Research and Evaluation in Justice Systems, Multi Jurisdiction Research on Automated Reporting Systems: Kiosk Supervision, 2012-2015 [United States] (ICPSR 36311)

Published: Dec 20, 2017

Principal Investigator(s):
Scott Crosse, Westat

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36311.v1

Version V1

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The Multi-jurisdiction Research on Kiosk Supervision examined the prevalence of kiosk reporting, implementation experience of agencies using it, and outcomes and costs associated with its use. A telephone screener survey of 492 community supervision agencies nationally in 2012 identified 21 agencies currently using kiosk reporting, agencies that formerly used it, and those that considered but decided against using kiosk reporting. Telephone interviews with 30 agencies and site visits with five agencies measured the benefits and limitations of kiosk reporting and the issues for adopting and implementing kiosk reporting systems. This information served as the basis for a guidebook on kiosk reporting developed for community supervision agencies.

Two outcome studies assessed the effectiveness of kiosk reporting for low-risk clients on public safety outcomes, relative to traditional face-to-face officer reporting and another electronic reporting approach. These studies analyzed administrative data from two large community supervision agencies, which used separate quasi-experimental designs for each site. At one of the sites, two separate designs and datasets were used to compare kiosk reporting and traditional face-to-face officer reporting on outcomes over a 6-month period. At the other site, clients assigned to kiosk supervision were compared to clients assigned to telephone reporting with interactive voice response (IVR) over a 6-month period.

Crosse, Scott. Research and Evaluation in Justice Systems, Multi Jurisdiction Research on Automated Reporting Systems: Kiosk Supervision, 2012-2015 [United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2017-12-20. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36311.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2011-IJ-CX-0010)

None

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research

2012 -- 2015

2011 -- 2014 (Screener Dataset: 2012-08--2012-12)

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The overall purpose of this research is to expand and strengthen the evidence base on kiosk reporting systems used to supervise probationers and parolees. The research collected and analyzed information on the prevalence of kiosk reporting, implementation experience of adopters of this approach, and outcomes and costs associated with use of kiosk reporting. In addition to enhancing the evidence base, the research findings informed the development of a practical guidebook on adoption and implementation that will help community supervision agencies to make knowledgeable decisions about kiosk reporting.

Screener Dataset

The study administered the screener instrument by telephone between August 2012 and December 2012. A letter was mailed to agencies informing it of the study's purpose and providing advance notice that the agency would be contacted by telephone about participating in an interview.

This collection used a two-step procedure to identify study participants. This modified list included 669 probation and parole agencies in five regions across the United States. The national sampling frame was expanded to incorporate additional agencies that had knowledge about the use of kiosk reporting.

Outcome Data for Site 1, Dataset 1

The county probation department identified low risk clients by administering the Wisconsin Risk/Needs Scales at intake. In addition to low risk status, certain crimes made individuals ineligible for kiosk participation: a criminal history during the last 5 years that included murder, vehicular homicide, aggravated or other assault offenses, arson, intoxicated assault with a vehicle, intoxicated manslaughter with a vehicle, kidnapping, weapons offenses, domestic violence, violation of protective order offenses, DWI offenses, sexual offenses, and any offenses regarding children (e.g., enticing, harboring, indecency, injury, kidnapping, incest, abandonment, endangerment, child pornography). Clients with at least 6 months left on their probation term who had satisfactory urinalysis results were eligible.

The county probation department housed kiosk machines in five offices, with an attendant available at each location. Kiosks were available on weekdays (7 AM - 6 PM). Kiosk users were instructed to report one time per month on a day of their choice. Upon reporting, each client entered a unique identifier, and, after biometric identification (a hand scanner) was used to confirm the client's identity, answered routine questions in English or Spanish regarding changes in contact information, employment, law enforcement contact, and whether the client had any important issues to discuss with an officer. Clients in the officer group saw a probation officer once each month.

Outcome Data for Site 1, Dataset 2

The county probation department identified low risk clients by administering the Wisconsin Risk/Needs Scales at intake. In addition to low risk status, certain crimes made individuals ineligible for kiosk participation: a criminal history during the last 5 years that included murder, vehicular homicide, aggravated or other assault offenses, arson, intoxicated assault with a vehicle, intoxicated manslaughter with a vehicle, kidnapping, weapons offenses, domestic violence, violation of protective order offenses, DWI offenses, sexual offenses, and any offenses regarding children (e.g., enticing, harboring, indecency, injury, kidnapping, incest, abandonment, endangerment, child pornography). Clients with at least 6 months left on their probation term who had satisfactory urinalysis results were eligible.

The county probation department housed kiosk machines in five offices, with an attendant available at each location. Kiosks were available on weekdays (7 AM - 6 PM). Kiosk users were instructed to report one time per month on a day of their choice. Upon reporting, each client entered a unique identifier, and, after biometric identification (a hand scanner) was used to confirm the client's identity, answered routine questions in English or Spanish regarding changes in contact information, employment, law enforcement contact, and whether the client had any important issues to discuss with an officer. Clients in the officer group saw a probation officer once each month.

Outcome Dataset for Site 3

The county probation department identified low risk clients using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised Screening Version at initial assessment, at intake, or during supervision. Clients who were initially screened as low risk and those who were initially at medium or high risk but later found to be low risk were eligible. Kiosk users watched a 20-minute video orientation and then had the opportunity to ask an officer questions about kiosk use. The county probation department housed two to five kiosk machines in each of five offices, with an attendant available at each location. Kiosks were available during business hours (M-F, 9 AM - 5 PM) with some extended evening hours.

Kiosk users were instructed to report one time a month during the week of their birthdate. Upon reporting, each client entered a unique identifier; and, after biometric identification (a hand scanner) was used to confirm the client's identity, answered routine questions regarding changes in contact information, employment, law enforcement contact, and education or training program and whether the client had any important issues to discuss with an officer. Officers could leave standard and customized messages for a client (e.g., to see the attendant or to show proof of address).

IVR participants, who met the same eligibility criteria, were directed to call in monthly on a specified date. Upon calling, each IVR client entered a unique identifier, and, after biometric identification via voice recognition software, responded to the same questions as kiosk users. IVR clients who failed to report on the specified date were automatically called up to five times by the IVR system to remind them to report. Finally, IVR clients were directed to call a toll-free phone number if they required assistance from an officer.

Coded Interview Dataset

The study developed and used six open-ended, semi-structured instruments that were specific to the role of the interviewee: agency director, probation officer, kiosk technician, kiosk purchasing agent, and financial officer. The site-visit interview questions were tailored to build on the information gathered during the in-depth telephone interviews and avoid redundancy.

After obtaining permission for each visit, study staff requested time to meet with specific staff members identified as the most knowledgeable about the agency's use of kiosk reporting. The five 1 to 2 day site visits occurred between May 2013 and January 2014. They provided an opportunity to tour agency facilities, observe daily operations, and conduct 28 in-person interviews with key staff.

Following preliminary cost analysis of data collected during site visits, the study contacted each site by email and telephone to request additional cost information and clarification on cost data provided during site visits. The initial email included follow-up questions and an invitation for sites to respond via email or by telephone at a time most convenient for them. Study staff collected supplemental cost data from all five sites.

Screener Dataset

A brief 5-minute telephone interview was administered to a national sampling frame of probation and parole agencies (n=492) between August and December 2012. The agencies interviewed are categorized into one of four groups:

  • Current users of reporting kiosks
  • Former users of reporting kiosks
  • Seriously considered reporting kiosks
  • Never used or considered kiosks

Outcome Data for Site 1, Dataset 1

Eligible probationers were assigned on a rolling basis to the kiosk (n=326) and officer supervision (n=130) groups between December 2011 and January 2014, based on the availability of slots in each group. Eligible individuals had more than 6 months remaining on probation, did not have a history of DWI, and had not committed violent offenses in the preceding 5-year period. In addition, their scores on the Wisconsin Risk/Needs Scales placed them in the minimum risk and minimum needs categories.

Eligible individuals who were receiving supervision in the jurisdiction but had been adjudicated in another county (n=198), were not included because comparable violations data were not available.

Outcome Data for Site 1, Dataset 2

The kiosk group (n=787) included all eligible probationers assigned to kiosk use. Eligible individuals had more than 6 months remaining on probation, did not have a history of DWI, and had not committed violent offenses in the preceding 5-year period. In addition, their scores on the Wisconsin Risk/Needs Scales placed them in the minimum risk and minimum needs categories.

The officer supervision group (n=906) included adults who began probation between November 2011 and April 2013 (i.e., no later than 9 months before kiosk use was initiated at that office). Eligible individuals who were receiving supervision in the jurisdiction but had been adjudicated in another county (n=608), were not included because comparable violation data were not available.

Outcome Dataset for Site 3

The sample was restricted to low-risk probationers who reported by kiosk (n=12690) and who used IVR (n=1234) were enrolled in the study between February 16 and April 1, 2012. The analyses examined whether or not a client received an infraction during the first 6 months after enrollment (e.g., prior to October 2012).

Coded Interview Dataset

Respondents from the current users group (n=66) had between 4 and 38 years of experience in the probation field. Respondents held high ranking positions within the probation department (e.g., director, deputy chief), while others were probation officers who used the kiosks on a day-to-day basis or were responsible for the information technology or maintenance of the kiosk system.

Longitudinal: Panel: Continuous

Cross-sectional

Probationers, parolees, and community corrections personnel at probation and parole agencies in five regions across the United States.

Agency

Individual

administrative records data

survey data

The research collected information from multiple sources and produced the following five datasets:

  • 01_screener_data.sav (24 variables, n=669): The variables include kiosk usage, region location, reasons for not using a kiosk, and information about other forms of reporting kiosks.
  • Site_1_Study-1_Data_revised.sav (25 variables, n=654): The variables include parolee demographics, general information on probation and kiosk usage, probation offenses, and scores from the Wisconsin Risk and Needs Scales.
  • Site_1_Study-2_Data_revised.sav (27 variables, n=2301): The variables include parolee demographics, general information on probation and kiosk usage, probation offenses, and scores from the Wisconsin Risk and Needs Scales.
  • Site_3_Data_revised.sav (34 variables, n=13924): The variables include parolee demographics, court conditions, service referral, and recidivism.
  • 02-coded_interview_data.sav (164 variables, n=66): The variables include rationale and development of a kiosk reporting program, technological aspects of the kiosk, target population and reporting requirements, benefits of kiosk reporting, and officer and offender satisfaction with the program.

Screener Dataset Survey 73.5%

None

2017-12-20

2017-12-20

Notes

  • These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

  • The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.
NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.