Kiosk reporting is one type of electronic reporting that reduces the need for a low-risk offender to meet face-to-face with a probation officer. Probationers are identified by the kiosk using biometric measures and are prompted to provide information they would typically discuss with a probation officer. Despite its use in a variety of contexts, little is known about kiosk reporting in practice. This research provides an overview of the use of kiosk reporting among probation agencies across the United States and examines the use of kiosk reporting from the perspective of probation officers.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735-755.
BarnesG. C.AhlmanL.GillC.ShermanL. W.KurtzE.MalvestutoR. (2010). Low-intensity community supervision for low-risk offenders: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 159-189.
5.
DeMicheleM.PayneB. (2009). Offender supervision with electronic technology: A community corrections resource (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6.
DeMicheleM.PayneB. (2010). Electronic supervision and the importance of evidence-based practices. Federal Probation, 74, 4-11.
7.
GreveT.ConnorT. (2009). Pretrial services in the district of Nebraska after the Office of Federal Detention Trustee study. Federal Probation, 73, 37-56.
8.
JacobsonM. (2004). Reply to Kevin D. Haggerty. Theoretical Criminology, 8, 233-238.
9.
JannettaJ.HalberstadtR. (2011). Kiosk supervision for the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
10.
KaebleD.MaruschakL. M.BonczarT. P. (2015). Probation and parole in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
KyckelhahnT. (2013). Local government corrections expenditures, FY 2005-2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
12.
LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2011). Corrections in the community (5th ed.). New York, NY: Anderson.
13.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections (pp. 3-8). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
14.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93.
15.
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. (2002). Kiosk reporting system: A report to the Budget Committees of the Maryland General Assembly. Annapolis, MD: Author.
16.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 716-736.
17.
O’HaganP.HannaE.SterrittR. (2009). Addressing the corrections crisis with software technology. Computer, 43, 90-93.
18.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
RarickE.KahanR. M. (2009). On prison kiosks, inmates learn job search skills. Corrections Today, 71, 56-58.
TaxmanF. S.CaudyM. S.PattavinaA. (2013). Risk-need-responsivity (RNR): Leading towards another generation of the model. In TaxmanF. S.PattavinaA. (Eds.), Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism (pp. 285-307). New York, NY: Springer.
22.
WilsonJ. A.AustinJ. F.NaroW. (2008, Winter). Implementing automated kiosk reporting for low-risk probationers: Does it work? Executive Exchange. Bryan, TX: National Association of Probation Executives.
23.
WilsonJ. A.NaroW.AustinJ. F. (2007). Innovations in probation: Assessing New York City’s automated reporting system. Washington, DC: The JFA Institute.
