Smartphone-based supervision, explained

By the RePath team at eHawk, Inc. · Published September 16, 2026

What smartphone-based supervision is

Smartphone-based supervision is community supervision run through the phone a person already carries. RePath, built by eHawk, Inc., is a smartphone-based supervision platform used by more than 125 agencies. The person on probation, parole, pretrial release, or a treatment court docket installs an app. The app handles the routine of supervision: scheduled check-ins, automated reminders before court dates and appointments, location context when the court or the officer needs it, two-way messaging with the officer, and a record of every contact. The officer and the supervisor see it all in one place.

You will see it called smartphone monitoring, app-based supervision, mobile supervision, or offender smartphone monitoring. They mean the same thing. The National Institute of Justice describes the category as a cost-effective way to supervise remotely, driven by the ubiquity of smartphones and by agencies wanting a less stigmatizing option than a worn device.

It is not a case management system, and it is not an ankle monitor. A case management system is the agency's system of record. An ankle monitor tells you where a device is. Smartphone-based supervision sits between the two: it is where the supervision actually happens, day to day, and it works alongside the case management system the agency already has.

What it does that a monitor, a phone call, and a paper file do not

• Check-ins the person can do from anywhere. A scheduled check-in from a job site or a bus replaces a drive to the office that costs the person a shift and the officer an hour.
• Reminders with a delivery record. Automated court date and appointment reminders, with proof they were sent and received. Missed court dates are the most expensive routine failure in supervision, and reminders are the cheapest fix with independent evidence behind them.
• Location context, not just a dot. Time-stamped location points, inclusion and exclusion zones, curfew verification, and people-and-places context from the phone. No hardware to fit, charge, or replace.
• One channel for every conversation. Chat, video, and mass messages to a whole docket, all logged. Phone tag ends.
• Documentation written for the officer. On RePath, Visit Assist records the visit and writes the note; a note that took 15 to 20 minutes takes about five, and the officer stays the author.
• Signals a file never had. Impairment risk from normal use of the platform, without a test, and caseload trends a supervisor can act on the same week.

What the research says

Three public bodies have written about the category, and two randomized trials cover the mechanism it relies on most.

• National Institute of Justice (2023). Smartphone Applications for Community Supervision, a 19-page brief by Osbourne, Camello, Planty, and Russo. It frames the apps as a cost-effective, remote option for agencies under resource constraints, lists the functions they carry (remote reporting, reminders, location tracking, calendars, goal setting, treatment support), and tells agencies to define the target population and the goal before choosing one.
• Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (2023, updated 2025). A technology foraging report, the fourth in a series on community supervision monitoring technology. It attributes the growth of the category to cost, the pandemic's push toward remote management, the spread of smartphones, and lower stigma than a worn device.
• American Probation and Parole Association (2019). Leveraging the Power of Smartphone Applications to Enhance Community Supervision. The issue paper lays out the decisions an agency has to make: personal device or agency-issued, continuous location or periodic sampling, what data is collected and kept, how the app connects to the case management system, and what the agency may and may not do with a person's phone. Those questions are still the right ones to ask a vendor.
• Science Advances (2025). A randomized trial in Santa Clara County found automated court reminders cut warrants for missed court dates by about 20%, at about $10 to prevent a missed date versus about $2,850 when one happens.
• Arkansas Community Corrections (2021). A randomized trial found text reminders cut missed supervision appointments by 29 to 30%.

The honest summary of the research: the category is established, the reminder mechanism is proven in randomized trials, and outcome evidence beyond that is mostly agency measurement rather than controlled studies. The numbers below are agency measurements, and they are labeled that way.

What agencies measured

These are counts agencies made on their own programs, anonymized until each agency clears its name. Sources and detail are on the results page and the State of Community Supervision.

• Officer time. 8 to 10 hours a week back per officer across our agencies. A state department of corrections measured 765 officer hours returned in a 15-week pilot across three offices and projected about 24,000 hours a year statewide, about 13 positions, which it funded from vacant positions. A state juvenile justice agency counted 11,927 officer hours returned in six months.
• Jail days. A large Missouri county cut pretrial jail days by more than 60% in year one, about 150,000 days and $3.9 million in state reimbursement. A rural Missouri circuit took a 55-bed jail from 64 people to 33.
• Adoption. In the state pilot, 70% of people under supervision chose to enroll when it was voluntary, and 86% of officers surveyed recommended a statewide contract. In one state juvenile agency, 1,445 youth were enrolled in a single month once the director set the expectation.
• Documentation. Missouri agencies produced more than 17,000 compliance reports in a year with one complaint on record. More than 8,500 Visit Assist summaries with zero documentation backlogs.
• Hardware spend. An Indiana county's supervision technology spend fell from about $100,000 a year to about $15,000. A Louisiana probation and parole district avoided about $20,000 in monitor spend on 200 slots. A rural Ohio county has lost one rental phone in the life of its program, against $2,500 per lost monitor.

Questions to ask any vendor

The APPA paper's questions, in plain English, with how RePath answers them.

• Personal phone or agency device? RePath runs on the participant's own phone. Nothing to buy, ship, or recover.
• What about people without a phone? Email-only reporting, so the program excludes no one.
• Continuous tracking or periodic sampling? RePath provides location from the phone at the level the court or the officer sets: time-stamped location points, inclusion and exclusion zones, curfew verification, and people-and-places context. No hardware either way.
• How does it connect to our case management system? Your CMS stays the system of record. Most agencies copy the Visit Assist summary into it today; where a connection is built, case data lands in RePath within minutes. We tell you which applies before you sign.
• Who pays? The agency, per officer. Participants pay nothing.
• Security? SOC 2 Type II, AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, hosted on AWS, designed to support CJIS security policy requirements.

Where it is used

How each kind of agency runs it: probation and parole, pretrial services, treatment and specialty courts, juvenile probation, county community corrections, and state departments of corrections. The plain facts about the company: facts about RePath.