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

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform 

Evaluation: Assessment of CommunityBased Services for Justice-Involved Youth 

Author(s): Sarah Vidal, Kathryn Kulbicki, Trey Arthur, 

Suzanne Kaasa, Michele Harmon, Megan 

Foster, Nathan Lowe 

Document Number: 254575 

Date Received: March 2020 

Award Number: 2016-JF-FX-0058 

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

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

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. 
 

Kentucky 

Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

January 2020 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Assessment of Community-Based Services for 

Justice-Involved Youth 
 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Prepared for: 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

Washington, D.C. 

Prepared by: 

Sarah Vidal 

Kathryn Kulbicki 

Trey Arthur 

Suzanne Kaasa 

Michele Harmon 

Westat 

1600 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129 

(301) 251-1500 

Megan Foster 

Nathan Lowe 

American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) 

1776 Avenue of the States 

Lexington, KY, 40511 

(859) 244-8203 

This project was supported by Grant # 2016-JF-FX-0058 funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention and managed 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 publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those 

of the Department of Justice. 

2 | Page 
 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 5 

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 11 

SB 200: A Focus on Community-Based Services ...................................................................................12 

Promoting Community-Based Resources and Services: Enhanced Pre-Court Diversion and the 

Establishment of the Family, Accountability, Intervention and Response (FAIR) Teams..............13 

Barriers to Availability and Access to Community-Based Services......................................................14 

Research Questions .....................................................................................................................................15 

Methodology............................................................................................................................ 16 

Data Sources.................................................................................................................................................16 

Analytical Approach....................................................................................................................................18 

Findings................................................................................................................................... 20 

Characteristics of Youth Referrals in FY 2017-2018..............................................................................20 

Research Question 1: What types of community-based services are available to justice-involved 

youth? ............................................................................................................................................................22 

Research Question 2: To what extent are community-based services available and accessible to 

justice-involved youth?................................................................................................................................26 

Discussion ...............................................................................................................................36 

Summary of Key Findings..........................................................................................................................36 

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions .......................................................................37 

Recommendations for Kentucky...............................................................................................................39 

Appendix A – 30-minute Drive-Time......................................................................................44 

Appendix B – 15-minute Drive-Time ......................................................................................48 

3 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Research questions .........................................................................................................................15 

Figure 2. Service types by risk and needs categories.................................................................................17 

Figure 3. Kentucky regions map ..................................................................................................................19 

Figure 4. Hot spot map of youth involved with the juvenile justice system in Kentucky...................22 

Figure 5. Map of community-based program locations in Kentucky.....................................................23 

Figure 6. Number of community-based programs and the types of services programs offer............24 

Figure 7. Drive-time to Mental and Behavioral Health Services.............................................................29 

Figure 8. Drive-time to Family Services......................................................................................................29 

Figure 9. Drive-time to Disabilities Services..............................................................................................30 

Figure 10. Drive-time to Substance Use Services by youth’s level of needs..........................................34 

Figure 11. Thirty- and 15-minute drive-time to Substance Use Services ...............................................35 

Figure 12. Drive-time to Substance Abuse Services..................................................................................35 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Service agencies within the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services ....................12 

Table 2. List of CDWCMS data elements ..................................................................................................18 

Table 3. Kentucky geographic regions ........................................................................................................19 

Table 4. Number of youth referrals in Kentucky by region.....................................................................21 

Table 5. Program density by region .............................................................................................................23 

Table 6. Number and proportion of services in urban regions ...............................................................25 

Table 7. Number and proportion of services in rural regions .................................................................25 

Table 8. Percentage of the region that is in a 30-minute drive-time to a service..................................26 

Table 9. Percentage of region within a 15-minute drive-time to a service.............................................27 

Table 10. Racial composition of the general population and justice-involved youth in Kentucky ....31 

Table 11. Drive-time in minutes to services by region and race ..............................................................32 

Table 12. Proportion of youth identified with low, moderate, and high needs (n = 10,589)..............33 

4 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Executive Summary 

The Juvenile Justice System Improvement initiative, formerly known as the Smart on Juvenile Justice 

System Initiative, began in 2014 and provided funding for technical assistance to states to implement 

system-wide reforms through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 

The goals of these reforms are to (1) adopt developmentally appropriate evidence-based practices (2) 

eliminate racial and ethnic disparities, (3) maximize cost savings while holding youth accountable, and 

(4) improve youth outcomes. In April 2014, Senate Bill 200 (SB 200) legislation was passed in 

Kentucky. SB 200 includes statutes that mandate a data sharing agreement between juvenile justice 

agencies, revised procedures for screening and assessing youth risk/needs, procedures for including 

more youth in the pre-court diversion program, and for reducing youth commitments and length of 

commitments to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). 

Central to SB 200 is the use of community-based services to facilitate early intervention, hold youth 

accountable, maintain public safety, and achieve better outcomes for youth and their families. In this 

study, we conducted an assessment of the available community-based services for youth 

referred to the juvenile justice system in Kentucky. We also identified gaps in service areas 

and potential disparities in access to services. 

Evaluation Methods 

Westat, in partnership with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), worked together 

to document and analyze community-based programs and services for youth across Kentucky. First, 

we collected resource guides that list community-based programs available in each county in 

Kentucky. These resource guides contain information about programs that offer a variety of services 

targeted to different populations (e.g., infants, youth, adults, and seniors). For the purposes of the 

current study, community-based services were limited to programs where youth may be referred to or 

receive treatment. These programs include those in the community and in non-secure residential 

settings. 

We also utilized administrative data from the Court Designated Worker Case Management 

System (CDWCMS), a statewide electronic case management and information system maintained by 

the Department of Family & Juvenile Services of the Administrative Office of the Courts. The 

CDWCMS contains information on youth referrals, including, but not limited to, youth race/ethnicity, 

age at referral, most recent address, school status, date of referral, referral charge, and reason for 

referral closure, diversion status, and screening assessment scores. 

Finally, a geographic analysis plan was developed to understand the accessibility of communitybased services for youth involved with the juvenile justice system in Kentucky using geographic 

information systems (GIS). We identified six regions which included three urban or metropolitan areas 

defined by the Census Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and three rural areas defined by common 

geographic characteristics that are identifiable to people within Kentucky. As shown below, the 

5 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

geographic regions used for this analysis are: (1) Cincinnati metropolitan area, (2) Lexington-Fayette 

metropolitan area, (3) Louisville-Jefferson metropolitan area, (4) Central Kentucky/Caves and Rivers, 

(5) Eastern Kentucky/Cumberland Plateau, and (6) Western Kentucky. 

Geographic Regions Used in GIS Analysis 

Findings 

What are the characteristics of youth referrals in FY 2017-2018 

Between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018, 10,589 youth1 from Kentucky were referred to the 

juvenile justice system. Of these, 68% were White, 21% Black, 5% Hispanic, and 6% were of unknown 

or other race/ethnicity. Approximately two-thirds (67%) of these youth were males. On average, youth 

received 2.5 referrals (SD = 2.7, range 1-32) in FY 2017-2018. At the time of referral, 23% of youth 

lived in Western Kentucky with the smallest proportion (9%) residing in the Cincinnati metropolitan 

area. 

What types of community-based services are available to justice-involved youth? 

More than 2,000 program locations that offer services to justice-involved youth were 

identified. As expected, programs are denser in metropolitan areas, with more than double the 

number of programs per square mile in Louisville-Jefferson and Lexington-Fayette metropolitan areas 

than in Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland Plateau and Western Kentucky. 

1 Youth residing in states other than Kentucky (n = 362) and those residing in Kentucky whose residential zipcodes were 

unknown (n = 13) were excluded from the analysis. 

6 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

A single program may offer different types of services 

that target youth risk and needs. Seven types of 

services were identified based on the information 

provided in the resource guides. These services 

address: mental and behavioral health, prosocial peers 

and role models, family, school and work, prosocial 

activities, substance use, and disabilities. 

Overall, more than 3,800 community-based services 

that address youth needs were identified across the six 

regions in Kentucky. Forty two percent (n = 880) of 

the programs offer mental and behavioral health 

services and approximately one-third offer family 

services (35%, n = 732) and prosocial activities (32%, 

n = 667). About one-quarter of the programs offer 

services related to prosocial peers and roles models 

(26%, n = 402) and less than 20% of the programs 

offer services related to school and work (19%, n = 

402) and substance abuse (18%, n = 376). Only nine 

percent (n = 190) of the programs offer services 

related to disabilities. 

Types of Services Offered by CommunityBased Programs 

Mental and behavioral health – addresses 

issues related to mental health; antisocial 

behaviors; conduct problems; delinquency 

Prosocial peers and role models – addresses 

issues related to interactions with antisocial 

peers, or services that encourage interactions 

with positive peers and role models 

Family – addresses issues related to family 

relationships, including parent-child 

relationship and family well-being 

School and work – addresses issues related 

to academic achievement, engagement, and 

truancy; finding or securing employment 

Prosocial activities – encourages involvement 

in positive leisure and recreational activities 

Substance use – addresses issues related to 

using or abusing substances including drugs 

and alcohol 

Disabilities – addresses issues related to 

physical, developmental, and intellectual 

disabilities 

To what extent do justice-involved youth have access to community-based services? 

Most services, with the exception of those targeting disability needs, are within a 30-minute 

drive for the majority of youth within each region. For example, services are within a 30-minute 

drive in at least 74% of urban regions and in at least 61% of rural regions. However, when the drivetime was reduced to 15-minutes, accessibility to services was substantially diminished. 

Specifically, services are within a 15-minute drive in 54%, at most, of urban regions and in 35%, at 

most, of rural regions. Disability services are within a 30-minute drive in 74%, at most, of urban 

regions and in 52%, at most, of rural regions. Accessibility to disability services also dropped 

substantially when a 15-minute drive-time was considered with services accessible only in 11-31% of 

the regions. 

Notably, there is also some variation by county within a region. For example, counties located in 

rural regions display more variations in service coverage with a mix of counties within a region 

showing above 80% coverage and counties with limited service coverage (e.g., below 60%). 

Does access to services vary by youth race/ethnicity? 

Non-White youth were represented in the justice system at a higher proportion than in the general 

population, suggesting racial and ethnic disparities. However, access to services did not vary by race 

or ethnicity. That is, the drive-time analysis did not indicate that non-White youth had less 

access to services compared to White youth. Race, however, was found to be an important aspect 

7 | Page 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

of accessibility in terms of locale as the majority of non-White youth live in the two metropolitan 

regions of Lexington-Fayette and Louisville-Jefferson, which have the greatest program density. 

Does access to services vary by youth level of needs? 

Accessibility to substance abuse services did not significantly differ by the level of youth’s 

needs; however, notable gaps in substance abuse services exist across Kentucky. The average 

drive-time to substance abuse services by youth’s level of needs ranged from 8.1 to 9.6 minutes. 

Substance abuse services gaps are located in rural regions. However, we did find one of the longest 

drive-times on the boundary of Louisville-Jefferson metropolitan area. 

Strengths and Limitations 

Reliance on community-based programs to support positive youth development and curtail offending 

has received a lot of attention from policymakers and juvenile justice practitioners alike. Yet, little 

research exists on understanding the availability and access to community-based resources for justiceinvolved youth. Lack of sufficient data on services, at both the youth- and program-level, may 

contribute to this gap in research. In this study, we addressed this critical gap by gathering 

information on community-based services for youth in Kentucky. We note the following 

strengths of this study: 

■ To ensure that we collected an accurate and complete list of resources, we built quality 

control procedures into our process, including a feedback loop between Westat and 

Kentucky stakeholders. Kentucky stakeholders also reviewed the list of services and 

clarified key definitions such as program eligibility and risk and need categories. 

■ Using the final list of community-based programs, we used GIS to conduct a spatial 

analysis to understand the geographic variations of service availability throughout the 

State. 

There are several limitations to keep in mind, however, when interpreting the study findings. 

■ The list of community-based programs that we received from agencies was last 

updated between 2017 and 2018. It is possible that new programs have opened since then 

and some of the programs in the list have closed or moved locations. 

■ Our analyses were limited by the availability of administrative data. For example, youthlevel service data were not available, and thus, we were not able to explore the availability of 

and accessibility to specific services that youth may be referred to. 

■ Our analyses focused on potential disparities that may exist only in availability and 

accessibility to services. Utilization of and engagement with services are two other key areas 

that require further assessment to fully understand gaps in provision of community-based 

services to justice-involved youth. 

8 | Page 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Recommendations for Kentucky 

We focus our recommendations on two key areas that will help support and enhance efforts related 

to increasing the availability and access to community-based services for justice-involved youth in 

Kentucky—(1) collecting and managing data on services and (2) practice recommendations for 

increasing availability and access to services. 

I. Collecting Data on Services and Programs to Support Juvenile Justice Reform 

Collecting data about service providers and the programs they offer can help agencies: 

■ Identify areas with sufficient programs and services and identify service deserts in coverage 

■ Efficiently allocate resources 

■ Coordinate program/service provision across systems 

■ Create case plans to match youth’s risk and needs with appropriate programs and services 

■ Plan and develop training programs for staff 

■ Create quality assurance measures for programs/services 

Collecting data about the services that individual youth receive can help agencies: 

■ Manage individual youth case plans to track services needed vs. services received 

■ Produce a snapshot of an individual youth’s entire service history 

■ Identify potential issues with service delivery, such as referral to services that are never used 

■ Examine patterns of data to assess the impact of specific services on youth outcomes 

■ Examine patterns of data to assess the extent to which different youth populations have access 

to appropriate services, and identify potential disparities in service delivery 

■ Prepare case reports for judges, district attorneys, and other decision-makers 

Existing data management systems can be enhanced through the following practices: 

■ Incorporate service information into case management systems where possible 

■ Track both service provider information and services each youth has received 

■ Use unique service provider and youth IDs to link data within and between systems 

Create data fields rather than text fields where possible to improve reporting capabilities 

Challenges for collecting and using data can be addressed by implementing the following: 

■ Conduct staff trainings on how to efficiently and accurately use data entry tools 

■ Support data collection policies and practices with manuals and data codebooks 

■ Conduct quality assurance checks early on (when new data elements are collected or data entry 

tools are set up) and on a regular basis to assess and address missing or inaccurate data 

■ Create a set of standard reports so data is easily used for management and case planning 

■ Gather feedback from staff who use data entry and reporting tools to improve their usability 

and usefulness 

9 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

■ Coordinate with other agencies to share information about service provision to overlapping 

populations of youth 

■ Create a Memorandum of Understanding (or Information Sharing Agreement) to share service 

data with other agencies 

II. Enhancing Availability and Access to Community-Based Services for Justice-Involved 

Youth 

1. Assess the feasibility of increasing access to telehealth, in-home, and school-based 

services. These services provide the opportunity to improve access to services for youth and 

families who face challenges with transportation and can fill gaps in communities that face 

challenges in maintaining sufficient services in their area. 

2. Assess the extent to which SB 200 reforms have resulted in increased funding for 

community-based services. Ongoing evaluation of funds to support reform efforts is critical 

to ensuring that sufficient supports exist to achieve and sustain SB 200 goals. 

3. Assess the feasibility of providing grant writing support particularly to rural and small 

communities to assist them with identifying and applying for funding opportunities in order 

to increase availability of services. 

4. Enhance supports provided to FAIR teams to improve engagement and collaboration 

among members. Enhanced supports, including trainings and implementation of quality 

control procedures, are critical to ensure meaningful engagement and collaboration among 

FAIR team members. 

5. Assess the delivery and quality of services provided to youth in addition to access and 

availability. A quality assessment of services provides critical information to agencies working 

with the youth as well as for agencies responsible for reinvesting fiscal resources in the 

community. 

6. Assess the effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice Fiscal Incentive Program in supporting 

the goals of SB 200. The combination of comprehensive data collection and analysis as well 

as uniform standards for evaluating effective programs can be used to create standards for the 

use of justice reinvestment dollars from SB 200. 

10 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Introduction 

In 2014, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) began its Smart on 

Juvenile Justice Initiative (now known as the Juvenile Justice System Improvement initiative). This 

initiative promoted system-wide reform efforts in juvenile justice with the goals of (1) adopting 

developmentally appropriate evidence-based practices, (2) eliminating racial and ethnic disparities, 

(3) maximizing cost savings while holding youth accountable, and (4) improving youth outcomes.2 

Kentucky was one of the initial states involved in the 

OJJDP initiative. Kentucky first received assistance 

from the Pew Charitable Trusts to help identify areas 

for improvement in the juvenile justice system to be 

addressed through legislative changes. With support 

from Pew, Kentucky drafted Senate Bill 200 (SB 200) 

which sought to strengthen the Kentucky juvenile 

justice system and improve outcomes for youth. 

Following passage of SB 200 in 2014, with funding 

from OJJDP’s Smart on Juvenile Justice Initiative, the 

Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) provided training 

and technical assistance to Kentucky for 

implementation of the reforms included in SB 200. 

Objectives of SB 200 Legislation: 

 Focus resources on most serious 

offending youth; 

 Reinvest savings into strengthening 

early intervention and prevention 

programs; 

 Increase effectiveness of juvenile 

justice programs and services; and 

 Improve government performance 

by providing oversight. 

SB 200 includes statutes that mandate a data sharing agreement between juvenile justice agencies, 

revised procedures for screening and assessing youth risk/needs, procedures for including more youth 

in the pre-court diversion program, and for reducing youth commitments and length of commitments 

to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). SB 200 also calls for increases in community-based 

services made available to youth through reinvestment of savings achieved from reductions 

in DJJ commitments. 

Westat, in partnership with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), worked with 

Kentucky agencies involved in the reform effort to evaluate key juvenile justice reforms passed in the 

SB 200 legislation. In a previous report, we described findings from an evaluation of the reform 

implementation process.3 In this report, we present findings from an assessment of communitybased services for justice-involved youth in Kentucky. A subsequent outcome evaluation will be 

conducted to examine long-term impacts for the juvenile justice system and youth. 

2 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2015). Smart on Juvenile Justice Initiative. Retrieved from 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/archives/newsletter/248712/topstory.html 

3 Kaasa, S., Vidal, S., Meadows, K., Foster, M., and Lowe, N. (2019). Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation: Implementation 

Evaluation Report (for National Institute of Justice). Rockville, MD: Westat. 

11 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

SB 200: A Focus on Community-Based Services 

SB 200 aims to improve youth outcomes and represents a major shift in Kentucky juvenile justice 

policy away from institutionally-based interventions to community-based ones. As such, funds saved 

by not incarcerating youth or putting them through lengthy court processes are meant to be reinvested 

in community-based intervention and prevention services. Thus, it is critical for policymakers to 

understand the current availability and accessibility of community-based services to justice-involved 

youth and whether those services adequately address the risks and needs of those youth. 

There are several statewide agencies in Kentucky that interact with and provide services to youth. 

From the perspective of the justice system and central to the implementation of SB 200 reforms, there 

are two key agencies that work with youth—the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the 

Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). 

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the operational arm of the Judicial Branch. The 

AOC supports court facilities and programs in all 120 counties, including the establishment and 

implementation of the Family, Accountability, Intervention and Response (FAIR) teams. The 

Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is one of the five departments under the Kentucky 

Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. The DJJ is responsible for prevention programs for at-risk youth, 

court intake, detention, residential placement and treatment services, probation, community aftercare, 

and reintegration programs, as well as the confinement of youth awaiting adult placement or court. 

Although the AOC and DJJ have significant responsibilities toward justice-involved youth, the 

Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) oversees all state service programs and 

plays a critical role on promoting and supporting access to necessary youth services within the state. 

Table 1 provides an overview of relevant agencies within CHFS. 

Table 1. Service agencies within the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services 

Agency Description 

DBHDID The Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual 

Disabilities (DBHDID) is among the departments and agencies within the 

Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The DBHDID’s mission is 

to provide leadership, in partnership with others, to prevent disability, build 

resilience in individuals and their communities, and facilitate recovery for 

people whose lives have been affected by mental illness, intellectual disability 

or other developmental disability, or substance abuse. 

DCBS The Department for Community-Based Services (DCBS) is another 

department within the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. 

Among other things, the department provides family support; child care; child 

and adult protection; eligibility determinations for Medicaid and food benefits; 

as well as administers the state foster care and adoption systems. 

12 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Agency Description 

DMS The Department for Medicaid Services oversees Kentucky Medicaid which is 

a state and federal program authorized by Title XIX of the Social Security 

Act to provide health care for eligible low-income residents including 

children, families, pregnant women, the aged, and the disabled. Eligibility is 

determined by a number of factors, including family size, income and the 

federal poverty level. DMS is expanding coverage to include additional 

substance abuse services. 

FRYSC The Division of Family Resource and Youth Services Centers provides 

administrative support, technical assistance and training to local schoolbased Family Resource and Youth Services Centers (FRYSC). The primary 

goal of these centers is to remove non-academic barriers to learning as a 

means to enhance student academic success. Each center offers a unique 

blend of programs and services determined by the needs of the population 

being served, available resources, location and other local characteristics. 

OCSHCN The Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN), 

formerly the Commission for Children with Special Health Care Needs, 

provides comprehensive care to children and youth with special health care 

needs. 

Together, these agencies play a critical role in supporting and facilitating the provision of services to 

youth in Kentucky. 

Promoting Community-Based Resources and Services: Enhanced Pre-Court 

Diversion and the Establishment of the Family, Accountability, Intervention 

and Response (FAIR) Teams 

As part of SB 200, AOC’s pre-court diversion process was enhanced in 2014 for low-level offenders.4 

The pre-court diversion is designed to provide community-based services and hold youth accountable 

for behavior without court action. Court designated workers (CDWs) and their counterparts, court 

designated specialists (CDSs) are responsible for investigating completion of complaints filed, 

completing risk and needs assessments, and supervising diversion agreements for youth. 

In support of the enhanced pre-court diversion process, and central to SB 200 reform efforts, the 

Family, Accountability, Intervention and Response (FAIR) teams were also established in 2014 to 

improve case management and reduce youth’s involvement in the justice system. Teams consist of 

representatives from various youth-serving agencies, including education, AOC, DJJ, and CFHS. It 

4 The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2014, July). Kentucky’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform. Retrieved from 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/07/psppkyjuvenilejusticereformbrief 

july2014.pdf 

13 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

also includes local representatives from law enforcement, the county attorney’s office, public 

defender’s office, and other sectors of the community. These teams are mandated to meet monthly to 

review referrals for youth that have either failed to 

appear for an initial intake, declined to enter into a 

diversion agreement, are considered high needs, or are 

struggling or have failed to complete terms outlined in 

their diversion agreement.5 FAIR team members can 

determine that no further action be taken on certain 

status offense cases or continue to brainstorm and 

recommend resources and services that best support 

the needs of justice-involved youth and families. FAIR 

teams were initially implemented between September 

2014 and February 2015 in four groups of pilot sites.6 

Between October 2014 and May 2017, 114 FAIR teams 

have been implemented in each judicial district in 

Kentucky.7 

Roles of CDW: 

 Conducts preliminary investigations 

 Formulates, enters into, and 

supervises diversion agreements 

 Assists in placing children in 

alternative out-of-home placements 

prior to arraignment and after 

consultation with a judge 

Roles of CDS: 

 Performs all CDW duties 

 Leads, convenes, and manages the 

FAIR teams 

Youth may be referred to the FAIR teams in several ways. The CDW can refer youth charged with an 

offense, public or status, who are either assessed as having high needs or who are struggling or not 

participating in diversion. Directors of Pupil Personnel (DPPs) may also directly refer youth to the 

FAIR team in consultation with CDWs.

8 The FAIR team will then make recommendations regarding 

appropriate interventions for the youth, coordinate service provision, and will continue to oversee the 

progress of the youth. Indeed, providing referrals and connecting youth to appropriate communitybased services are fundamental to the establishment of the FAIR teams. 

Barriers to Availability and Access to Community-Based Services 

Westat, in collaboration with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), conducted an 

implementation evaluation of SB 200 that focused on the process of implementation, including 

perceived challenges, successes, and areas for continuing improvement.9 One of the key findings of 

the evaluation suggests that a lack of access to community-based services remains a significant barrier 

to implementation of SB 200. Interviewees, especially those in rural areas, indicated that there were 

few service providers for their population and that barriers to those services were sometimes 

insurmountable. These barriers include: 

5 Administrative Office of the Courts. (2015). Family Accountability, Intervention, and Response (FAIR) Team Guidelines. 

6 Administrative Office of the Courts. (2015, February). Juvenile Services Specialist – FAIR Team Implementation Timeline. 

7 AOC staff, personal communication, April-June 2017. 8 Kentucky Department of Education. (ND). Senate Bill 200 Frequently Asked Questions. 

https://education.ky.gov/school/sdfs/Documents/SB%20200%20FAQs.pdf 

9 Kaasa, S., Vidal, S., Meadows, K., Foster, M., and Lowe, N. (2019). Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation: Implementation 

Evaluation Report (for National Institute of Justice). Rockville, MD: Westat. 

14 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- -

-

-

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

■ Transportation: Access to reliable transportation was an issue for many youth and families. 

For example, public transportation is limited to urban areas of the state and it is unclear if 

public transportation even in those areas provides easy access to services. For rural youth, 

interviewees shared that most families either did not own a vehicle or shared one which was 

often used to transport parents to work and not available for youth when needed. While 

Medicaid does offer transportation services in some circumstances, CDSs and CDWs said the 

requirements were prohibitive. 

■ Waitlists for services: Although some areas did have convenient service providers, these 

providers may not have had openings for youth when referred and waitlists could be months 

long. 

■ Youth’s Charges: Youth with violent or felony charges often have a more limited number of 

services available to them. For example, several of these youth were required to participate in 

volunteer work or services. Interviewees shared frustration that many opportunities for 

volunteer work or services would only accept youth with truancy or other minor charges 

leaving few or no opportunities for youth with more serious charges. 

■ Insurance/Cost of services: Many service providers hold contracts with the state to serve 

certain at-risk populations and therefore prioritize Medicaid recipients. This creates an 

unintentional barrier for youth with private insurance which may or may not be accepted by 

agencies. Additionally, out of pocket costs for services are often prohibitive to families. 

Research Questions 

A main goal of SB 200 is to increase the provision of community-based services to justice-involved 

youth. Westat, in partnership with APPA, worked with key Kentucky agencies involved in the reform 

effort to conduct an assessment of community-based services available for justice-involved youth. 

Specifically, we analyzed the types of community-based services available for youth, accessibility to 

these services, and if certain disparities in accessibility exist by characteristics of youth (e.g., 

race/ethnicity, needs level). In this report we present the methods, findings, and recommendations 

from this assessment guided by the research questions outlined in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Research questions 

1. What type of community based services are available to justice 

involved youth? 

2. To what extent do justice involved youth have access to 

community based services? 

2a. Does access vary by youth's 

race and ethnicity? 

2b. Does access vary by the 

youth's level of needs? 

15 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Methodology 

Data Sources 

Documentation of Community-based Programs. In October 2018, AOC provided Westat with a 

list of community-based programs available in each county in Kentucky. The resource guides contain 

programs that offer a variety of services targeted to different populations (e.g., infants, youth, adults, 

and seniors). For the purposes of the current study, community-based services were limited to 

programs where youth may be referred to or receive treatment. These programs include those in the 

community and in non-secure residential settings. Because youth up to the age of 20 may remain under 

the jurisdiction of juvenile justice agencies, programs serving individuals over the age of 18, but not 

those providing services to seniors were also included. 

A single program may offer different types of services that target youth risk and needs. Seven types 

of services were identified based on the information provided in the resource guides: 

 Mental and behavioral health – addresses issues related to mental health; antisocial 

behaviors; conduct problems; delinquency 

 Prosocial peers and role models – addresses issues related to interactions with antisocial 

peers, or services that encourage interactions with positive peers and role models 

 Family – addresses issues related to family relationships, including parent-child relationship 

and family well-being 

 School and work – addresses issues related to academic achievement, engagement, and 

truancy; issues related to finding or securing employment 

 Prosocial activities – encourages involvement in positive leisure and recreational activities 

 Substance use – addresses issues with using or abusing substances including drugs and 

alcohol 

 Disabilities – addresses issues related to physical, developmental, and intellectual disabilities 

After the different types of services were identified, Westat recoded these services into a standard set 

of categories mapping onto AOC and DJJ’s risk and needs assessment categories, criminogenic needs, 

and factors associated with positive youth development.

10 We define risk as factors that may 

contribute to youth’s antisocial or delinquent behaviors and we define needs as factors supporting 

positive youth development. For example, the service types counseling, assessment, referral services, and 

mental health are coded as addressing the risk and needs category mental and behavioral health. Service 

types abuse, family services, parenting/pregnancy services, and youth services are coded as addressing the risk and 

needs category family. Figure 2 summarizes the service types by risk and needs categories. 

10 Westat reviewed the risk and needs instruments provided by AOC (e.g., GAIN-Q3) and DJJ (RCNA) and identified the 

different risk and needs domains captured by the instruments. A crosswalk of identified domains, criminogenic risks and 

needs, and factors associated with positive youth development was then conducted to determine the final list of risk and 

needs categories shown in Figure 2. 

. 

16 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 2. Service types by risk and needs categories 

• Counseling; Assessment; Referral Services; Mental Mental and Behavioral Health Health 

Substance Use • Substance Dependency and Abuse 

• Abuse; Family Services; Parenting/Pregnancy Services; 

Youth Services (only if Family Resource Center) Family 

School and Work • Education and Training; Employment Services 

• Mentoring Services; Youth Services Prosocial Peers and Role 

Models 

Prosocial Activities • Volunteering; Youth Services 

Disability • Disability (not including medical facilities) 

RISK and NEEDS SERVICE TYPES 

A data file that contains the list of programs, address of the program, description of services offered 

by the program (when available), and risk/needs categories was created for data analysis and reporting. 

To ensure that we capture community-based services offered to justice-involved youth in Kentucky 

as accurate and complete as possible, we solicited feedback from AOC, DBHDID, and DJJ by asking 

them to review the list of services. Agency staff reviewed information such as program name, eligibility 

(i.e., programs providing services to justice-involved youth), location, and description (when 

available).11 They also reviewed the risk and needs categories that services offered by a program may 

address. Westat conducted trainings with agency staff prior to their review to standardize the review 

process across all regions and agencies. 

Court Designated Worker Case Management System (CDWCMS). The CDWCMS is a statewide 

electronic case management and information system maintained by the Department of Family & 

Juvenile Services of the Administrative Office of the Courts. It collects information on youth referrals, 

including, but not limited to, youth race/ethnicity, age at referral, most recent address, school status, 

11 During the review process, we also asked that corporate locations be removed from the list if the location does not 

provide services to youth. There are some corporate locations, however, that do offer services for youth. 

17 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

date of referral, referral charge, and reason for referral closure, diversion status, and screening 

assessment scores. Table 2 lists the data elements that were used in this study. 

Table 2. List of CDWCMS data elements 

Data Elements 

1. Race/Ethnicity 

2. Gender 

3. Juvenile county most recent county of residence 

4. Juvenile state - most recent state of residence 

5. JuvZipCode - most recent zip code of residence 

6. GAIN-SS total score 

7. GAIN-SS substance use score 

8. GAIN-SS externalizing disorder score 

9. GAIN-SS internalizing disorder score 

10. GAIN-SS crime/violence score 

As described above, the documentation of community-based services that we received from Kentucky 

agencies was last updated between 2017 and 2018. To provide an accurate description of the clientele 

of youth that community-based programs serve as accurately as possible, we restricted our sample of 

youth to those who were referred to the justice system during the time period October 1, 2017 to 

September 30, 2018. 

Analytical Approach 

Geospatial Approach. A geographic analysis plan was developed to understand the accessibility of 

community-based services for youth involved with the juvenile justice system in Kentucky using 

geographic information systems (GIS). The first part of the geographic analysis included 

understanding the geographic regions of Kentucky to explore regional variations of service 

accessibility. We identified six regions which included three urban or metropolitan areas, defined by 

the Census Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), and three rural areas defined by common 

geographic characteristics and identifiable to people within Kentucky. The six geographic regions used 

for this analysis are: Cincinnati metropolitan area, Lexington-Fayette metropolitan area, LouisvilleJefferson metropolitan area, Central Kentucky/Caves and Rivers, Eastern Kentucky/Cumberland 

Plateau, and Western Kentucky. These regions shown in Figure 3 and are described in Table 3, and 

are used to interpret the geographic analysis results. 

18 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 3. Kentucky regions map 

Table 3. Kentucky geographic regions 

Urban Regions 

Cincinnati metropolitan 

area 

This area contains 17 counties across portions of Ohio, Indiana 

and Kentucky. The Cincinnati MSA encompasses 7 counties in 

Kentucky that are separated from Ohio by the Ohio River and is 

considered urban. 

Lexington-Fayette 

metropolitan area 

This area is made up of 6 counties. Fayette County is the 2nd most 

populous county in the state but is roughly half the population of 

Jefferson County. Lexington is home to the University of Kentucky 

and is considered urban. 

Louisville-Jefferson 

metropolitan area 

This area, known colloquially as Kentuckiana, is made up of 13 

counties across Kentucky and Indiana, 8 in Kentucky and 5 in 

Indiana, with Jefferson County, KY as the hub. Louisville is the 

largest urban area in the state with Jefferson County containing 

more than double the population of the next largest county and is 

considered urban.12 

Rural Regions 

Central Kentucky/Caves 

and Rivers 

Central Kentucky is in the Eastern time zone, but some counties 

are split with the Central time zone. The area is largely rural but 

contains the state capitol of Frankfort in Franklin County and 

Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond in Madison County. 

12 According to U.S. Census, Jefferson County has a population of 740,000+ versus Fayette County which contains 

295,000+ people. See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. 

19 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Eastern 

Kentucky/Cumberland 

Plateau 

Eastern Kentucky is largely defined by the Appalachian Mountains 

and more specifically the Cumberland Plateau. The mountainous 

geography of this area and history related to coal mining and the 

fallout of that economy justify the grouping of this area. This is the 

least populous and most rural region of Kentucky. Its highest 

population county ranks 15th overall for population in the state. 

Western Kentucky Western Kentucky is located entirely within the Central Time Zone 

of the United States which sets it apart from the majority of the 

state. This region is primarily rural but includes the third largest city 

in the state of Kentucky, Bowling Green in Warren County, as well 

as Owensboro and the Evansville, Indiana metropolitan area.13 The 

area is defined geologically by the Western Coal Fields and the area 

west of Tennessee River known as the Jackson Purchase. 

The geographic analysis was conducted using ArcMap 10.6 with the network analyst extension. Two 

approaches were used to understand accessibility to services—(1) a service area analysis and (2) a route 

analysis. The service area analysis calculated a 15-minute and 30-minute drive-time polygons from the 

service provider. The drive-time was calculated based on normal traffic patterns. The next geospatial 

analysis was a route analysis based on road hierarchy.

14 The route analysis was conducted to determine 

the closest service facility to the youth.15 Because the exact youth address was not available, the zip 

code of where the youth lived was used to calculate the distance to the closest service provider. In 

order to conduct the spatial analysis we assumed that all of the youth lived at the centroid (or center) 

of the zip code. This analysis provides an estimate of how many minutes youth are estimated to drive 

based on the zip code that they live in. 

Findings 

Characteristics of Youth Referrals in FY 2017-2018 

Between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018, 10,964 youth from Kentucky were referred to the 

juvenile justice system. These referrals were handled by the Administrative Office of the Courts. For 

the purposes of this study, youth residing in states other than Kentucky (n = 362) and those residing 

in Kentucky whose residential zipcodes were unknown (n = 13) were excluded from the analysis. Of 

the remaining 10,589 youth, 68% were White, 21% Black, 5% Hispanic, and 6% were of unknown or 

13 Bowling Green is the third largest city in Kentucky (population of 68,401), which is significantly smaller than 

Lexington-Fayette (population of 323,780), the next largest city. See 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lexingtonfayettekentucky,bowlinggreencitykentucky,KY/PST045218 

14 Road hierarchy uses primary roads or highways as the first roads traveled followed by secondary and tertiary roads. 15 Because youth-level service data are not available, we do not know if a youth receives services from the closest program 

location. It is possible that a youth does not receive services from the closet program because the program may have 

reached its capacity to serve new clients, it offers limited hours, or another program has a specific provider that a youth 

or their family prefers. 

20 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

other race/ethnicity.

16 Approximately two-thirds (67%) of these youth were males. On average, youth 

received 2.5 referrals (SD = 2.7, range 1-32) in FY 2017-2018. At the time of referral, approximately 

23% of youth were residing in Western Kentucky and the smallest proportion of youth (9%) were 

residing in Cincinnati metropolitan area. Table 4 summarizes the youth referral population within each 

of the six identified geographic regions in Kentucky.17 

Table 4. Number of youth referrals in Kentucky by region 

Region Count Percentage Rate per 

1,000 total 

population 

Rate per 1,000 

population under 

age 1818 

Kentucky 10,589 2.4 10.5 

Urban Regions 

Cincinnati metropolitan area 933 9% 2.1 8.7 

Lexington-Fayette metropolitan 

area 

1,288 12% 2.6 11.6 

Louisville- Jefferson metropolitan 

area 

2,158 20% 2.1 9.2 

Rural Regions 

Central Kentucky/Caves and 

Rivers 

1,914 18% 2.4 10.4 

Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland 

Plateau 

1,854 18% 1.7 10.9 

Western Kentucky 2,442 23% 2.7 11.9 

To determine if justice-involved youth live in particular areas of Kentucky, a cluster analysis was 

conducted using the Getis-Ord Gi* statisic. Youth are clustered in six areas throughout the state 

(signified by red in the map below). The hot spots represent the highest concentration of youth who 

received referrals. The clusters primarily align with the three metropolitan areas highlighted in the 

geographic division (i.e., Cincinnati metropolitan area, Lexington-Fayette metropolitan area, and 

Louisville-Jefferson metropolitan area). The non-urban clusters are located near two smaller 

metropolitan areas namely, Bowling Green, KY and Evansville, IN as well as Christian County, KY 

which is a large and generally rural county. The cluster analysis not only identified clusters known as 

hot spots but also areas known as cold spots. The cold spots indicate a cluster of a lower concentration 

of youth who received referrals in a geographic area. As shown in Figure 4, cold spots are 

geographcially clustered in Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland Plateau area. 

16 The racial groups do not include individuals of Hispanic ethnicity. 

17 Ninety five percent of zip codes were completely contained within a region. For the 5% of zip codes that crossed 

regional boundaries the zip code was assigned to the region based on the centroid (center) of the zip code location. 

18 Youth under age 18 make up 23% of the population in Kentucky. 

21 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 4. Hot spot map of youth involved with the juvenile justice system in Kentucky 

Research Question 1: What types of community-based services are available to 

justice-involved youth? 

To address this research question, we examined the number and types of community-based services 

available to justice-involved youth in Kentucky. 

Figure 5 shows where community-based programs for justice-involved youth are located in Kentucky. 

Specifically, the maps shows the locations of more than 2,000 programs. As expected, programs are 

densely distributed in metropolitan areas, with more than double the number of programs per square 

mile in Louisville-Jefferson and Lexington-Fayette metropolitan areas than in Eastern Kentucky/ 

Cumberland Plateau and Western Kentucky. 

22 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 5. Map of community-based program locations in Kentucky 

For the more rural counties, the programs tend to be more centralized within the county, typically 

where the county seat is located. Table 5 shows the number of programs in each region in Kentucky 

as well as the program density. There are more programs located per square mile in urban areas than 

in rural regions. 

Table 5. Program density by region 

Region Area 

(square miles) 

Number of 

programs 

Program 

density19 

Urban Regions 

Cincinnati metropolitan area 1,436.79 127 0.09 

Lexington-Fayette metropolitan 

area 

1,483.98 141 0.10 

Louisville- Jefferson metropolitan 

area 

2,242.82 307 0.14 

Rural Regions 

Central Kentucky/ Caves and 

Rivers 

10,771.50 509 0.05 

Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland 

Plateau 

12,134.56 464 0.04 

Western Kentucky 12,335.68 552 0.04 

Total 2,100 

19 Program density is defined as the number of services per square mile and calculated by dividing the number of services 

by the region’s area. 

23 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Next, we examined the different types of services that these programs offer. Programs offer more 

than one type of service, and overall, more than 3,800 community-based services that address youth 

needs were identified across the six regions in Kentucky. Figure 6 summarizes the number of the 

different types of services offered by the programs. Forty two percent (n = 880) of the programs offer 

mental and behavioral health services and approximately one-third offer family services (35%, n = 

732) and prosocial activities (32%, n = 667). About one-quarter of the programs offer services related 

to prosocial peers and roles models (26%, n = 402) and less than 20% of the programs offer services 

related to school and work (19%, n = 402) and substance abuse (18%, n = 376). Only nine percent (n 

= 190) of the programs offer services related to disabilities. 

Figure 6. Number of community-based programs and the types of services programs offer 

Mental and Behavioral 

Health (880) 

Prosocial Peers and 

Role Models (556) 

Family Services (732) 

Prosocial Activities 

(667) 

Substance Abuse (376) 

Disabilities (190) 

Programs (2,100) Services Offered by the 

Programs (3,803) School and Work (402) 

Notably, there are variations in the number of services offered by the programs within regions. For 

example, Table 6 shows the number and different types of services in urban regions. There are more 

services offered in the Louisville-Jefferson area relative to the other metropolitan areas—54% of 

services in these urban regions are offered by programs in Louisville-Jefferson compared to 24% and 

22% of services offered by programs in Cincinnati and Lexington-Fayette areas, respectively. This is 

expected since there are more programs located per square mile in the Louisville-Jefferson area 

compared to the Cincinnati and Lexington-Fayette areas. 

24 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Table 6. Number and proportion of services in urban regions 

Region 

Mental 

and 

Behavioral 

Health 

Prosocial 

peers 

and role 

models 

Family 

Services 

School 

and 

Work 

Prosocial 

Activities 

Substance 

Abuse Disabilities Total 

Cincinnati 

metropolitan 

area 

62 

25% 

42 

19% 

64 

27% 

29 

30% 

46 

19% 

36 

32% 

6 

17% 

285 

24% 

LexingtonFayette 76 35 49 15 48 34 9 

metropolitan 266 

area 31% 16% 21% 16% 20% 30% 25% 22% 

LouisvilleJefferson 

metropolitan 

107 

44% 

141 

65% 

124 

52% 

52 

54% 

149 

61% 

42 

38% 

21 

58% 

636 

54% 

Total 245 218 237 96 243 112 36 1187 

Also of note, programs in Cincinnati and Lexington-Fayette areas offer fewer services (e.g., prosocial 

peers and role models, prosocial activities) compared to programs located in rural regions. As shown 

in Table 7, overall, there is less variation in the number of services offered by programs located in 

rural regions. 

Table 7. Number and proportion of services in rural regions 

Region 

Mental 

and 

Behavioral 

Health 

Prosocial 

peers 

and role 

models 

Family 

Services 

School 

and 

Work 

Prosocial 

Activities 

Substance 

Abuse Disabilities Total 

Central 

Kentucky/ 213 79 169 105 105 82 72 

Caves and 825 

Rivers 34% 23% 34% 34% 25% 31% 47% 32% 

Eastern 

Kentucky/ 

Cumberland 

Plateau 

205 

32% 

105 

31% 

167 

34% 

105 

34% 

132 

31% 

103 

39% 

37 

24% 

854 

33% 

Western 

Kentucky 

217 

34% 

154 

46% 

159 

32% 

96 

31% 

187 

44% 

79 

30% 

45 

29% 

937 

36% 

Total 635 338 495 306 424 264 154 2616 

25 | P a g e 
 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Research Question 2: To what extent are community-based services available 

and accessible to justice-involved youth? 

To address this research question, first, we examined the availability of community-based services 

relative to where youth reside. Next, we examined whether availability and access to services vary by 

youth’s race and ethnicity. Lastly, we examined whether availability and access to services vary by 

youth’s level of need. 

Access to Services: Drive-time 

Findings from Westat’s Implementation Evaluation of SB 200 indicated that access to transportation 

was a major barrier to participating in services. For this reason, drive-time was used as a measure to 

better understand the availability of services to justice-involved youth in Kentucky. Drive-time from 

the service provider was calculated at 30-minute and 15-minute intervals. Table 8 shows the percentage 

of any given region that is within a 30-minute drive-time of different types of service providers. 

Table 8. Percentage of the region that is in a 30-minute drive-time to a service 

Region Mental 

and 

Behavioral 

Health 

Prosocial 

Peers 

and Role 

Models 

Family School 

and 

Work 

Prosocial 

Activities 

Substance 

Use 

Disabilities 

Urban Regions 

Cincinnati 

metropolitan 97% 

area Rivers 

89% 90% 74% 89% 87% 42% 

LexingtonFayette 97% 

metropolitan 

area 

90% 81% 90% 97% 93% 74% 

LouisvilleJefferson 84% 

metropolitan 

area 

81% 82% 82% 89% 74% 62% 

Rural Regions 

Central 

Kentucky/ 

Caves and 88% 

Rivers 

66% 83% 76% 74% 68% 52% 

Eastern 

Kentucky/ 76% 

Cumberland 

Plateau 

61% 69% 65% 65% 61% 34% 

Western 

Kentucky 81% 83% 79% 74% 85% 62% 40% 

26 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Overall, the results demonstrate that services are within a 30-minute drive-time for the majority of 

each region. For example, mental and behavioral health services are within a 30-minute drive in at 

least 76% of any region (range: 76% to 97%). Eastern Kentucky, however, does have the greatest gaps 

in services. For instance, only 61% to 76% of Eastern Kentucky is within a 30-minute drive to services 

that address mental and behavioral health, prosocial peers and role models, family, school and work, 

prosocial activities, and substance use needs. This number drops substantially when services 

addressing disabilities are considered. Specifically, services targeting disability needs were available to 

only one-third (34%) of the region. We note, however, that this finding may be a reflection of how 

services are identified in the resource guides. Thus, it is possible that disability services are 

underreported. On the other hand, we also note that several stakeholders have shared the need for 

additional community-based resources particularly for youth with special needs.20 

The picture of service availability changes drastically once we shift to a more conservative estimate of 

drive-time, that is, a 15-minute drive. We considered a 15-minute drive-time to services for two 

reasons—(1) a vast majority of areas did not have access to public transportation and (2) most families 

were said to either share a single vehicle or not have access to a vehicle at all.

21 In such circumstances, 

even a 15-minute drive would be prohibitive especially if youth are expected to attend services several 

times each week. Nearly all services were available to less than half of each region when limited to a 

15-minute drive-time (see Table 9). Indeed, in Western Kentucky, substance abuse services were 

deemed accessible to less than 20% of the region. Even in the urban areas, no service was available 

within a 15-minute drive-time to more than 55% of the area. 

Table 9. Percentage of region within a 15-minute drive-time to a service 

Mental 

and 

Behavioral 

Region Health 

Prosocial 

Peers 

and Role 

Models Family 

School 

and 

Work 

Prosocial 

Activities 

Substance 

Use Disabilities 

Urban Regions 

Cincinnati 

metropolitan 47% 49% 54% 38% 47% 40% 15% 

area 

LexingtonFayette 54% 43% 36% 41% 54% 46% 31% 

metropolitan 

area 

LouisvilleJefferson 42% 41% 41% 40% 51% 29% 26% 

metropolitan 

area 

20 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation Data Collection Planning Meeting, January 11, 2018. 

21 The 2017 American Community Survey estimated that 3% of the population in Kentucky has no vehicle available as a 

means of transportation to work and 42% of the population in Kentucky did not have access to public transportation 

for commuting to work. See 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_5YR_B08141&prodType 

=table 

27 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region 

Mental 

and 

Behavioral 

Health 

Prosocial 

Peers 

and Role 

Models Family 

School 

and 

Work 

Prosocial 

Activities 

Substance 

Use Disabilities 

Rural Regions 

Central 

Kentucky/ 35% 20% 32% 26% 24% 24% 15% 

Caves and 

Rivers 

Eastern 

Kentucky/ 29% 22% 26% 23% 24% 21% 11% 

Cumberland 

Plateau 

Western 

Kentucky 28% 34% 31% 25% 35% 19% 11% 

Notably, however, there is also some variation by county within a region. These variations are more 

evident when looking at 30-minute drive-time to services compared to 15-minute drive-time, as well 

as when comparing counties within urban versus those located in rural regions. For example, as shown 

Appendix A, most counties in urban regions, with exception of a few, are within a 30-minute drive to 

a service provider. Specifically, most counties in urban regions have above 80% in service coverage. 

On the other hand, counties located in rural regions display more variations in service coverage with 

a mix of counties within a region showing above 80% coverage and counties with limited service 

coverage (e.g., below 60%). Appendix B shows service coverage within a 15-minute drive to a service 

provider. For the most part, coverage drops to below 50% regardless of regions and counties within 

regions. 

Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the average drive-time by zip code to the top two service categories— 

mental and behavioral health and family services and Figure 9 shows the average drive-time by zip 

code to services addressing disability needs. The lighter shades of blue indicate a shorter drive-time 

to the service location, whereas, the darker shades of blue indicate a longer drive-time to the service 

location. 

28 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 7. Drive-time to Mental and Behavioral Health Services 

Figure 8. Drive-time to Family Services 

29 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 9. Drive-time to Disabilities Services 

Access to Services by Youth’s Race/Ethnicity 

The racial breakdown of justice-involved youth is not consistent with the general population of 

Kentucky (see Table 10). For example, although 13% of Kentucky’s population is non-White, almost 

one-third (32%) make up the population of justice-involved youth in Kentucky.

22 These data suggest 

that racial and ethnic disparities may exist in Kentucky such that non-White youth are represented at 

higher levels in the justice system than in the general population across all six regions in Kentucky.

23 

That said, non-White youth are not evenly distributed across the state. As also shown in Table 10, the 

large majority of contact with non-White youth are in the two largest urban areas, Louisville-Jefferson 

and Lexington-Fayette, where non-White youth are represented at almost three times their population 

statewide. These two areas are also more racially diverse than the rest of the state. 

22 Our analysis was limited to comparing White youth with non-White youth, including those whose race/ethnicity was 

unknown, because of the small proportion of youth of other race/ethnicity. 23 Racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system has been previously recorded by Kentucky officials. State 

actors have taken steps to begin addressing the issue. Some of these programs and policies were discussed in Westat’s 

Implementation Evaluation of SB 200. 

30 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

-

- -

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Table 10. Racial composition of the general population and justice-involved youth in Kentucky24 

Region 

Kentucky Population Justice Involved 

Youth in Kentucky 

Non White White Non White White 

n = 4,424,376 n = 10,589 

Kentucky 13% 87% 32% 68% 

Urban Areas 

Cincinnati metropolitan area 8% 92% 24% 76% 

Lexington-Fayette metropolitan area 19% 81% 50% 50% 

Louisville- Jefferson metropolitan area 22% 78% 57% 43% 

Rural Areas 

Central Kentucky/ Caves and Rivers 9% 91% 20% 80% 

Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland Plateau 3% 97% 10% 90% 

Western Kentucky 11% 89% 31% 69% 

Although, non-White youth are generally represented in higher numbers than White youth in the 

juvenile justice system, the drive-time analysis did not indicate that non-White youth had less access 

to services compared to White youth. Overall, non-White youth appeared to have shorter drive-times 

to services than White youth (see Table 11). This finding was not expected but may be explained by 

non-White and minority populations living in more densely populated areas where services are located. 

24 Kentucky population characteristics are based on the 2017 American Community Survey 5 year estimates 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

31 | P a g e 
 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Table 11. Drive-time in minutes to services by region and race 

Region 

Mental and 

Behavioral 

Health 

Prosocial 

Peers and Role 

Models Family 

School and 

Work 

Prosocial 

Activities Substance Use Disabilities 

Non- White White Non- White White Non- White White Non- White White Non- White White Non- White White Non- White White 

Kentucky 3.8 6.8 6.1 10.9 5.2 9.0 6.1 10.9 4.4 8.9 5.5 11.1 12.4 21.8 

Urban Regions 

Cincinnati 

metropolitan 

area 

2.7 5.5 3.6 8.7 3.1 7.0 3.6 8.7 3.0 7.6 3.2 6.4 6.2 14.6 

LexingtonFayette 

metropolitan 

area 

4.2 5.9 6.3 8.9 5.2 9.2 6.3 8.9 4.2 6.3 5.0 8.1 7.6 11.6 

LouisvilleJefferson 

metropolitan 

area 

3.2 6.4 4.0 8.9 2.3 6.0 4.0 8.9 2.0 5.2 4.2 10.6 6.6 13.5 

Rural Regions 

Central 

Kentucky/ 

Caves and 

Rivers 

2.9 5.5 7.8 10.3 5.2 9.3 7.8 10.3 10.4 11.8 8.5 12.5 17.4 20.8 

Eastern 

Kentucky/ 

Cumberland 

Plateau 

6.8 7.9 10.1 12.9 9.1 10.0 10.1 12.9 11.6 11.6 9.3 11.2 24.5 25.4 

Western 

Kentucky 4.4 7.8 8.0 12.3 9.9 10.0 8.0 12.3 4.0 7.5 6.4 13.0 22.4 30.6 

32 | Page 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Access to Services by Youth’s Level of Needs 

As part of case management needs assessment, CDWs 

administer the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs—Short 

Screener (GAIN-SS) to youth who received referrals. The 

GAIN-SS is a 20-item screening tool that helps identify high 

needs youth based on the following four domains—internalizing 

disorders, externalizing disorders, substance disorders, and 

crime/violence.25-26 A total domain score can range from 0 to 5 

and youth are identified as having low, moderate, or high needs 

based on these scores. A total GAIN-SS score is calculated by 

taking the sum of the individual total score of the four domains. 

If a youth scores nine27 or higher on the GAIN-SS total score, 

the youth is then referred to the CDS and a more in-depth 

GAIN-Q3 is administered to determine the high needs criteria. 

However, youth may receive referrals for services regardless of 

their needs score. Table 12 below summarizes the proportion of 

youth in FY 2017-2018 who were identified as having low, 

GAIN-SS Domain Scoring 

Low (0): Unlikely to have a 

diagnosis or need services 

Moderate (1 to 2): A possible 

diagnosis; the youth is likely to 

benefit from a brief assessment 

and outpatient intervention 

High (3+): High probabilities 

of a diagnosis; the client is likely 

to need more formal assessment 

and intervention, either directly 

or through referral 

moderate, and high needs in GAIN-SS subscreeners. Sixteen percent of youth scored nine and above 

in total GAIN-SS. 

Table 12. Proportion of youth identified with low, moderate, and high needs (n = 10,589) 

Subscreener Needs Categories 

Low Moderate High 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substance Disorders 77% 15% 8% 

Internalizing Disorders 37% 30% 33% 

Externalizing Disorders 30% 34% 36% 

Crime/Violence 55% 41% 4% 

25 Dennis, M., Feeney, T., Stevens, L., &Bedoya, L. (2007). Global Appraisal of Individual Needs– Short Screener 

(GAIN-SS): Administration and scoring manual version 2.0. See 

https://www.assessments.com/assessments_documentation/gain_ss/GAIN-SS%20Manual.pdf 26The four domains describe endorsement of problems that may relate to (1) somatic complaints, depression, anxiety, 

trauma, and suicide (internalizing disorders); (2) attention deficits, hyperactivity, impulsivity, conduct problems, and, in rarer 

cases, impulse control disorders (externalizing disorders); (3) substance abuse, dependence, and substance use disorder 

treatment (substance disorders); and (4) interpersonal violence, drug-related crimes, and property crimes (crime/violence). 27 GAIN SS was recently updated to version 3.0.1. This updated version launched on February 2, 2019 and the GAIN-SS 

score for a high needs referral was increased from 9 to 11. The updated GAIN-SS included two additional questions--

IDScr 1 (f) seeing or hearing things that no one else could see or hear or feeling that someone else could read or control 

your thoughts and EDScr 2 (g) tried to win back your gambling losses by going back another day. 

33 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Of the four GAIN-SS subscreeners, only the substance disorders subscreener aligns closely with our 

service risk and needs categories.28 Thus, for this analysis, we focus on programs that specifically 

address substance use. 

Youth experience an average drive-time of 9.3 minutes to a substance abuse treatment center. Figure 

10 shows that the average drive that youth experience by their risk category is relatively consistent 

with the median drive-time (represented by the yellow dots in the figure) ranging from 8.1 minutes to 

9.6 minutes. Even though most of the youth have a drive-time of less than 20 minutes, some youth 

have to travel much farther. For example, youth in the lowest risk category have the longest drivetime, with the maximum drive-time of 97.4 minutes. Indeed, in each risk category, maximum drivetimes were well over the 30-minute radius used in this analysis. 

Figure 10. Drive-time to Substance Use Services by youth’s level of needs 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Low Moderate High 

Drive-time in minutes 

Figure 11 below illustrates where substance abuse services are located in Kentucky and the area within 

a 30- or 15-minute drive-time. White areas on the map indicate gaps in services or service deserts. As 

services are largely clustered in larger towns or around metropolitan areas, the largest service deserts 

are concentrated in more rural areas of the state. Communities at the border of the state may have 

closer access to services in a neighboring state, but it is unclear what other barriers may exist and if 

services do exist in these places. 

28 Westat used the GAIN-Q3 to create the risk and needs categories identified in this study. For example, among the 

GAIN-Q3 domains include school problems, work problems, physical health, mental health, and substance use. However, 

the CDWCMS does not track GAIN-Q3 scores, which are available only through manual review of case notes. 

34 | P a g e 
 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Figure 11. Thirty- and 15-minute drive-time to Substance Use Services 

Although there are larger areas without available services across the rural regions of the state, some of 

the most noticeable gaps exist at the edge of the metropolitan regions. For example, as shown in 

Figure 12 below, the longest drive-time to substance abuse services was for individuals in Meade 

County, part of the Louisville-Jefferson metropolitan area. 

Figure 12. Drive-time to Substance Abuse Services 

35 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Discussion 

SB 200 represents a major shift in juvenile justice policy and practice in Kentucky by enhancing 

services for youth through the pre-court diversion process and the establishment of the FAIR teams, 

collaboration across juvenile justice and other youth-serving agencies on case management services, 

and creating data sharing agreements between juvenile justice agencies. Central to SB 200 is the use of 

community-based services to facilitate early intervention, hold youth accountable, maintain public 

safety, and achieve better outcomes for youth and their families. In this study, we conducted an 

assessment of the available community-based services for youth referred to the justice system in 

Kentucky and identified gaps in services areas and potential disparities in access to different types of 

services. Below, we summarize key findings, identify strengths and limitations, and provide 

recommendations for research and practice. 

Summary of Key Findings 

1. What type of community-based services are available to justice-involved youth? 

More than 2,000 program locations that offer services to justice-involved youth were 

identified. As expected, programs are denser in metropolitan areas, with more than double the 

number of programs per square mile in Louisville-Jefferson and Lexington-Fayette metropolitan areas 

than in Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland Plateau and Western Kentucky. 

Notably, some program locations offer more than one type of service. Using information provided in 

the community-based resource guides, we identified seven types of services that aim to address risks 

and/or needs of justice-involved youth. These services are mental and behavioral health, prosocial 

peers and role models, family, school and work, prosocial activities, substance abuse, and disabilities. 

Overall, more than 3,800 community-based services that address youth needs were identified 

across the six regions in Kentucky. Forty two percent (n = 880) of the programs offer mental and 

behavioral health services and approximately one-third offer family services (35%, n = 732) and 

prosocial activities (32%, n = 667). About one-quarter of the programs offer services related to 

prosocial peers and roles models (26%, n = 402) and less than 20% of the programs offer services 

related to school and work (19%, n = 402) and substance abuse (18%, n = 376). Only nine percent (n 

= 190) of the programs offer services related to disabilities. 

2. To what extent do justice-involved youth have access to community-based services? 

Most services, with the exception of those targeting disability needs, are within a 30-minute 

drive for the majority of youth within each region. For example, services are within a 30-minute 

drive in at least 74% of urban regions (range: 74-97%) and in at least 61% of rural regions (range: 61-

89%). However, when the drive-time was reduced to 15-minutes, accessibility to services was 

substantially diminished. Specifically, services are within a 15-minute drive in 54%, at most, of 

urban regions (range: 24-54%) and in 35%, at most, of rural regions (range: 19-35%). Disability 

services are within a 30-minute drive in 74%, at most, of urban regions (range: 42-74%) and in 52%, 

36 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

at most, of rural regions (range: 34-52%). Accessibility to disability services also dropped substantially 

when a 15-minute drive-time was considered with services accessible only in 11-31% of the regions. 

Notably, however, there is also some variation by county within a region. For example, most 

counties in urban regions, with exception of a few, are within a 30-minute drive to a service provider. 

Specifically, most counties in urban regions have above 80% in service coverage. On the other hand, 

counties located in rural regions display more variations in service coverage with a mix of counties 

within a region showing above 80% coverage and counties with limited service coverage (e.g., below 

60%). For the most part, coverage drops to below 50% regardless of regions and counties within 

regions when a 15-minute drive to a service provider is considered. 

2a. Does access to services vary by youth race/ethnicity? 

Although the analysis did show that non-White youth were represented in the justice system at a higher 

proportion than in the general population, suggesting that racial and ethnic disparities may exist, access 

to services did not vary by race or ethnicity. That is, the drive-time analysis did not indicate that 

non-White youth had less access to services compared to White youth. Race, however, was 

found to be an important aspect of accessibility in terms of locale as the majority of non-White youth 

live in the two metropolitan regions of Lexington-Fayette and Louisville-Jefferson, which both have 

the greatest service density. 

2a. Does access vary by youth’s level of needs?

29 

Accessibility to substance abuse services did not significantly differ by the level of youth’s 

needs; however, notable gaps in substance abuse services exist across Kentucky. The average 

drive-time to substance abuse services by youth’s level of needs ranged from 8.1 to 9.6 minutes. 

Substance abuse services gaps are located in rural regions. However, we did find one of the longest 

drive-times on the boundary of Louisville-Jefferson metropolitan area. 

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions 

Reliance on community-based programs to support positive youth development and curtail offending 

has received a lot of attention from policymakers and juvenile justice practitioners alike. Yet, little 

research exists on understanding the availability and access to community-based resources for justiceinvolved youth. Lack of sufficient data on services, at both the youth- and program-level, may 

contribute to this gap in research. In this study, we addressed this critical gap by gathering information 

on community-based services for youth in Kentucky. 

We note the following strengths of this study. First, we collected and reviewed 120 community-based 

resource guides that contain a list of various programs and services from various localities in Kentucky. 

To consolidate these resources in a uniform format, we created an Excel database that contains 

select key information from the resource guides. Next, Westat developed a process to recode 

program types into a standard set of categories that also aligns with AOC and DJJ's risk and needs 

29 Access to substance abuse services was analyzed specifically as it was the only risk/need category that aligns well with 

a service category. 

37 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

assessment domains, the criminogenic needs literature, and elements of positive youth development. 

To ensure that we collected an accurate and complete list of resources as possible, we built 

into our process quality control procedures, including a feedback loop between Westat and 

Kentucky stakeholders to review the list of services and clarify key definitions such as program 

eligibility and risk and need categories. Using the final list of community-based programs, we used 

GIS to conduct a spatial analysis to understand the geographic variations of service 

availability throughout the State. The geospatial analysis provides a better understanding on where 

service deserts are located. It also informs providers of where needs are already being met and where 

new program offices need to be located in order to provide better access to services. 

There are several limitations to keep in mind, however, when interpreting the study findings. First, 

the list of community-based services that we received from agencies was last updated between 

2017 and 2018. It is possible that new programs have opened since then and some of the programs in 

the list have closed or moved locations. This limitation is tempered, however, by having stakeholders 

(e.g., CDSs and CDWs; RIAC members) review the list of services for accuracy and 

comprehensiveness prior to finalizing the data file for analysis. 

Second, our analyses were limited by the availability of administrative data. For example, youthlevel service data were not available, and thus, we were not able to explore the availability of and 

accessibility to specific services that youth may be referred to. Such approach would provide a more 

accurate picture of the types of services that youth receive as well as youth’s access to those services. 

Youth-level service data would also allow for a closer examination of whether the youth’s level of risk 

and needs matches with the services that they receive, and if there is sufficient availability for types of 

services that are most commonly needed by youth. For example, in the Implementation Evaluation, 

FAIR Team members expressed frustration that many service agencies would not accept youth with 

violent crimes or felonies leaving few, if any, options for those youth. Further, data on GAIN-Q3, a 

more comprehensive version of risk and needs assessment administered to youth, are not tracked in 

CDWCMS. Thus, we were not able to match all of the service type categories with the risk and needs 

categories and examine service access by needs beyond substance abuse. 

Lastly, our analyses focused on potential disparities that may exist only in availability and 

accessibility to services. Utilization of and engagement with services are two other key areas that 

require further assessment to fully understand gaps in provision of community-based services to 

justice-involved youth. For example, although race and ethnicity may not be a significant factor in 

access to services as measured by drive-time, research suggests,

30-31 however, that service utilization 

among underrepresented group of youth and families is well documented. In addition, we are limited 

to drive-time as a measure of accessibility. Other barriers including whether the service agencies are 

also providing services to adults (which creates additional demand for a single service provider), 

whether the amount of services is sufficient to serve the number of youth in the system, or if programs 

30 Garcia, A., Aisenberg, E., & Harachi, T. (2012). Pathways to service inequalities among Latinos in the child welfare 

system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1060–1071. 31 Garland, A. F., & Besinger, B. A. (1997). Racial/ethnic differences in court referred pathways to mental health services 

for children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 651–666. 

38 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

serve all justice-involved youth, may also present significant barriers to accessibility. Indeed, interviews 

with CDWs and CDSs indicated that services were generally insufficient due to any of the above 

factors. 

Although we note these limitations, these findings provide critical groundwork for informing 

future efforts that can help improve community-based services for justice-involved youth. 

Recommendations for Kentucky 

We focus our recommendations on two key areas that will help support and enhance efforts related 

to increasing the availability and access to community-based services for justice-involved youth in 

Kentucky. First, we highlight the importance of data-driven decision-making by providing 

recommendations on collecting and managing data on services. Building upon our first set of 

recommendations, we then provide practice recommendations to increase availability and access to 

services, as well as assess the quality of services provided to youth. 

I. Collecting Data on Services and Programs to Support Juvenile Justice Reform 

Data collection, monitoring, and management are an important part of implementing and sustaining 

juvenile justice reform efforts. Many juvenile justice agencies nationwide have increased data collection 

to support policies and practices for promoting public safety, accountability, and improved outcomes 

for youth. For example, data collection efforts have often focused on recidivism data to measure the 

impact of reform efforts on youth outcomes. Enhancing data related to programs and services 

for justice-involved youth has received less attention, however. As outlined below, data on 

programs and services can help support juvenile justice reforms in a variety of ways. 

Collecting data about service providers and the programs they offer can help agencies: 

■ Identify areas with sufficient programs and services and identify service deserts in coverage 

■ Efficiently allocate resources 

■ Coordinate program/service provision across systems 

■ Create case plans to match youth’s risk and needs with appropriate programs and services 

■ Plan and develop training programs for staff 

■ Create quality assurance measures for programs/services 

Collecting data about the services that individual youth receive can help agencies: 

■ Manage individual youth case plans to track services needed vs. services received 

■ Produce a snapshot of an individual youth’s entire service history 

■ Identify potential issues with service delivery, such as referral to services that are never used 

■ Examine patterns of data to assess the impact of specific services on youth outcomes 

■ Examine patterns of data to assess the extent to which different youth populations have access 

to appropriate services, and identify potential disparities in service delivery 

■ Prepare case reports for judges, district attorneys, and other decision-makers 

39 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Collecting Service Data to Inform Policy and Practice 

Since implementation of SB 200, DJJ and AOC have made and continue to implement changes in 

their data management systems to improve usability of data and create efficiencies. The way 

information is collected and stored determines how it can be used. DJJ and AOC have identified areas 

of improvement for collection, storage, and management of data that would greatly increase their 

capacity to use data for planning and case management purposes. We recommend the following to 

enhance existing data management systems: 

■ Incorporate service information into case management systems where possible 

■ Track both service provider information and services each youth has received 

■ Use unique service provider and youth IDs to link data within and between systems 

■ Create data fields rather than text fields where possible to improve reporting capabilities 

Suggested Data Elements 

Similar to the way data is collected, the type of data also impacts how this information can be used. 

Certain data elements are necessary to understand what services are available, how they are being 

provided, and their impact on youth outcomes. Although exact data elements will vary by agency, we 

suggest collecting the general types of information listed below. We also suggest that DJJ, AOC, and 

other agencies who serve similar youth populations collaborate on their data collection efforts. If 

multiple agencies collect the same information in the same way, their ability to understand service 

provision across systems and jurisdictions can be greatly improved. 

■ Program/Service-Level Data 

 Program characteristics (e.g., address, dates of operation, capacity, eligibility requirements) 

 Type of services provided 

 Method of service delivery 

 Standard length of treatment period (e.g., 6 weeks, 1 month, 90 days) 

 Standard number of sessions during treatment period 

■ Youth-Level Data 

 Type of services provided 

 Method of service delivery 

 Length of treatment (intake date, start date, discharge date) 

 Dosage of treatment (frequency of treatment, length of session) 

 Attendance (number of sessions attended) 

 Outcome of participation in service (completion, partial completion, failure to complete) 

Addressing Challenges for Collecting and Using Data 

Collecting and using data can be challenging. However, there are ways to make the process easier and 

more efficient. An agency’s ability to collect and store data depends on staff time and resources, so 

jurisdictions will vary in the amount and type of information they collect. However, some data is better 

than no data—starting small and building can be a good approach for increasing an agency’s capacity 

40 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

to collect and use service data. Below we list some important considerations to help support this 

process. 

■ Conduct staff trainings on how to efficiently and accurately use data entry tools 

■ Support data collection policies and practices with manuals and data codebooks 

■ Conduct quality assurance checks early on (when new data elements are collected or data entry 

tools are set up) and on a regular basis to assess and address missing or inaccurate data 

■ Create a set of standard reports so data is easily used for management and case planning 

■ Gather feedback from staff who use data entry and reporting tools to improve their usability 

and usefulness 

■ Coordinate with other agencies to share information about service provision to overlapping 

populations of youth 

■ Create a Memorandum of Understanding (or Information Sharing Agreement) to share service 

data with other agencies 

II. Enhancing Availability and Access to Community-Based Services for Justice-Involved 

Youth 

Increasing availability and access to community-based services was a key recommendation of the 

Implementation Evaluation report. The previous recommendations continue to be supported by the 

current report as well and we highlight those recommendations here. 

1. Assess the feasibility of increasing access to telehealth, in-home, and school-based 

services. These services provide the opportunity to improve access to services for youth and 

families who face challenges with transportation and can fill gaps in communities that face 

challenges in maintaining sufficient services in their area. 

2. Assess the extent to which SB 200 reforms have resulted in increased funding for 

community-based services. A stated goal of SB 200 was to realize cost savings from reduced 

youth commitments and reinvest savings into community-based services. However, the extent 

to which this goal has been achieved is unclear. Ongoing evaluation of funds to support reform 

efforts is critical to ensuring that sufficient supports exist to achieve and sustain SB 200 goals. 

3. Assess the feasibility of providing grant writing support particularly to rural and small 

communities to assist them with identifying and applying for funding opportunities in order 

to increase availability of services. Identifying strategies that will help address the challenges 

faced by rural and small communities will foster adoption of SB 200 reform efforts and ensure 

that all communities experience the potential benefits of the reforms. 

In addition to those recommendations from the Implementation Evaluation Report, the current 

report highlights a few additional recommendations. 

4. Enhance supports provided to FAIR teams to improve engagement and collaboration 

among members. Under SB 200, the FAIR teams serve as the primary vehicle for 

41 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

connecting youth with community-based services. As a multidisciplinary team, members have 

the opportunity to learn from each other about potential services available to youth. Indeed, 

findings from the Implementation Evaluation suggest that use of FAIR teams improved 

communication and knowledge about services available in the community, making the referral 

process easier and the delivery of care quicker. Enhanced supports, including trainings and 

implementation of quality control procedures, are critical to ensure meaningful engagement 

and collaboration among FAIR team members. 

5. Assess the delivery and quality of services provided to youth in addition to access and 

availability. Although understanding what services are available and whether services are 

accessible is critical, it does not verify whether the programs and services are efficacious in 

promoting positive youth behavior. Additionally, differences in program quality could affect 

future evaluations of SB 200. A quality assessment of services provides critical information to 

agencies working with the youth as well as for agencies responsible for reinvesting fiscal 

resources in the community. 

6. Assess the effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice Fiscal Incentive Program in supporting 

the goals of SB 200. Through the Juvenile Justice Fiscal Incentive Program, Kentucky is 

beginning to address some of the barriers associated with availability and access to communitybased services. Through a competitive and expedited grant process, 19 judicial districts were 

awarded grants to support programs that improve outcomes for youth and families. This Fiscal 

Incentive Program also emphasizes building meaningful community partnerships across 

youth-serving agencies, organizations, and other local and private entities. Previous 

recommendations create necessary aspects of infrastructure that may be used to determine 

spending of justice reinvestment dollars. The combination of comprehensive data collection 

and analysis as well as uniform standards for evaluating effective programs can be used to 

create standards for the use of justice reinvestment dollars from SB 200. 

42 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Appendices 

43 | P a g e 
 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Appendix A – 30-minute Drive-Time 

The color shading represents the percentage of the county that is within a 30-minute drive to one of 

the programs. Counties that are shaded green have more coverage than counties that are shaded in 

red. 

0% 50% 100% coverage 

Region County 

Mental and 

Behavioral

Health

Prosocial

Peers and

Role Models

Family

School and 

Work

Prosocial

Activities

Substance

Use 

Urban Regions Cincinnati metropolitan area 

Boone 95.0% 99.5% 99.7% 96.0% 99.5% 94.9% 

Bracken 99.2% 98.2% 98.2% 12.5% 98.5% 27.8% 

Campbell 99.0% 97.1% 97.1% 96.9% 97.1% 98.9% 

Gallatin 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Grant 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.5% 100.0% 

Kenton 98.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 

Pendleton 92.6% 49.6% 53.7% 35.9% 49.6% 91.3% 

Lexington-Fayette

metropolitan area

Bourbon 99.6% 67.1% 40.5% 63.9% 100.0% 99.5% 

Clark 97.8% 93.9% 73.8% 97.5% 97.9% 74.2% 

Fayette 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Jessamine 88.2% 86.2% 88.4% 83.8% 86.2% 85.9% 

Scott 94.7% 95.6% 95.6% 95.8% 95.6% 95.8% 

Woodford 99.3% 99.2% 98.7% 98.5% 98.7% 99.2% 

Louisville- Jefferson

metropolitan 

Bullitt 97.5% 97.4% 97.6% 96.9% 97.4% 80.9% 

Henry 69.5% 51.6% 64.0% 68.8% 89.3% 70.1% 

Jefferson 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Meade 37.0% 49.4% 31.3% 12.2% 44.3% 17.9% 

Oldham 98.6% 97.9% 95.4% 97.2% 98.0% 97.0% 

Shelby 97.8% 97.5% 97.9% 97.3% 97.3% 97.9% 

Spencer 98.0% 94.0% 94.6% 97.4% 94.6% 36.4% 

Trimble 72.3% 44.6% 69.0% 100.0% 98.5% 71.9% 

44 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region County 

Mental and 

Behavioral

Health

Prosocial

Peers and

Role Models

Family

School and 

Work

Prosocial

Activities

Substance

Use 

Rural Regions Central Kentucky/ Caves and Rivers 

Adair 94.6% 91.9% 95.2% 95.5% 91.9% 93.3% 

Allen 92.7% 93.1% 93.1% 92.1% 93.1% 92.7% 

Anderson 99.2% 96.2% 99.0% 69.4% 77.7% 97.9% 

Barren 95.1% 95.7% 95.7% 95.0% 95.7% 94.6% 

Boyle 96.9% 92.8% 96.9% 100.0% 94.8% 93.3% 

Carroll 100.0% 69.9% 100.0% 100.0% 91.0% 100.0% 

Casey 81.3% 76.6% 80.9% 84.7% 79.6% 79.2% 

Clinton 91.7% 88.8% 46.1% 85.9% 91.3% 32.1% 

Cumberland 89.9% 92.2% 91.0% 89.0% 92.7% 5.3% 

Franklin 98.6% 98.7% 99.1% 98.6% 98.7% 99.1% 

Garrard 80.0% 42.3% 63.5% 45.3% 62.9% 62.9% 

Green 95.4% 30.2% 99.1% 91.9% 46.0% 95.9% 

Hardin 90.5% 85.3% 98.2% 79.0% 82.9% 80.7% 

Harrison 99.4% 17.4% 23.8% 35.2% 39.2% 98.7% 

Hart 91.5% 91.2% 93.6% 89.6% 94.4% 89.4% 

Larue 74.0% 63.0% 91.0% 62.7% 99.3% 55.4% 

Lincoln 90.8% 57.8% 62.3% 55.3% 77.2% 58.8% 

Madison 84.4% 35.8% 85.0% 76.9% 80.6% 80.1% 

Marion 91.3% 8.7% 89.7% 85.7% 10.7% 20.2% 

Mason 99.7% 99.6% 99.9% 95.5% 100.0% 94.9% 

Mercer 99.2% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0% 

Metcalfe 98.4% 93.5% 94.1% 93.7% 93.7% 93.5% 

Monroe 83.4% 84.2% 82.5% 81.9% 84.3% 1.9% 

Nelson 92.8% 53.9% 88.0% 69.9% 68.2% 25.6% 

Nicholas 55.0% 18.7% 19.2% 0.9% 61.3% 41.9% 

Owen 94.4% 36.2% 96.5% 93.2% 28.9% 96.6% 

Pulaski 81.6% 76.7% 78.8% 58.9% 78.6% 78.9% 

Robertson 66.9% 39.0% 44.1% 3.5% 44.8% 33.5% 

Rockcastle 98.5% 57.0% 88.7% 57.4% 98.6% 68.8% 

Russell 82.7% 50.4% 79.2% 75.0% 50.2% 83.1% 

Taylor 89.1% 10.5% 89.6% 84.1% 33.1% 73.8% 

Washington 90.4% 26.9% 94.3% 88.2% 21.9% 23.6% 

Wayne 54.1% 52.8% 46.4% 48.3% 53.9% 8.9% 

45 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region County 

Mental and 

Behavioral

Health

Prosocial Peers

and Role

Models

Family

School and 

Work

Prosocial

Activities

Substance Use 

Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland Plateau 

Bath 96.5% 94.8% 86.5% 80.2% 95.6% 77.7% 

Bell 75.8% 75.5% 76.1% 80.6% 75.5% 75.8% 

Boyd 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Breathitt 62.1% 59.2% 66.5% 3.9% 61.5% 46.6% 

Carter 94.6% 54.1% 60.0% 92.5% 59.8% 44.3% 

Clay 63.8% 64.9% 63.9% 88.9% 63.8% 22.3% 

Elliott 86.6% 0.0% 1.8% 22.4% 7.3% 0.7% 

Estill 80.3% 39.0% 79.1% 4.4% 46.6% 77.1% 

Fleming 88.6% 90.8% 91.0% 23.8% 91.0% 20.2% 

Floyd 85.6% 51.4% 85.9% 84.5% 77.5% 81.5% 

Greenup 89.4% 83.9% 83.6% 88.1% 83.9% 81.5% 

Harlan 64.2% 72.8% 70.0% 65.5% 72.4% 62.1% 

Jackson 89.8% 92.3% 86.5% 94.5% 82.2% 72.5% 

Johnson 86.8% 82.9% 88.4% 89.6% 83.8% 86.7% 

Knott 82.6% 58.6% 82.8% 81.8% 60.4% 82.6% 

Knox 70.9% 71.4% 71.3% 71.2% 71.4% 68.3% 

Laurel 93.2% 91.4% 91.6% 89.1% 91.4% 91.7% 

Lawrence 62.2% 55.8% 56.9% 57.4% 55.8% 58.7% 

Lee 75.9% 84.1% 40.5% 0.0% 84.1% 72.4% 

Leslie 64.3% 64.8% 63.5% 77.0% 61.6% 61.7% 

Letcher 97.0% 99.6% 98.3% 96.8% 99.6% 96.7% 

Lewis 67.2% 66.4% 69.0% 60.4% 69.1% 60.0% 

Magoffin 79.2% 19.2% 80.0% 81.1% 25.7% 73.8% 

Martin 62.8% 60.1% 51.1% 61.8% 63.3% 60.5% 

McCreary 50.5% 5.1% 49.1% 48.2% 3.2% 48.4% 

Menifee 96.0% 30.4% 11.7% 20.9% 32.6% 20.5% 

Montgomery 100.0% 100.0% 63.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Morgan 45.8% 1.3% 24.8% 79.5% 3.5% 20.0% 

Owsley 46.7% 53.8% 73.4% 20.1% 76.5% 32.2% 

Perry 94.8% 98.4% 96.0% 83.3% 98.4% 83.3% 

Pike 65.6% 43.5% 64.4% 57.8% 57.4% 60.7% 

Powell 96.3% 82.2% 95.0% 28.7% 96.5% 41.8% 

Rowan 91.8% 79.8% 92.9% 88.8% 93.2% 83.1% 

Whitley 50.7% 37.7% 32.9% 76.4% 39.4% 49.7% 

Wolfe 96.1% 19.1% 95.5% 24.8% 29.3% 27.2% 

46 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region County 

Mental and 

Behavioral

Health

Prosocial

Peers and

Role Models

Family

School and 

Work

Prosocial

Activities

Substance

Use 

Western Kentucky 

Ballard 94.0% 90.9% 90.6% 89.3% 90.9% 24.4% 

Breckinridge 71.7% 6.7% 14.2% 0.0% 6.6% 8.6% 

Butler 79.3% 83.2% 80.9% 75.4% 81.3% 18.5% 

Caldwell 93.2% 93.6% 96.9% 94.3% 95.6% 94.0% 

Calloway 80.8% 83.9% 84.1% 79.4% 87.4% 77.5% 

Carlisle 57.8% 95.4% 86.9% 72.0% 95.4% 18.3% 

Christian 83.6% 91.5% 54.4% 78.7% 91.5% 76.2% 

Crittenden 90.8% 93.5% 92.2% 92.2% 94.0% 89.5% 

Daviess 95.0% 92.6% 83.8% 91.9% 92.1% 85.4% 

Edmonson 86.7% 93.5% 86.9% 92.4% 93.5% 86.6% 

Fulton 3.6% 78.4% 77.8% 36.0% 78.4% 0.9% 

Graves 83.1% 85.0% 86.4% 83.5% 85.2% 79.8% 

Grayson 86.3% 81.9% 82.8% 8.4% 81.9% 81.7% 

Hancock 81.2% 11.4% 8.6% 9.7% 8.5% 8.4% 

Henderson 90.4% 86.5% 90.1% 70.3% 89.8% 90.2% 

Hickman 29.3% 91.0% 90.7% 87.9% 91.0% 15.6% 

Hopkins 91.6% 99.1% 98.9% 96.0% 100.0% 87.0% 

Livingston 88.1% 80.4% 91.9% 91.8% 83.7% 83.3% 

Logan 89.8% 99.8% 99.1% 81.3% 99.8% 88.9% 

Lyon 78.6% 66.4% 77.7% 72.3% 67.1% 56.7% 

Marshall 85.9% 71.9% 93.3% 94.4% 94.6% 83.1% 

McCracken 96.9% 97.3% 97.0% 97.1% 97.5% 94.7% 

McLean 96.3% 96.2% 58.4% 99.6% 98.1% 28.5% 

Muhlenberg 87.1% 99.1% 99.1% 83.4% 99.1% 14.3% 

Ohio 68.2% 73.7% 37.1% 71.0% 73.6% 5.9% 

Simpson 98.5% 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 100.0% 98.9% 

Todd 45.2% 99.4% 99.5% 39.8% 99.4% 42.0% 

Trigg 70.0% 67.0% 66.2% 66.3% 81.3% 66.1% 

Union 86.4% 87.6% 86.1% 86.7% 87.4% 86.2% 

Warren 95.1% 94.8% 94.8% 94.7% 94.8% 92.6% 

Webster 83.9% 96.5% 94.6% 96.2% 96.5% 80.4% 

47 | P a g e 
 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Appendix B – 15-minute Drive-Time 

The color shading represents the percentage of the county that is within a 30-minute drive to one of 

the programs. Counties that are shaded green have more coverage than counties that are shaded in 

red. 

0% 50% 100% Coverage 

Region County 

Mental andBehavioralHealthProsocialPeers andRole ModelsFamilySchool and WorkProsocialActivitiesSubstanceUse 

Urban Regions Cincinnati metropolitan area 

Boone 51.0% 66.2% 73.5% 56.2% 66.3% 50.9% 

Bracken 29.9% 45.8% 45.8% 0.0% 49.4% 0.0% 

Campbell 45.4% 43.3% 43.3% 42.6% 61.2% 45.1% 

Gallatin 61.9% 61.9% 62.0% 62.0% 61.9% 61.9% 

Grant 43.8% 48.3% 69.2% 45.3% 37.9% 36.5% 

Kenton 53.8% 98.8% 98.8% 84.9% 98.8% 49.5% 

Pendleton 49.9% 4.4% 6.5% 1.7% 4.4% 47.9% 

Lexington-Fayette

metropolitan area

Bourbon 55.8% 3.3% 2.9% 3.8% 53.6% 55.6% 

Clark 45.6% 45.8% 1.7% 43.3% 54.4% 6.6% 

Fayette 79.4% 74.4% 76.1% 67.7% 76.5% 77.3% 

Jessamine 23.5% 15.4% 17.5% 10.8% 15.4% 17.6% 

Scott 39.2% 49.4% 46.6% 55.7% 49.5% 39.9% 

Woodford 71.4% 70.3% 71.2% 62.2% 64.2% 69.6% 

Louisville- Jefferson

metropolitan area 

Bullitt 54.3% 50.2% 56.3% 41.1% 19.0% 8.5% 

Henry 11.9% 10.9% 3.4% 5.4% 53.9% 13.0% 

Jefferson 89.3% 91.8% 93.0% 87.2% 91.8% 82.6% 

Meade 7.2% 12.4% 4.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.1% 

Oldham 64.4% 56.4% 55.4% 51.4% 60.5% 55.0% 

Shelby 37.7% 37.8% 37.7% 37.4% 41.8% 38.0% 

Spencer 48.5% 37.4% 45.9% 39.8% 37.4% 0.0% 

Trimble 5.8% 0.6% 5.5% 64.7% 64.0% 6.1% 

48 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region County 

Mental andBehavioralHealthProsocialPeers andRole ModelsFamilySchool and WorkProsocialActivitiesSubstanceUse 

Rural Regions Central Kentucky/ Caves and Rivers 

Adair 41.0% 36.6% 39.8% 42.0% 36.5% 40.2% 

Allen 41.7% 42.0% 40.7% 39.8% 41.9% 40.5% 

Anderson 47.5% 38.1% 47.9% 13.0% 15.8% 47.4% 

Barren 42.8% 37.4% 45.4% 35.9% 37.7% 36.0% 

Boyle 60.7% 55.0% 62.8% 79.6% 61.4% 56.0% 

Carroll 69.7% 3.5% 70.5% 74.1% 8.6% 69.8% 

Casey 18.6% 17.9% 18.8% 19.9% 17.6% 18.9% 

Clinton 52.9% 50.9% 2.3% 45.7% 56.2% 2.3% 

Cumberland 21.8% 29.2% 27.2% 27.4% 30.6% 0.0% 

Franklin 64.4% 56.8% 63.7% 64.1% 51.0% 63.4% 

Garrard 14.4% 5.5% 8.2% 7.6% 5.5% 7.8% 

Green 30.2% 0.2% 36.6% 27.7% 2.5% 35.8% 

Hardin 43.1% 35.7% 65.0% 31.0% 27.3% 31.8% 

Harrison 38.7% 0.0% 0.2% 3.2% 0.0% 38.7% 

Hart 38.7% 35.8% 36.5% 34.6% 35.9% 34.1% 

Larue 6.5% 4.0% 51.7% 4.0% 51.3% 1.9% 

Lincoln 29.0% 8.5% 8.4% 8.1% 9.2% 8.8% 

Madison 45.8% 0.7% 36.1% 20.3% 28.7% 36.3% 

Marion 30.8% 0.0% 32.2% 32.8% 0.0% 0.1% 

Mason 40.0% 38.8% 43.5% 29.2% 43.2% 28.5% 

Mercer 45.8% 47.4% 46.8% 49.4% 47.1% 43.0% 

Metcalfe 28.4% 38.2% 38.5% 35.4% 38.2% 35.3% 

Monroe 26.2% 29.3% 30.1% 27.8% 29.3% 0.0% 

Nelson 42.5% 1.5% 4.5% 3.0% 1.7% 2.7% 

Nicholas 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 

Owen 25.9% 0.2% 31.0% 24.7% 0.1% 28.0% 

Pulaski 26.9% 22.2% 26.4% 12.4% 27.7% 25.1% 

Robertson 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 37.8% 0.0% 

Rockcastle 48.5% 2.8% 21.0% 0.0% 45.9% 6.0% 

Russell 53.4% 0.4% 27.9% 42.7% 0.4% 56.5% 

Taylor 40.4% 0.3% 34.1% 34.7% 5.2% 22.6% 

Washington 35.1% 0.0% 33.3% 36.2% 0.0% 0.0% 

Wayne 18.4% 18.4% 15.0% 15.5% 19.6% 0.4% 

49 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region County 

Mental and

Behavioral

Health

Prosocial

Peers and

Role Models

Family

School and 

Work

Prosocial

Activities

Substance

Use 

Eastern Kentucky/ Cumberland Plateau 

Bath 40.0% 37.0% 15.6% 14.3% 38.3% 8.5% 

Bell 30.5% 29.9% 30.7% 30.4% 29.9% 30.5% 

Boyd 79.6% 72.1% 73.3% 45.9% 72.3% 69.6% 

Breathitt 16.7% 15.1% 18.3% 0.0% 15.7% 10.0% 

Carter 36.3% 4.5% 5.0% 32.8% 5.9% 3.0% 

Clay 22.4% 19.6% 22.3% 35.8% 19.6% 0.1% 

Elliott 23.1% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Estill 31.3% 0.0% 29.1% 0.0% 3.0% 28.0% 

Fleming 25.9% 27.5% 28.9% 0.0% 30.9% 0.0% 

Floyd 38.2% 8.7% 41.3% 39.2% 29.8% 34.3% 

Greenup 36.1% 35.3% 33.3% 32.0% 35.5% 32.2% 

Harlan 17.4% 27.7% 25.2% 19.0% 0.4% 17.2% 

Jackson 31.7% 31.8% 28.2% 48.2% 18.3% 18.1% 

Johnson 33.4% 27.9% 33.9% 34.5% 27.9% 32.2% 

Knott 26.8% 11.4% 30.7% 29.8% 11.4% 26.7% 

Knox 28.3% 24.1% 25.6% 20.6% 27.4% 25.9% 

Laurel 54.5% 48.2% 52.9% 39.9% 49.4% 43.2% 

Lawrence 12.4% 11.3% 13.1% 10.4% 11.3% 12.4% 

Lee 22.5% 38.2% 0.0% 0.0% 39.3% 22.5% 

Leslie 23.3% 23.1% 22.5% 28.0% 19.8% 21.4% 

Letcher 55.2% 64.5% 59.3% 54.7% 64.5% 55.2% 

Lewis 14.1% 14.1% 14.4% 12.7% 14.3% 13.7% 

Magoffin 36.5% 0.1% 37.5% 32.9% 0.1% 32.2% 

Martin 22.9% 13.3% 13.6% 17.4% 13.3% 21.8% 

McCreary 17.4% 0.0% 17.3% 14.4% 53.7% 14.4% 

Menifee 31.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Montgomery 74.5% 81.8% 2.1% 59.7% 82.2% 70.3% 

Morgan 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 26.8% 46.7% 0.0% 

Owsley 1.1% 2.4% 26.6% 0.0% 31.9% 1.1% 

Perry 49.1% 67.3% 60.1% 40.8% 67.3% 40.8% 

Pike 26.8% 11.7% 26.4% 17.7% 19.7% 20.1% 

Powell 40.8% 32.4% 39.3% 0.0% 46.4% 0.0% 

Rowan 42.4% 32.0% 46.7% 39.6% 0.0% 32.4% 

Whitley 17.5% 8.0% 5.6% 21.4% 8.8% 17.1% 

Wolfe 35.7% 0.0% 31.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

50 | P a g e 
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 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.

Region County 

Mental and

Behavioral

Health

Prosocial

Peers and 

Role Models

Family

School and 

Work

Prosocial

Activities

Substance

Use 

Western Kentucky 

Ballard 34.3% 36.9% 32.2% 30.8% 36.9% 0.0% 

Breckinridge 13.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 0.0% 

Butler 24.9% 23.1% 19.0% 22.3% 46.9% 0.0% 

Caldwell 37.8% 39.5% 49.1% 36.7% 39.7% 37.2% 

Calloway 31.0% 34.7% 39.5% 22.8% 43.3% 26.3% 

Carlisle 0.2% 61.2% 28.6% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 

Christian 25.3% 31.8% 3.4% 22.4% 31.8% 22.9% 

Crittenden 36.0% 34.7% 34.9% 31.6% 34.7% 31.5% 

Daviess 36.0% 38.2% 26.7% 32.8% 36.7% 27.6% 

Edmonson 20.7% 24.2% 23.3% 24.8% 24.2% 20.7% 

Fulton 0.0% 35.3% 33.2% 2.1% 35.3% 0.0% 

Graves 32.5% 27.2% 30.7% 25.4% 27.2% 23.5% 

Grayson 33.0% 25.6% 28.6% 0.0% 25.6% 26.4% 

Hancock 34.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.2% 0.0% 

Henderson 28.8% 24.8% 25.5% 4.2% 26.7% 27.3% 

Hickman 3.0% 35.2% 34.8% 35.3% 35.2% 0.2% 

Hopkins 30.4% 46.8% 46.6% 33.3% 46.8% 24.3% 

Livingston 40.9% 22.3% 46.1% 42.3% 25.5% 25.7% 

Logan 28.2% 66.7% 58.7% 19.4% 66.8% 27.9% 

Lyon 40.7% 15.9% 43.8% 34.2% 16.2% 6.1% 

Marshall 15.4% 2.2% 50.8% 42.6% 36.3% 14.5% 

McCracken 59.9% 59.4% 58.0% 54.5% 59.6% 50.4% 

McLean 32.2% 51.5% 7.4% 36.6% 8.6% 0.0% 

Muhlenberg 23.0% 46.7% 47.3% 22.9% 0.0% 0.0% 

Ohio 21.8% 24.7% 1.3% 23.7% 24.7% 0.0% 

Simpson 44.2% 61.7% 56.0% 53.9% 55.4% 47.2% 

Todd 0.0% 47.0% 46.6% 21.1% 47.9% 0.0% 

Trigg 27.0% 23.5% 23.3% 0.0% 32.8% 20.4% 

Union 34.8% 41.1% 33.8% 35.9% 40.0% 34.1% 

Warren 51.4% 48.4% 44.6% 50.1% 48.6% 43.7% 

Webster 18.8% 29.8% 34.2% 44.1% 29.8% 17.7% 

51 | P a g e