., “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections .”

60 Proctor, Enola, Hiie Silmere, Ramesh Raghavan, Peter 

Hovmand, Greg Aarons, Alicia Bunger, Richard Griffey, and 

Melissa Hensley . “Outcomes for Implementation Research: 

Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and 

Research Agenda .” Administration and Policy in Mental 

Health, 38(2010) (2):65–76 .

61 Howe, et al ., “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections: A Quality Assurance Manual .”

62 Rossi, et al ., “Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (6th ed .) .”

63 Hollihan, Allison, and Michelle Portlock . “Video Visiting in 

Corrections: Benefits, Limitations, and Implementation 

Considerations .” Washington, DC: U .S . Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Corrections (2014) .

64 Howe, et al ., “Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections: A Quality Assurance Manual .”

65 Ibid.

66 Hollihan, et al ., “Video Visiting in Corrections: Benefits, 

Limitations, and Implementation Considerations .”

67 Ibid.

68 Center for Substance Abuse Treatment . “Partnership 

to Prevent Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Public 

Education Program Manual .” Department of Health and 

Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse 

Prevention (2005) .

69 Ibid.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.