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: Assessing the Effects of SB 200 

on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and 

Racial and Ethnic Disparities, Full Report 

Author(s): Sarah Vidal, Elizabeth Petraglia, Trey 

Arhtur, Michelle Harmon, Megan Foster, 

Nathan Lowe 

Document Number: 255930 

Date Received: December 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. 
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.
Acknowledgments 

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. 

The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the many individuals and organizations who have 

supported this work: Kentucky’s Administrative Office of the Courts, the Department of Juvenile Justice, 

the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities, and the Juvenile 

Justice Oversight Council. We also thank representatives from different social services and youthserving agencies who participated in interviews and shared their knowledge about and experiences 

with SB 200. Lastly, we thank current and former project team members, Dr. Suzanne Kaasa, Kristi 

Meadows, Kathryn Kulbicki, June Crandall, Bria Beatty, Dr. Zhiqun Tang, Brandy Gruner, and Sylvie 

Warren. 

ii Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ ii 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1 

Senate Bill 200 ........................................................................................................................1 

Enhanced Pre-Court Diversion and Establishment of Family, 

Accountability, Intervention and Response (FAIR) Teams ..........................3 

Reducing Out-of-Home Placements and Youth Commitments .............................4 

The Current Study...................................................................................................................4 

Methodology.........................................................................................................................................5 

Data Sources and Preparation................................................................................................5 

Coding Youth Juvenile Justice, and SB 200 Variables ...........................................................6 

Youth Demographics and Case Characteristics....................................................6 

SB 200 Time Variables..........................................................................................7 

Analytic Approach ...................................................................................................................8 

Interrupted Time Series .........................................................................................9 

Survival Analysis .................................................................................................10 

Findings..............................................................................................................................................12 

1. Did SB 200 increase the number of cases placed on diversion?......................................12 

1a. Number of cases placed on diversion before and after SB 200.................14 

1b. Racial/ethnic disparities among cases placed on diversion 

before and after SB 200 .............................................................................15 

2. To what extent did SB 200 influence subsequent complaints to the juvenile 

justice system? .................................................................................................................16 

2a. Predictors of subsequent complaints .........................................................17 

2b. Risk of subsequent complaints for youth placed on diversion 

before and after SB 200 .............................................................................19 

2c. Racial/ethnic disparities among youth placed on diversion 

before and after SB 200.............................................................................19 

3. To what extent did SB 200 influence dispositions and out-of-home 

placements? .....................................................................................................................21 

3a. Number of probated cases.........................................................................26 

3b. Number of commitments to DJJ.................................................................27 

3c. Number of placements in detention centers, YDCs, and group 

homes ........................................................................................................29 

3d. Racial/ethnic disparities among adjudicated cases before and 

after of SB 200 ...........................................................................................31 

Discussion..........................................................................................................................................32 

Diversion, Subsequent Complaints, and Dispositions...........................................................32 

Finding #1. The number of cases placed on diversion increased after 

implementation of SB 200. .........................................................................32 

Finding #2. The risk of a subsequent complaint was lower among 

youth who received referrals post-SB 200 than youth who were 

referred pre-SB 200. ..................................................................................33 

iii Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Finding #3. The number of commitments decreased post-SB 200; 

however the number of placements in detention centers, YDCs, 

and group homes, and cases on probation did not change. ......................34 

Racial and Ethnic Disparities ................................................................................................36 

Finding #4. The number of youth of color placed on diversion 

Finding #5. Youth of color and White youth had comparable risk for a 

subsequent complaint pre- and post-SB 200; however, youth of 

Finding #6: SB 200 did not change the existing relationships between 

the number of adjudicated youth of color and youth of color 

increased post-SB 200...............................................................................36 

color were at greater risk for a subsequent complaint overall....................36 

placed in any out-of-home facilities............................................................37 

Strengths and Limitations......................................................................................................38 

Recommendations for Research, Policy, and Practice ......................................................................39 

Research...............................................................................................................................39 

Policy.....................................................................................................................................39 

Practice .................................................................................................................................40 

Lessons Learned for Other Jurisdictions............................................................................................40 

Stakeholder Buy-in and Integration.......................................................................................40 

Data Gathering, Sharing, and Utilization...............................................................................41 

References.........................................................................................................................................42 

iv Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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. SB 200 Implementation Activities Timeline............................................................................2 

Figure 2. Summary of Evaluation Goals and Outcomes .......................................................................5 

Figure 3. SB 200 Implementation Timeline ...........................................................................................8 

Figure 4. Examples of ITS Effect Models: (a) change in intercept, (b) change in slope, 

(c) change in both intercept and slope...................................................................................9 

Figure 5. Summary of Descriptive Statistics for Referred Youth in FY 2011-2019 .............................12 

Figure 6. Number of Diversions per month, January 2011-January 2019...........................................14 

Figure 7. Descriptive Statistics for Youth without Any Prior Complaints .............................................16 

Figure 8. Cumulative Incidence Curves for Diversion Status ..............................................................18 

Figure 9. Cumulative Incidence Curves for Pre-/Post-SB 200 ............................................................18 

Figure 10. Interaction between SB 200 Time Period and Diversion Status ..........................................19 

Figure 11. Cumulative Incidence Curves for Race................................................................................19 

Figure 12. Interaction between SB 200 and Race ................................................................................20 

Figure 13. Interaction between Diversion and Race .............................................................................20 

Figure 14. Trends in the Count of All Adjudicated Cases and Dispositions of Commitment 

and Probation.......................................................................................................................21 

Figure 15. Trends in the Count of Adjudicated Youth of color and White Youth ...................................22 

Figure 16. Monthly Trends in the Count of DJJ Placements by Facility Type .......................................24 

Figure 17. Monthly Trends in the Placement Count of Youth of Color and White Youth ......................25 

Figure 18. Count of Probated Cases per Month, post-SB 200 (left) and post-full 

implementation (right) ..........................................................................................................27 

Figure 19. Count of Committed Cases per Month, post-SB 200 (left) and post-full 

Figure 20. Trends in the Number of Placements, by Placement Types, Post-SB 200 (left) 

implementation (right) ..........................................................................................................28 

and Post-Full Implementation of SB 200 (right) ...................................................................30 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary of Data Sources.....................................................................................................6 

Table 2. Youth and Case Record Count in the Analytic Files ..............................................................8 

Table 3. Characteristics of Average Monthly Referrals, Pre-/Post-SB 200........................................13 

Table 4. Characteristics of Youth without Any Prior Complaints by Subsequent Complaint 

Status...................................................................................................................................17 

Table 5. Characteristics of Average Monthly Count of Adjudicated Youth, Pre-/PostSB 200 .................................................................................................................................23 

Table 6. Characteristics of Average Monthly Count of Out-Of-Home Placements, 

Pre-/Post-SB 200 .................................................................................................................26 

Table 7. Average Monthly Number of Youth in Out-of-Home Placements, Pre-/PostSB 200 .................................................................................................................................31 

v Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 systemwide 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.1 

Kentucky was one of the initial states involved in the 

OJJDP initiative. Kentucky first received assistance from 

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. 

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. 

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

Kentucky agencies to evaluate key juvenile justice reforms passed in the SB 200 legislation. In previous 

reports, we described findings from an evaluation of the reform implementation process (Kaasa, Vidal, 

Meadows, Foster, & Lowes, 2019) and an assessment of community-based services for justiceinvolved youth in Kentucky (Vidal et al., 2020). In this report, we describe findings on the effects of 

SB 200 on youth diversion, subsequent complaints filed, and dispositional outcomes. We also 

describe the effects of SB 200 on racial and ethnic disparities in youth outcomes. 

Senate Bill 200 

In 2014, Kentucky embarked on a vast reform of the state’s juvenile justice system through SB 200. 

The SB 200 legislation seeks to improve systems and youth outcomes by expanding access to timely, 

quality treatment and supervision in the community, focusing the most intensive resources on serious 

offenders, and enhancing data collection and oversight mechanisms to ensure the policies are working. 

1 See Smart on Juvenile Justice Initiative: Implementation Update at 

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

1 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

The implementation of SB 200 began prior to its passage and continued for multiple years. It involved a 

diverse group of stakeholders, spearheaded by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the 

Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in collaboration with the Department for Behavioral Health, 

Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (DBHDID) and the Department for Community-based 

Services (DCBS). These agencies were most closely involved in the SB 200 reform, but communication 

and collaboration with additional state and local agencies, advocates, practitioners, and other 

stakeholders has been ongoing as well throughout implementation. Although Kentucky has taken an 

ongoing approach to systematically implement, review, and update reforms over time, most activities to 

establish key SB 200 requirements were conducted from 2014-2018. Figure 1 summarizes the timeline 

of SB 200 implementation activities. These activities are described in detail in Appendix A. 

Figure 1. SB 200 Implementation Activities Timeline 

As illustrated in Figure 1, SB 200 incorporated some wider trends from juvenile justice reforms across 

the United States (Espinosa & Skowyra, 2015; Weber, Umpierre, & Bilchik, 2018). For example, SB 

200 includes statutes that call for revised procedures for screening and assessing youth risk/needs, 

implementation of graduated response and sanctions, increases in community-based services made 

available to youth, use of evidence-based programs and practices, and data sharing between justice 

agencies. At the core of these reforms, however, are enhanced procedures for including more 

youth in the pre-court diversion program and for reducing youth out-of-home placements and 

commitments to DJJ facilities. 

2 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Enhanced Pre-Court Diversion and Establishment of Family, Accountability, 

Intervention and Response (FAIR) Teams 

As part of SB 200, AOC’s pre-court diversion process Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 

was enhanced for low-level offenders. The pre-court 

diversion is designed to provide community-based AOC is the operational arm of the Judicial 

services and hold youth accountable for behavior Branch. It supports court facilities and 

without court action. Court designated workers programs in all 120 counties in Kentucky, 

(CDWs) and their counterparts, court designated including the establishment and 

specialists (CDSs) are responsible for investigating implementation of the Court Designated 

completion of complaints filed, completing risk and Worker (CDW) Program and the Family, 

needs assessments, and supervising diversion Accountability and Intervention Response 

agreements for youth. (FAIR) teams. 

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. The 

teams consist of representatives from various youth-serving agencies, including AOC, DJJ, education, 

and Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CFHS), which includes the Department for Behavioral 

Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (DBHDID) and the Department for CommunityBased Services (DCBS). It also includes local representatives from law enforcement, the county 

attorney’s office, public defender’s office, and other sectors of the community. 

A CDW may refer youth to the FAIR Team for a public or status offenses, who are either assessed as 

having high needs, or who are struggling or not participating in diversion. Likewise, Directors of Pupil 

Personnel (DPPs) may also directly refer youth to the FAIR Team in consultation with CDWs. The FAIR 

Team will then make recommendations regarding the appropriate interventions for the youth, 

coordinate services provision, and continue to oversee the progress of the youth. 

The FAIR 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. 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. Currently, there are 114 FAIR Teams across judicial districts in Kentucky. 

3 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Reducing Out-of-Home Placements and Youth Commitments 

In 2012, the Kentucky General Assembly established Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) 

the Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code with the 

DJJ is one of the five departments under the goal of improving public safety and promoting better 

Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. It outcomes for youth (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014). To 

is responsible for prevention programs for at- this end, the Task Force on the Unified Juvenile Code 

risk youth, court intake, detention, residential reviewed juvenile justice data, programs, and policies 

placement and treatment services, probation, in the state. Among their findings was that a significant 

community aftercare, and reintegration proportion of youth in out-of-home placements and 

programs, as well as the confinement of youth those committed to DJJ were low level offending 

awaiting adult placement or court. youth, many of whom were referred for misdemeanors, 

status offenses, or violations for conditions of 

community supervision. In addition, significant resources were spent on out-of-home placements for 

youth. Although most youth under DJJ’s supervision were on community supervision, the Department 

spent more than half of its annual budget on secure and non-secure residential facilities. These findings 

highlight critical issues in the state’s juvenile justice system and served as impetus for the passage of 

SB 200. 

Indeed, central to the goals of SB 200 is to reduce youth out-of-home placements and commitments to 

DJJ, in particular, among youth referred for low level offenses. SB 200 also aimed to increase 

community-based services made available to youth through reinvestment of savings achieved from 

reductions in out-of-home placements and commitments. In support of this goal, the Juvenile Justice 

Fiscal Incentive Fund was established to support community- and evidence-based treatment programs 

and practices. Through a competitive grant opportunity, a total of $900,000 was awarded to seven 

programs across different judicial districts in 2017. 

The Current Study 

In this study, we focused on assessing the effects of SB 200 on the number of cases placed on 

diversion and subsequent complaints among referred youth. We also examined the effects of SB 200 

on dispositional outcomes among adjudicated youth and out-of-home placements. Lastly, we examined 

the effects of SB 200 on racial and ethnic disparities among referred, diverted, and adjudicated youth. 

Figure 2 summarizes these goals and outlines the outcomes we investigated in this study. 

4 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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. Summary of Evaluation Goals and Outcomes 

Methodology 

Data Sources and Preparation 

To address the research questions, we analyzed administrative data from AOC and DJJ that include 

closed cases from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2019. These data sources are summarized 

in Table 1. 

5 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 1. Summary of Data Sources 

Outcomes Data source Description 

Complaints/ 

Referrals

Number of youth 

placed on diversion 

Subsequent 

complaints filed 

Court Designated 

Worker Case 

Management System 

(CDWCMS) 

Statewide electronic case management and 

information system that contains information 

on youth complaints, including, but are not 

limited to: youth race/ethnicity, age at referral, 

date when complaint was filed, complaint 

charge level and grouping, diversion status, 

and diversion outcome. 

Adjudication/Out of

Home Placements 

Number of probated 

cases 

Number of 

commitments to DJJ 

Juvenile Offender 

Resource 

Information (JORI) 

Legal History Data 

Statewide system that tracks probated, 

committed, and confined youth. Includes 

information such as disposition date, 

disposition description, offense classification/ 

level, and offender type. 

Number of out-ofhome placements 

Juvenile Offender 

Resource 

Information (JORI) 

Placement Data 

Statewide system that tracks probated, 

committed, and confined youth. Includes 

placement date, and facility type and 

description. 

Coding Youth Juvenile Justice, and SB 200 Variables 

Youth Demographics and Case 

Characteristics Measurement of Race and Ethnicity 

Demographics. Gender was coded as male or 

female and race/ethnicity was coded as White or 

youth of color, which included Black, Hispanic, 

Asian, Native American, multiracial, and youth who 

identified as other or unknown racial or ethnic group. 

Age at first recorded complaint during the study 

observation period was categorized into two 

groups—(1) 15 and younger and (2) 16 and older.2 

CDWCMS. Offense severity was measured using 

the three categories for level of referral offense—

(1) felony, (2) misdemeanor, and (3) other (includes 

infractions and violations of local ordinances). Any 

Our primary analyses were limited to comparing 

White youth vs. all youth of color because the 

data contained few youth that were not identified 

as White or Black. White youth make up almost 

three-quarters of the population of justice-involved 

youth. Black youth make up 69% to 76% of all 

youth of color in the datasets used. We explored 

adding more detailed categories, but the small 

sample sizes made modeling difficult and using 

the detail did not affect the main findings. See 

Appendix I for supplemental analyses and 

documentation on measurement of race and 

ethnicity. 

2 For a small proportion of cases (<1%) in the CDWCMS, age at referral falls outside the age range of cases processed in the 

juvenile justice system (age at time of referral ranged from 0 to 54). After consultation with AOC, it was determined that these 

6 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

prior complaints (public or status) was coded as yes or no. History of any prior complaint for a public 

offense was coded yes or no. Diversion status indicated whether a particular complaint resulted to a 

diversion agreement (yes/no). 

JORI Legal History. Adjudicated cases included those with a 

case status of “found to have committed” or cases with judicial 

determination that a youth is responsible for a public offense or 

status offense. We focused on two dispositional outcomes for 

adjudicated cases—(1) probation (community supervision) and 

(2) commitments (under custodial control or supervision of 

DJJ). Offense severity was coded using offense classification 

categories of (1) felony, (2) misdemeanor, and (3) other (no 

classification, violation, status, and other offenses). Weapons 

status involved use of a weapon during the offense and was 

coded as yes or no. 

JORI Placement History. Out-of-home placement is defined 

as a placement other than in the home of a parent, guardian or 

relative of a youth, and may include pre- and post-adjudication 

cases. We focused on three types of placement facilities—(1) 

detention centers, (2) youth development centers, and (3) group homes.

3 Detention centers provide 

secure detention to all counties in Kentucky (except Jefferson County). Programs offer a wide range of 

services including education, counseling, acute medical and mental health care, behavior management, 

observation and assessment, as well as continuous supervision. Youth development centers (YDCs) 

provide a treatment-oriented approach and each program has a section dedicated to education. Group 

homes provide education, counseling, substance abuse, and community services. Some group homes 

function as a step-down program for youth leaving YDCs and offer a less structured setting than YDCs. 

SB 200 Time Variables 

The SB 200 time variables included the different periods of SB 200 implementation, including pre-SB 

200 (January 2011 to April 2014) and post-SB 200 (May 2014 to December 2019). The post-SB 200 

period was further categorized into—(1) rollout period (May 2014 to December 2017), (2) pilot period 

discrepancies are likely due to data entry error. To address this data limitation, we created a dichotomous age variable that 

describes two age groups—youth ages 15 and under and youth ages 16 and older. 

3 JORI’s Placement History includes the types of facility a youth is placed while under DJJ’s supervision and may include nonDJJ facilities such as emergency shelters, foster homes, and psychiatric and substance abuse treatment facilities. For this 

study, we focused on detention centers, YDCs, and group homes, but all other types of facilities are included in the total 

count of placements for the purposes of ITS analysis. 

Analytic Variables 

 Gender 

 Race/Ethnicity 

 Age 

 Offense Severity 

 Any Prior Complaints 

 Any Prior Public Complaint 

 Subsequent Complaints* 

 Diversion Status* 

 Adjudication Status* 

 Probation* 

 Commitments* 

 Weapons Used 

 Types of Placement Facilities* 

 SB 200 Time Period 

*used to measure outcomes 

7 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

(January 2018 to December 2018), and (3) post-full implementation period (January 2019 to December 

2019). Figure 3 provides an illustration of the SB 200 timeline. 

Figure 3. SB 200 Implementation Timeline 

Analytic Approach 

To address our research questions, we conducted two sets of analyses focusing on (1) population-level 

data and (2) individual, youth-level data. Two primary analysis files were created: a file with one 

observation per month from January 2011 through December 2019 (for a total of 108 time points) 

used for population-level interrupted time series (ITS) analyses, and a youth-level file tracking youth 

over time used for survival analysis.

4 Table 2 summarizes the number of records and individual youth 

in the analytic files. Below, we describe our analytic approach in detail. 

Table 2. Youth and Case Record Count in the Analytic Files 

Data source Record/Youth Count 

Court Designated Worker Case Management 

System (CDWCMS) 193,656 records, 103,130 individual youth 

Juvenile Offender Resource Information (JORI) 

Legal History data 19,121 records, 11,282 individual youth 

Juvenile Offender Resource Information (JORI) 

Placement Data 56,789 records, 13,563 individual youth 

4The population-level and individual-level data files were created by first de-duplicating the CDWCMS and JORI’s Legal 

History and Placement History administrative data files. The most serious referral or adjudication charge was selected for a 

given recorded event. Next, the study’s eligibility criteria were implemented. Specifically, cases that fall outside the study 

observation period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2019 were excluded. In JORI Legal History, only cases with a 

status of “found to have committed” (i.e., adjudicated) were included in the analytic file. In addition, cases with “pending” and 

“null” dispositions, those involved in the commission of sexual offenses, and cases that were transferred to the adult court 

were excluded. In JORI Placement History, cases with a facility type description of “pending closure” were excluded from the

analytic file. 

8 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

Interrupted Time Series 

Interrupted time series (ITS) is a quasi-experimental research design often used to evaluate the impact 

of a population-level policy in the case where both the population of interest and the implementation 

period of the policy change are well-defined and outcomes are measured at regular time periods, but it 

is not feasible to use a comparison group (Penfold and Zheng 2013, Loeffler and Grunwald 2015, 

Bernal et al. 2017). This is exactly the situation we have in this evaluation: we know that SB 200 was 

enacted in April 2014, and we have monthly data on well-defined groups of youth for each outcome, but 

there is no practical way to develop a comparison group. 

In ITS, data points are divided into pre-intervention, implementation (if applicable), and postintervention, with a separate trend fit to each group of data points. The intervention is judged to have a 

statistically significant effect if the pre- and post-intervention trends are significantly different.5 There are 

two main types of change we would expect to see. The first would be a simple shift, meaning that the 

trend over time “jumps” up or down after SB 200. This is also sometimes called a change in the 

intercept (see Figure 4a). The other type of change we could see is a change in how quickly the 

outcome changes over time. Visually, this means that we would see the trend over time either flattening 

out or getting steeper. This is also sometimes called a change in the slope (see Figure 4b). For each 

ITS model, we will test to see if we have either type or both types of change (see Figure 4c). 

Figure 4. Examples of ITS Effect Models: (a) change in intercept, (b) change in slope, (c) 

change in both intercept and slope 

We used ITS to model the number of referred cases placed on diversion, and the number of 

adjudicated cases that were probated and committed, and the number of out-of-home placements. For 

adjudicated cases, we examined the effect of SB 200 both at all post-SB 200 time points (May 2014-

December 2019) and for post-full implementation only (January 2019 to December 2019). For referred 

5Throughout this report, we use p<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. 

9 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

cases, we examined the effect of SB 200 for the post-SB 200 period only, truncated at June 2019 

(May 2014- June 2019).6 

It is important to emphasize that ITS is a population-level Population-Level Analysis: model. This means that ITS can give us information about the 

effect of SB 200 on the entire population of referred or  Examines the effect of SB 200 on 

the population of referred or adjudicated cases, but it cannot be used to draw 

adjudicated cases conclusions about the impact of SB 200 on individual  Accounts for population-level youth. For example, we might see a positive relationship characteristics such as 

between the number of youth of color and SB 200 in an ITS race/ethnicity, offense severity 

model. This does not necessarily mean that individual youth  Accounts for important preof color have better outcomes post-SB 200; it simply means intervention trends 

that the number of positive outcomes increases post-SB 200  Cannot draw conclusions about 

when the number of youth of color in the population increases. the effect of SB 200 on individual 

Although we control for population-level characteristics in the youth 

ITS models, all ITS findings must be interpreted in context. 

Appendix B describes the technical documentation for the ITS modeling conducted in this study. 

Survival Analysis Individual/Youth-Level Analysis 

 Accounts for the youth’s age, 

We conducted survival analysis using Cox regression to gender, race/ethnicity, severity of 

examine the risk of subsequent complaints7 following the referral offense, SB 200 time 

first recorded referral (baseline complaint or referral) period, diversion status. 

during the study observation period. The Cox regression is a  Also examines the interaction 

frequently used analysis technique when both event likelihood between SB 200 and youth’s 

race/ethnicity and diversion (did the event of interest occur?) and timing (when did the 

status. event of interest occur?) are important. It models event rates in  Allows inference on the effect of the presence of censored data, or cases for whom the SB 200 on individual youth outcome is not observed during a specified time period or by 

the conclusion of the study observation period (Connell, 2012; Allison, 1995). Effects are typically 

measured as Hazard Ratio (HR), which describes the probability of experiencing the outcome of 

6This was done because our referral dataset included only closed cases, and after exploratory analyses and consultation with 

AOC, it was clear that diverted cases take longer to close. Many complaints filed in late 2019 and placed on diversion were 

not closed by the end of 2019, and therefore were not included in our dataset. This resulted in lower than expected diversion 

counts for July 2019-December 2019, but these lower counts were simply an artifact of our dataset structure rather than a 

true drop in diversions. To avoid biasing the findings, we dropped July 2019-December 2019 from the analysis of diversion 

counts. The remaining six post-full implementation data points (January 2019-June 2019) do not provide sufficient power to 

estimate the post-full implementation impact of SB 200 on diversions. 

7The Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) defines complaint (or referral) as “a verified statement setting forth allegations in

regard to a child which contains sufficient facts for the formulation of a subsequent petition” (KRS 600.020(14).

10 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

interest (i.e., subsequent complaint) as compared to the average observation.8 An HR greater than 1 

indicates a greater risk of experiencing a subsequent complaint. An HR of less than 1 indicates a lower 

risk of experiencing a subsequent complaint. An HR that equals 1 indicates that there is no difference 

from the average. 

We also wanted to explore the effect of SB 200 on subsequent complaints. Because pre-SB 200 

cases would have significantly longer follow-up period (up to 108 months, January 2011-April 30, 2019) 

compared to post-SB 200 cases (up to 68 months, May 1, 2014-December 31, 2019), we restricted 

our follow-up period to 24 months from the baseline referral. In addition, we applied the following 

censoring criteria and cases were censored at: 

 April 30, 2014 if baseline complaint happened pre-SB 200 and subsequent complaint happened 

post-SB 200 (on or after May 1, 2014), or 

 End of study observation period (December 31, 2019) if baseline complaint happened post-SB 

200 (at or after May 1, 2014) and there was no recorded subsequent complaint during the study 

observation period. 

For censored cases, the outcome was coded as no subsequent complaint. 

A subsequent complaint was coded as “yes” if a case meets one of the following criteria:

 The first subsequent complaint happened pre-SB 200 (prior to April 30, 2014). 

 The baseline and subsequent complaints happened post-SB 200 (on or after May 1, 2014). 

8Throughout this report, we use p<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. 

11 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Findings 

1. Did SB 200 increase the number of cases placed on diversion? 

For the ITS analyses, we aggregated the data to the month of referral. The final analysis dataset had 

102 time points, representing monthly referral data from January 2011 through June 2019. Referrals in 

the last six months of data collection (July 2019-December 2019) were dropped from the ITS analyses, 

since diversion outcomes often take longer than other outcomes and we did not want this delay to bias 

the findings. Figure 5 below shows the total number of referrals and diversions per month, along with 

smoothed trendlines. We see that starting around January 2015, the number of diversions per month 

and the number of total referrals per month begin to follow roughly the same trend, and the gap 

between them narrows. 

Figure 5. Summary of Descriptive Statistics for Referred Youth in FY 2011-2019 

12 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

 

- -

We also looked descriptively at the average number of referred youth by characteristics of interest preand post-SB 200 (see Table 3). Overall, it appears that the monthly referrals dropped, but the 

proportion of youth in each category (e.g., male vs. female) changed very little pre- and post-SB 200. 

The exceptions are that the average monthly percentage of youth of color among referrals increased 

from 29% pre-SB 200 to 34% post-SB 200, and we also saw a higher average proportion of felony 

cases per month (15% vs. 21%) and a lower proportion of misdemeanor cases (52% vs. 47%) post-SB 

200. These are the characteristics we control for in the ITS models in this section, and can help add 

context for findings. 

Table 3. Characteristics of Average Monthly Referrals, Pre-/Post-SB 200 

Pre SB 200 Post SB 200 

n (%) n (%) 

Average referrals per month 

Race 

2,131 1,593 

White 1,512 (71%) 1,048 (66%) 

Youth of color 620 (29%) 545 (34%) 

Black* 496 (23%) 396 (25%) 

Other race/ethnicity* 

Gender 

124 (6%) 149 (9%) 

Male 1,402 (66%) 1,068 (67%) 

Female 728 (34%) 524 (33%) 

Other 

Offense Type 

1 (0%) 1 (0%) 

Public 1,559 (73%) 1,148 (72%) 

Status 572 (27%) 445 (28%) 

Unknown 

Offense Level 

1 (0%) 0 (0%) 

Felony 323 (15%) 340 (21%) 

Misdemeanor 1,103 (52%) 750 (47%) 

Other 

Prior Offense 

705 (33%) 503 (32%) 

Prior offense 1,254 (59%) 939 (59%) 

No prior offenses 877 (41%) 654 (41%) 

*These finer racial/ethnic groups were not included in the ITS models due to the small size of the Other race/ethnicity group. 

The averages are presented here for descriptive purposes only. 

13 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

1a. Number of cases placed on diversion before and after SB 200 

We fit an interrupted time series model to the number of cases placed on diversion per month pre-SB 

200 (January 2011-April 2014) to post-SB 200 (May 2014-June 2019), after adjusting for covariates 

listed in Table 3 (see Appendix C for ITS Linear Regression Model, Monthly Diversion Count).

9 First, we 

compared multiple time series models to determine which type of model was most appropriate for the 

data. Exploratory analyses and model comparisons showed that a linear regression model including 

two lagged terms—that is, the number of diversions in each of the previous two months—was the best 

model for this analysis. Next, we tested the type of ITS effect: either a simple shift (change in intercept), 

change in trend (change in slope), or both. We found that after controlling for covariates only a change 

in intercept was statistically significant. Figure 6 below displays a scatterplot of diversions across time, 

along with lines showing the smoothed ITS trend pre- and post-SB 200. 

Figure 6. Number of Diversions per month, January 2011-January 2019 

On average, the model estimated 104 more diversions per month post-SB 200. This means that if 

we compared a pre-SB 200 month and a post-SB 200 month with the same number of referrals and the 

same breakdown of referrals by prior referral status, gender, race, and offense level, we would expect 

9 The model also included an interaction between SB 200 status and the number of referrals for youth of color, in order to test 

whether SB 200 had a differential effect when the population included more youth of color. Findings based on this interaction 

are discussed below in 1b. 

14 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 see about 104 additional diversions in the post-SB 200 month. This effect was statistically 

significant.10 This significant finding is especially encouraging given that the post-SB 200 time period 

examined in this analysis includes the implementation and pilot periods, which will tend to dilute the 

true impact of the programs. 

We also see in Figure 6 that the slope of the line also flattens out, so that the declining trend in number 

of diversions stabilizes after SB 200. However, this change can be explained by changes in the 

covariates: for example, there were fewer referrals in the average month post-SB 200, as compared to 

pre-SB 200. This means that after we control for covariates in the ITS model, we do not see a 

significant change in the trend (slope) that is directly related to SB 200. 

1b. Racial/ethnic disparities among cases placed on diversion before and after 

SB 200 

After controlling for covariates and the effect of SB 200, there was a statistically significant change in 

the relationship between the number of youth of color youth referred and the number of diversions after 

the passage of SB 200. Before SB 200, the relationship between number of youth of color per month 

and the number of diversions was positive but the effect was not significantly different from zero. PostSB 200, the effect on the number of youth of color was statistically different from zero. This means that 

post-SB 200, higher monthly counts of youth of color are associated with significantly more diversions, 

after accounting for the other covariates in the model. On average, the model predicted that we 

would expect to see 53 additional diversions per month for every 100 youth of color referred, as 

compared to 100 White youth referred. 

This finding must be interpreted with some caution because we looked at the overall monthly count of 

youth of color rather than assessed the effect of race at an individual level. Although the average 

number of referrals for youth of color decreased post-SB 200, we actually saw an increase in the 

proportion of youth of color among referrals: 29% of referrals were for youth of color pre-SB 200, 

compared to 34% post-SB 200 (see Table 3 in the previous section).

11 This statistically significant 

increase in the proportion means that we predict about 85 more referrals per month from youth 

of color post-SB 200 than we would have otherwise expected. 

Overall, there is evidence that after SB 200, more referrals for youth of color result in more diversions; 

however, this finding is moderated by the fact that after SB 200 a greater proportion of referrals are for 

youth of color. The analysis of subsequent complaints described next examines individual-level data. 

10Based on the post-hoc t-test on the estimated marginal mean number of diversions pre- and post-SB 200 (see Appendix C, 

Table 2). 

11The findings are similar for Black and Other race/ethnicity groups separately: the proportions of Black (23% to 25%) and 

Other race/ethnicity (6% to 9%) among referred youth each show statistically significant increases after SB 200. 

15 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

-

2. To what extent did SB 200 influence subsequent complaints to the 

juvenile justice system? 

To address this research question, we restricted our sample to youth without any prior complaints at 

baseline referral.

12 After excluding 23,588 youth with prior complaints (23% of the 103,130 youth who 

received referrals in 2011-2019), the analytic sample included 79,542 youth without any prior 

complaints. As shown in Figure 7, majority of these youth were White (74%), males (60%), and the 

average age at baseline referral (or the first recorded complaint during the study observation period) 

was 14.72. Most of these youth were referred for misdemeanor offenses (48%) and 66% received 

diversion. Overall, the characteristics of this subpopulation of youth mirror the characteristics of all 

youth who received referrals in 2011-2019 (see Appendix D). 

Figure 7. Descriptive Statistics for Youth without Any Prior Complaints 

Race/Ethnicity 

Gender 

Age (categorical) 

Offense Level 

Diversion Status 

SB 200 

White Youth of color 

Male Female 

15 and under 16 and older 

Misdemeanor Other Felony 

Diversion No Diversion 

Pre-SB 200 Post SB 200 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Of the youth without any prior complaints, 19% received a subsequent complaint within 24 

months of their initial referral. 

13 On average, these youth had a subsequent complaint 10.6 months 

12We found that “prior complaints” (public or status) was a significant predictor of subsequent complaints. More specifically, 

having any prior complaints was strongly associated with increased likelihood of subsequent complaints regardless of SB 200 

time period and diversion status. To better understand and delineate the effects of SB 200 on youth outcomes, we restricted 

our sample to youth without any prior complaints at baseline referral. 

13Thirty-nine observations were excluded from the analysis because these observations had the same baseline and 

subsequent referral dates. 

16 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
following the baseline referral compared to 18.9 months for youth without subsequent complaints. Table 

4 summarizes the descriptive statistics for youth with and without subsequent complaints. 

Table 4. Characteristics of Youth without Any Prior Complaints by Subsequent Complaint 

Status 

No Subsequent 

Complaint 

(n = 64,175) 

n (%) 

With Subsequent 

Complaint 

(n = 15,328) 

n (%) 

Race 

White 48,034 (75%) 10,536 (69%) 

Youth of color 16,141 (25%) 4,792 (31%) 

Black* 10,847 (17%) 3,549 (23%) 

Other race/ethnicity* 

Gender 

5,294 (8%) 1,243 (8%) 

Female 26,367 (41%) 5,417 (35%) 

Male 

Age 

37,721 (59%) 9,907 (65%) 

15 and under 36,248 (57%) 11,837 (77%) 

16 and older 

Offense Severity 

27,247 (43%) 3,470 (23%) 

Felony 9,452 (15%) 2,613 (17%) 

Misdemeanor 31,317 (49%) 6,770 (44%) 

Other 

Diversion Status 

23,406 (36%) 5,945 (39%) 

No 20,835 (32%) 6,126 (40%) 

Yes 

SB 200 Period 

43,340 (68%) 9,202 (60%) 

Pre SB200 28,481 (44%) 6,571 (43%) 

Post SB200 35,694 (56%) 8,757 (57%) 

*These finer racial/ethnic groups were not included in the final survival model due to the small size of the Other race/ethnicity 

group (see Appendix I for additional information). The proportions are presented here for descriptive purposes only. 

2a. Predictors of subsequent complaints 

First, we examined the effect of youth (race/ethnicity, gender, age) and case (offense severity, 

diversion status) characteristics on subsequent complaints. Our findings show that youth of color 

(HR = 1.35), male (HR = 1.25), and younger (ages 15 and below; HR = 2.33) youth were significantly at 

greater risk of receiving subsequent complaints compared to White, female, and older youth. When 

offense level was considered, youth referred for “other” offenses (e.g., violations, local ordinance 

17 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
infractions; HR = 1.13) were at greater risk for receiving subsequent complaints compared to youth 

referred for felony offenses. 

In addition, youth placed on diversion (HR = 

.66) were at lower risk of receiving a 

subsequent complaint compared to youth 

who were not placed on diversion. Figure 8 

shows the cumulative incidence curves of 

subsequent complaint by diversion status. A 

cumulative incidence curve shows the 

cumulative probabilities of experiencing the 

event of interest (e.g., subsequent 

complaint). The vertical axis depicts the 

proportion of youth who received a 

subsequent complaint and the horizontal 

axis represents the time in months. As 

shown in Figure 8, at ten months following 

baseline referral, approximately 16% of 

youth not placed on diversion had a subsequent complaint compared to approximately 7% of youth 

placed on diversion. On average, youth not on diversion had a subsequent complaint almost two 

months sooner than youth placed on diversion. That is, youth on diversion received a subsequent 

complaint on average within 16.1 months of baseline referral compared to 17.9 months for youth placed 

on diversion. 

Next, we also examined the effect of SB 200 

on subsequent complaints. Youth whose 

baseline referral occurred post-SB 200 

(HR = .83) were at lower risk of receiving a 

subsequent complaint compared to youth 

whose baseline referral occurred pre-SB 

200. Figure 9 shows the cumulative 

incidence curves of subsequent complaint 

by SB 200 time period. At ten months 

following baseline referral, approximately, 

12% of youth whose baseline referral 

happened pre-SB 200 had a subsequent 

complaint compared to approximately 9% of 

youth whose baseline complaint happened 

post-SB 200. On average youth whose 

Figure 8. Cumulative Incidence Curves for 

Diversion Status 

Figure 9. Cumulative Incidence Curves for 

Pre-/Post-SB 200 

18 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
baseline referral happened prior to SB 200 received a subsequent complaint 3.5 months sooner than 

youth whose baseline referral happened after SB 200. The average length of time to subsequent 

complaint for pre-SB 200 youth was 15.3 months compared to 18.9 months for post-SB 200 youth. 

2b. Risk of subsequent complaints for youth placed on diversion before and after 

SB 200 

Next, we wanted to examine if the risk of 

subsequent complaint varies by SB 200 

time period for youth placed on diversion. 

That is, were youth placed on diversion 

post-SB 200 at lower risk of receiving a 

subsequent complaint compared to youth 

placed on diversion pre-SB 200? Likewise, 

how do these findings compare for youth 

not placed on diversion pre- and post-SB 

200? As shown in Figure 10, the risk of 

subsequent complaint was lower postSB 200 compared to pre-SB 200 for 

youth placed on diversion and youth not 

on diversion. The graph also shows that 

there is a significant decline from pre- to 

post-SB 200 in risk of subsequent complaints and this decline is greater for youth not on diversion 

(average decrease of .41 points) than for youth on diversion (average decrease of .08 points). 

Figure 10. Interaction between SB 200 Time Period 

and Diversion Status 

2c. Racial/ethnic disparities 

among youth placed on 

diversion before and after 

SB 200 

As described earlier, youth of color were at 

greater risk of receiving subsequent 

complaints over time (HR = 1.35). As shown 

in Figure 11, at ten months following 

baseline referral, approximately, 13% of 

youth of color had a subsequent complaint 

compared to approximately 9% of White 

youth. On average, youth of color also 

Figure 11. Cumulative Incidence Curves for Race 

19 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
received a subsequent complaint sooner than White youth—within 16.8 months compared to 17.5 

months of baseline referral for White youth. 

We also examined if the risk of subsequent 

complaints between youth of color and 

White youth differ before and after SB 200 

and by diversion status. As shown in Figure 

12, there was no statistically significant 

interaction between SB 200 time period and 

youth’s race/ethnicity. Regardless of when 

the baseline complaint was filed (pre- or 

post-SB 200), youth of color had a 

greater risk for receiving a subsequent 

complaint compared to White youth. In 

addition, the difference in the predicted risk 

for subsequent complaint pre- and post-SB 

200 for youth of color and White youth was 

comparable (-.24 and -.17, points, respectively). Put simply, we did not find evidence that SB 200 

exacerbated racial and ethnic disparities in subsequent complaints, but there was also no 

evidence that SB 200 helped reduce disparities in subsequent complaints. 

On the other hand, Figure 13 shows a 

significant interaction between diversion 

status and youth’s race/ethnicity. Both 

youth of color and White youth placed on 

diversion had lower risk of receiving 

subsequent complaints compared to youth 

not placed on diversion. In addition, the 

difference in predicted risk for subsequent 

complaint for youth placed and not placed 

on diversion was greater among youth of 

color (-.95) than White youth (-.56), 

suggesting that diversion seemed to 

have a greater positive effect on youth 

of color than White youth. 

Appendix E shows the Cox Regression model for survival analysis. 

Figure 12. Interaction between SB 200 and Race 

Figure 13. Interaction between Diversion and Race 

20 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
3. To what extent did SB 200 influence dispositions and out-of-home 

placements? 

Dispositional outcomes among adjudicated cases and out-of-home placements were analyzed at the 

population-level (ITS analysis) only and were examined using two separate data files. The first analytic 

data file summarized 19,121 adjudicated records from JORI Legal History data, corresponding to 

11,282 individual adjudicated youth, to the month of disposition for a total of 108 data points (January 

2011-December 2019). Figure 14 shows the monthly trend in committed and probated cases as 

compared to all adjudicated cases with a disposition and Figure 15 shows the monthly trend by race—

White and youth of color—of all adjudicated cases with a disposition. 

Figure 14. Trends in the Count of All Adjudicated Cases and Dispositions of Commitment and 

Probation 

21 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 15. Trends in the Count of Adjudicated Youth of color and White Youth 

Table 5 shows the descriptive characteristics of the average number of adjudicated youth pre- and 

post-SB 200. There was a drop in the average number of adjudicated cases per month, from an 

average of 233 cases pre-SB 200 to an average of 144 cases post-SB 200. The distribution of gender 

and offense type was similar pre- and post-SB 200. However, we saw increases in the proportion of 

youth of color cases, the proportion of felony cases, and the proportion of cases with weapons 

involved.14 

14The count of weapons cases is very low both pre- and post-SB 200, so this difference should be interpreted with caution. 

22 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 5. Characteristics of Average Monthly Count of Adjudicated Youth, Pre-/Post-SB 200 

Pre SB 200 Post SB 200 

n (%) n (%) 

Average adjudicated youth per month 

Race 

233 144 

White 151 (65%) 84 (59%) 

Youth of color 82 (35%) 60 (41%) 

Black* 58 (25%) 40 (28%) 

Other race/ethnicity* 

Gender 

24 (10%) 20 (13%) 

Male 195 (83%) 122 (85%) 

Female 

Offense Type 

39 (17%) 22 (15%) 

Public 134 (58%) 79 (55%) 

Non-DJJ 

Offense Severity 

99 (42%) 65 (45%) 

Felony 58 (25%) 54 (37%) 

Misdemeanor 136 (58%) 70 (49%) 

Other 

Weapons Involved 

37 (16%) 19 (13%) 

Weapon 8 (3%) 13 (9%) 

No Weapon 226 (97%) 131 (91%) 

*These finer racial/ethnic groups were not included in the ITS models due to the small size of the Other race/ethnicity group. 

The averages are presented here for descriptive purposes only. 

23 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
The second analytic data file again summarized cases to the monthly level, but using JORI Placement 

History data and based on the month of placement (January 2011-December 2019). This file 

summarized 56,789 cases corresponding to 13,563 individual youth. As indicated earlier, we focused 

on three types of placement facilities—detention centers, YDCs, and group homes. Figure 16 displays 

the trend in the number of placements for each type of facility compared to the total number out-ofhome placements (i.e., including all other types of placement such as emergency shelters, foster 

homes, psychiatric and substance abuse facilities, etc.). Figure 17 shows the trend in out-of-home 

placements of any type by race. 

Figure 16. Monthly Trends in the Count of DJJ Placements by Facility Type 

24 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 17. Monthly Trends in the Placement Count of Youth of Color and White Youth 

For the analysis of placement data, only gender and race were included as covariates in the ITS 

models due to limitations in the available data.15 As shown in Table 6, the average number of cases in 

any out-of-home placements dropped by 26% post-SB 200, but the distribution of gender did not 

change. However, there was an increase in the proportion of youth of color in out-of-home 

placements— from 36% pre-SB 200 to 46% post-SB 200. 

15At the time of analysis, there was no reliable way to link the JORI Legal History and Placement History data. Placement 

history data were limited to gender, race, facility type, and dates of placement entry and exit. 

25 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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. Characteristics of Average Monthly Count of Out-Of-Home Placements, Pre-/PostSB 200 

Pre SB 200 

n (%) 

Post SB 200 

n (%) 

Average youth in out-of-home placements per month 

Race 

White 

Youth of color 

Black* 

Other race/ethnicity* 

Gender 

Male 

Female 

628 

405 (64%) 

222 (36%) 

158 (25%) 

64 (11%) 

540 (86%) 

88 (14%) 

466 

251 (54%) 

215 (46%) 

151 (32%) 

64 (14%) 

408 (87%) 

58 (13%) 

*These finer racial/ethnic groups were not included in the ITS models due to the small size of the Other race/ethnicity group. 

The averages are presented here for descriptive purposes only. 

As for the analyses of diverted cases, the analyses in this section again compared trends in 

dispositional outcomes pre- and post-SB 200, where post-SB 200 was defined as May 2014 through 

December 2019. Each analysis in this section was repeated comparing the pre-SB 200 period (January 

2011-April 2014) to the post-full implementation period (January 2019-December 2019). The simple pre 

vs. post analysis is more powerful, since it includes more time points post-SB 200, but will tend to dilute 

the impact of SB 200 since it includes the implementation and pilot periods. The full implementation 

analysis will provide a better comparison of the full impact of SB 200, but because there are only 12 

post-full implementation time points, these analyses may not be powerful enough to detect changes. 

For each analysis, we performed exploratory analyses and model comparisons to determine the most 

appropriate model for each outcome. Based on this model testing, we selected linear models with a 

single lagged term (that is, the outcome in the previous month is included as a covariate) for each 

outcome in this section. 

3a. Number of probated cases 

First, we looked at the number of adjudicated cases placed on community supervision before and after 

SB 200. The ITS model showed a significant downwards shift in number of probated cases per 

month and a significant change in the trend over time.

16 The shift (intercept) term tells us that the 

number of probated cases per month decreased by an average of about 35 cases after SB 200, but the 

16Other covariates in the model included the count of probated cases in the previous month, number of males, number of 

youth of color, number of weapons cases, number of misdemeanor cases, and number of other (non-misdemeanor, nonfelony) cases. An interaction term between number of youth of color and SB 200 status was also included to assess any 

differential impacts by race; these findings are described later in the section. 

26 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

positive trend (slope) term also tells us that the trend over time, which was decreasing quickly, flattened 

out after SB 200. These trends are illustrated in Figure 18, left plot. These two effects offset, so that 

the overall impact of SB 200 on number probated cases per month was not statistically 

significant, meaning that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that SB 200 

significantly reduced the number of adjudicated cases per month placed on community 

supervision. 

Figure 18. Count of Probated Cases per Month, post-SB 200 (left) and post-full implementation 

(right) 

Comparing only post-full implementation with pre-SB 200 and dropping the implementation/pilot years 

(right figure above), we saw similar effects: there was again a drop in the average number of probated 

cases per month and the trend over time flattened out. However, these differences were not statistically 

significant because of the lack of power due to the very limited number of post-full SB 200 

implementation time points. This means that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that 

SB 200 reduced the number of adjudicated cases per month placed on community supervision 

after full implementation was reached. 

Appendix F shows the ITS regression models for probated cases. 

3b. Number of commitments to DJJ17 

Next, we examined if there was a change in the number of adjudicated cases placed under custodial 

control or DJJ’s supervision. Among commitments, the ITS model showed no significant shift (change 

in the intercept) due to SB 200, but there was a significant change in the trend over time.

18 In the left 

17Commitments to DJJ indicate that youth is under custodial or supervision of DJJ and may include secure and non-secure 

commitments. 

18Other covariates in the model included the count of probated cases in the previous month, number of males, number of 

youth of color, number of weapons cases, number of misdemeanor cases, and number of other (non-misdemeanor, nonfelony) cases. An interaction term between number of youth of color and SB 200 status was also included to assess any 

differential impacts by race; these findings are described later in the section. 

27 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
plot in Figure 19, we see that during pre-SB 200 there appeared to be an increasing trend in 

commitments, but post-SB 200 the trendline decreases (the blue lines show the fitted ITS predictions). 

The ITS model estimated an average of 36.6 committed cases per month pre-SB 200, but only 

24.5 cases per month post-SB 200. This decrease of just over 12 cases per month was about onethird of the pre-SB 200 number of commitments, which was substantial and statistically significant. 

Figure 19. Count of Committed Cases per Month, post-SB 200 (left) and post-full 

implementation (right) 

For the ITS model looking at full implementation only (Figure 19, right plot), visually there appears to be 

a change in the trend as well, but there is too much variability in the number of commitments and too 

few post-full SB 200 implementation time points to detect any statistically significant changes. 

Appendix G shows the ITS regression models for committed cases. 

28 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

 

3c. Number of placements in detention centers, YDCs, and group homes 

Lastly, we looked at the number of out-of-home placements before and after SB 200. For this analysis, 

we look at three separate types of placement facilities: detention centers, youth development centers 

(YDCs), and group homes.

19 

Results showed no statistically significant effects on placement for any of the three facility types, either 

looking at pre- vs. post-SB 200 or comparing pre-SB 200 with post-full implementation. There appear to 

be some changes in trends upon visual inspection of the ITS plots (see Figure 20). For example, in the 

plots that show effects of post-SB 200 (Figure 20, left plots), we see that the trendlines are relatively flat 

pre-SB 200 and then decrease post-SB 200. However, this is explained by an overall decrease in 

placements of all types after SB 200 because of facility closures during the same timeframe. On 

average, 627 cases per month were placed pre-SB 200; post-SB 200, this dropped to an average of 

only 466 cases per month. After controlling for this decrease in the ITS models, SB 200 did not appear 

to influence placements in detention centers, YDCs, and group homes. Appendix H shows the ITS 

regression models for out-of-home placements. 

19The models for all three outcomes have as covariates the outcome in the previous month, number of male youth, number of 

youth of color, and an interaction term between number of youth of color and SB 200 status. The detention model also 

includes seasonal indicators for the summer months (June, July, August) and for December; the YDC model includes a 

seasonal indicator for summer months (June, July, August). 

29 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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 20. Trends in the Number of Placements, by Placement Types, Post-SB 200 (left) and 

Post-Full Implementation of SB 200 (right) 

30 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

 

 

- -

3d. Racial/ethnic disparities among adjudicated cases before and after of SB 200 

First, we looked at all adjudicated cases and looked at descriptive statistics, without adjusting for any 

covariates. Although the average number of adjudicated cases decreased by 39% post-SB 200, the 

proportion of adjudicated youth of color increased from 35% to 41% post-SB 200 (see Table 5). The 

difference in these proportions is statistically significant.20 Looking at adjudicated cases using the ITS 

models, we found no statistically significant interaction between number of youth of color and 

adjudicated cases. This means that after adjusting for changes in case characteristics and 

demographics over time, SB 200 did not change the existing relationship between number of youth of 

color and adjudication outcome. Looking at the model predictions between the number of probated 

cases and number of youth of color—as the number of youth of color increased, the number of 

probated cases tend to decrease. For committed cases the reverse is true: as the number of youth of 

color increased, the number of commitments also increased. Neither of these trends were affected by 

SB 200. 

Next, we explored the number of cases placed in any type of placement facility, without adjusting for 

covariates (see Table 7). Our findings showed that although the total number of placements 

decreased by 26% after SB 200, the proportion of youth of color in any placement facility 

increased from 36% to 46%. This difference is statistically significant.

21 

Table 7. Average Monthly Number of Youth in Out-of-Home Placements, Pre-/Post-SB 200 

Pre SB 200 Post SB 200 

n (%) n (%) 

Average youth in out-of-home placements per month 

Race 

White 

Youth of color 

Black* 

Other race/ethnicity* 

Gender 

Male 

Female 

628 

405 (64%) 

222 (36%) 

158 (25%) 

64 (11%) 

540 (86%) 

88 (14%) 

466 

251 (54%) 

215 (46%) 

151 (32%) 

64 (14%) 

408 (87%) 

58 (13%) 

20The findings are similar for Black and Other race/ethnicity groups separately: the proportions of Black (25% to 28%) and 

Other race/ethnicity (10% to 14%) adjudicated youth each show statistically significant increases after SB 200. 

21The findings are similar for Black and Other race/ethnicity groups separately: the proportions of Black (25% to 32%) and 

Other race/ethnicity (11% to 14%) youth in any placement facility each show statistically significant increases after SB 200. 

31 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

Findings for the placement outcomes also showed that after controlling for demographic and case 

characteristics over time, there were no statistically significant differences in the relationships between 

number of youth of color and number of placements (of any of the three types examined), before or 

after SB 200. Taken together, this suggests that SB 200 does not reduce or exacerbate any 

disparities between White and youth of color in terms of placement outcomes, but the 

proportion of youth of color in out-of-home placement is increasing. 

Discussion 

In response to rising crime rates in the 1980s and 1990s, many states across the U.S. enacted a vast 

array of ever more retributive “tough on crime” policies for youth in the justice system. However, 

delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts have decreased steadily over the last 15 years, 

showing a 55% decline between 2005 and 2018 (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2020). Likewise, many 

previously tough policies have either fallen out of favor or been shown to be counterproductive to 

rehabilitation (Tanenhaus, 2013). Recent research on youth development and juvenile delinquency 

(National Research Council, 2013) coupled with major overhauls in state budget expenditures have led 

to the latest wave of juvenile justice reforms. This current round of reforms has focused on three key 

areas: 1) use of evidence-based practices to improve public safety, 2) diversion of first-time and lowrisk offenders, and 3) investment and utilization of effective preventative and treatment options. 

Through SB 200, Kentucky implemented a wide array of reforms characterized by use of evidencebased practices, enhanced diversion program, and investment in early intervention and communitybased programs. In this study, we examined the effects of SB 200 on case and youth outcomes, as well 

as on racial and ethnic disparities among referred and adjudicated cases. Our findings are summarized 

below and are discussed in context of Implementation Evaluation and Assessment of Communitybased Services findings to provide better insights on how the reform effort may be affecting policies and 

practices as well as youth outcomes. The first set of findings (1-3) highlights the effects of SB 200 

on diversion, subsequent complaints, and dispositional outcomes. The second set of findings 

(4-6) highlights the effects of SB 200 on racial and ethnic disparities. 

Diversion, Subsequent Complaints, and Dispositions 

Finding #1. The number of cases placed on diversion increased after 

implementation of SB 200. 

On average, there was an estimated 104 more diversions per month post-SB 200. This finding is 

particularly encouraging given that a key goal of SB 200 is to increase the use of diversion among 

referred youth. Indeed, stakeholders who were interviewed for the Implementation Evaluation shared 

32 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

that SB 200 was created in part due to underuse of diversion for first-time offenders and/or status 

offenders, leading to detention and formal court involvement as primary responses to delinquency. 

Through the enhanced diversion program, most youth are eligible for diversion under SB 200 and youth 

referred for first time misdemeanor receive a mandatory offer of diversion.22 

Research shows that involvement with the justice system can have a negative impact on and is 

disruptive to healthy youth development (Cauffman, Fine, Mahler, & Simmons, 2018; Steinberg, 2009). 

Thus, interventions that direct youth away from formal processing within the justice system are viewed 

as more developmentally appropriate and supportive of promoting positive youth development. A recent 

meta-analysis of youth diversion programs shows that programs that allow youth to avoid official 

processing of a charge, full prosecution of a charge, or traditional dispositions such as incarceration are 

more effective in reducing recidivism than traditional juvenile justice responses to crime and 

delinquency (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). In particular, diversion programs are more effective among low-risk 

youth who have not been charged of an offense. These findings are consistent with the risk-needresponsivity principle, which suggests that interventions should be proportionate to the individual’s level 

of risk to reoffend in order to effectively reduce recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). 

In increasing the number of youth placed on diversion, SB 200 has met one of its most central 

outcomes. Although positive, it is important to note that when examining the effects of SB 200 after full 

implementation (i.e., excluding the rollout and pilot periods), we are only able to include six months of 

outcome data. Long-term tracking and analysis of outcomes are needed to demonstrate the 

sustainability of promising findings linked to new policies and to better understand the trajectories of 

youth involved in the enhanced diversion program. 

Finding #2. The risk of a subsequent complaint was lower among youth who 

received referrals post-SB 200 than youth who were referred pre-SB 200. 

Accounting for youth and case characteristics, youth who received referrals after implementation of SB 

200 were at lower risk of receiving a subsequent complaint than youth referred prior to SB 200. In 

addition, pre-SB 200 youth received a subsequent complaint sooner than post-SB 200 youth. The 

average length of time to subsequent complaint for pre-SB 200 youth was 15.3 months compared to 

18.9 months for post-SB 200 youth. This finding held even after accounting for diversion status. That is, 

regardless of diversion status, post-SB 200 was associated with lower risk of a subsequent complaint 

for both diverted and non-diverted youth. Notably, our finding also showed that there was a significant 

decline from pre- to post-SB 200 in risk of subsequent complaints and this decline was greater for youth 

not on diversion than for youth on diversion. 

22Youth Offenders or those tried in the adult court and youth involved in a commission of a sex offense are not eligible for 

diversion. 

33 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

The positive effects of SB 200 in reducing subsequent complaints may be attributed to enhanced case 

management system, use of evidence-based practices, and improved collaboration within and across 

agencies. For example, comments from stakeholders interviewed for the Implementation Evaluation 

reflected generally positive experiences with the reform efforts. Stakeholders credited the initial positive 

outcomes associated with SB 200 to improvements in case management and use of risk and needs 

assessments to guide decision-making. Frontline workers also shared that increased community 

supervision and effectiveness of supervision among youth in diversion led to treatment and more 

positive behaviors among youth. These statements are supported by a recent study conducted by 

Urban Institute on the impact of SB 200 on youth diversion outcomes. Their findings indicate that 9 out 

of 10 youth placed on diversion for first-time misdemeanors successfully completed the diversion 

program and avoided formal processing in juvenile court (Harvell, Sakala, Olsen, Lawrence, & Hull, 

2020). 

The implementation of SB 200 was also accompanied by a detailed plan for training of staff involved 

with the reforms, including timeframes and responsibilities of agencies. For example, initial and 

refresher trainings were offered to frontline staff, designated trainers (using a train-the-trainer model), 

and other leadership personnel. Trainings specific to the rollout of FAIR Teams, which played a 

significant role in implementing the enhanced diversion program, were extensive and included roles 

and responsibilities of the new Case Designated Specialist (CDS), FAIR team orientations , and initial 

community partner meetings. In the Implementation Evaluation, several stakeholders reported the 

usefulness of these trainings in gaining knowledge about available services, sharing data and 

information about the purpose of SB 200, and improving communication among agencies. Although 

stakeholders also shared that future trainings could be further improved, in general, initial reports from 

stakeholders directly involved in the reform appreciated the availability of these trainings in supporting 

their work. 

Collectively, these findings demonstrate promising outcomes linked to SB 200. It is important to note, 

however, that more research is needed to explore and understand the mechanisms by which SB 200 

supports positive youth outcomes. This may include research that specifically examines components of 

enhanced case management under SB 200, including refinement of risk and needs assessment tools, 

development of graduated sanctions, staff trainings, and increased collaboration among youth-serving 

agencies, and. 

Finding #3. The number of commitments decreased post-SB 200; however the 

number of placements in detention centers, YDCs, and group homes, and cases on 

probation did not change. 

After controlling for important youth and case characteristics, our findings show that prior to SB 200, 

there was an increasing monthly trend in commitments to DJJ. This trend decreased after 

34 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

implementation of SB 200. On average, there was an estimated 36.6 cases committed to DJJ per 

month pre-SB 200, which declined to 24.5 per month post-SB 200. As with findings related to increased 

number of cases placed on diversion after SB 200, fewer commitments to DJJ post-SB 200 signal 

positive movement towards the overall goals of the reform. This finding may be explained by closures 

of non-secure and secure facilities after implementation of SB 200. The closures of these facilities is 

largely driven by the goal of placing youth in the least restrictive environment and utilizing communitybased resources to address youth risks and needs. 

Although the decline in the number of cases committed to DJJ is promising, lack of appropriate 

programs or available services for youth, in particular high risk youth, may create unintended 

consequences. As shared by stakeholders in the Implementation Evaluation, one of the unintended 

consequences of the reform was the lack of community-based programs that would cater to the needs 

of youth, in particular high risk and high needs youth. As an unfunded mandate, SB 200 significantly 

changed procedures for working with youth, but did not necessarily provide additional resources that 

would enhance community-based services. Already facing significant resource limitations, communitybased service providers, especially in rural areas, do not have the capacity to meet the needs of youth 

now going through diversion. Further, available community-based programs may not be easily 

accessible to youth and families as demonstrated in the Assessment of Community-Based Services. 

The Fiscal Incentive Fund provides an opportunity to address these challenges and future research is 

needed to assess how this program has been effective in meeting the goals of SB 200 to increase 

evidence- and community-based programs for justice-involved youth. 

When we examined the monthly trends in out-of-home placement facilities—detention centers, YDCs, 

and group homes, and the monthly trends in probated cases, we did not find statistically significant 

changes before and after SB 200. There are several potential explanations to the lack of statistically 

significant findings. First, we define post-SB 200 as the entire period after the legislation was passed 

(i.e., May 2014 through December 2019). This includes the rollout period, which lasted from May 2014 

through December 2017, and the pilot period, which was the entire year of 2018. Implementation of 

statewide reforms such as SB 200 often takes gradually, and thus, effects of the reform may not be 

apparent until well after the full-implementation. For example, increased availability of communitybased programs for adjudicated youth, as a result of the Fiscal Incentive Fund and other SB 200 

efforts, may support increased use of probation. In addition, we are only able to examine one year after 

the full implementation of SB 200 was completed, that is, from January 2019 through December 2019. 

The few data points may not be sufficient to detect statistical significance. Finally, the lack of significant 

finding is also at least in part because of the relatively large month-to-month variability in the outcome 

counts. Especially since some types of placement seem to have seasonal patterns (lower numbers of 

all types of placements in the summer months, higher numbers of detention facility placements in the 

summer months), there is quite a bit of uncertainty in our model predictions. This makes it difficult to 

separate the impact of SB 200 from the relatively noisy outcomes data. 

35 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

Finding #4. The number of youth of color placed on diversion increased post-SB 

200. 

Overall, there is evidence that after SB 200, more referrals for youth of color result in more diversions; 

however, this finding is moderated, in part, by a greater proportion of youth of color being referred after 

SB 200. Population-level analysis comparing the monthly number of youth of color and White youth 

placed on diversion before and after implementation of SB 200, controlling for changes in 

demographics and case characteristics over time, showed an increase in the number of youth of color 

being referred to diversion post-SB 200. On average, there were 53 additional diversions per month for 

every 100 youth of color referred as compared to 100 White youth referred after SB 200. However, we 

also saw an increase in the proportion of youth of color among referrals post-SB 200—29% of the total 

referrals were for youth of color pre-SB 200 compared to 34% post-SB 200. This finding must be 

interpreted with caution because we examined the overall monthly count of youth of color rather than 

the effect of race at an individual level. 

It is noteworthy, however, that when we examined the effect of diversion on subsequent complaints 

among individual youth, we found that both youth of color and White youth placed on diversion had 

lower risk of receiving subsequent complaints compared to youth not placed on diversion. Moreover, 

the difference in predicted risk for subsequent complaint for youth placed and not placed on diversion 

was greater among youth of color than White youth suggesting that diversion seemed to have a greater 

positive impact on youth of color. This finding supports existing evidence that diversion is linked to 

positive youth outcomes, and in this study, may particularly benefit youth of color. For future research, it 

is important to gain a better understanding about the mechanisms by which diversion have the greatest 

impact on youth outcomes and further increase the number of youth eligible for diversion. 

Finding #5. Youth of color and White youth had comparable risk for a subsequent 

complaint pre- and post-SB 200; however, youth of color were at greater risk for a 

subsequent complaint overall. 

Individual-level analysis showed that youth of color were at greater risk of receiving subsequent 

complaints over time—23% of youth of color received a subsequent complaint compared to 18% of 

White youth. When youth of color received a subsequent complaint, they were also referred sooner 

than White youth—within 16.8 months compared to 17.5 months of baseline referral for White youth. 

This finding held after accounting for youth’s age, gender, severity of offense, diversion status, and SB 

200 time period. We also looked at the interaction effects of race and SB 200 on subsequent 

complaints. That is, did risk of receiving a subsequent complaint for youth of color and White youth vary 

36 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
by SB 200 time period? Our findings showed that the difference in predicted risk for a subsequent 

complaint before and after SB 200 was comparable for youth of color and White youth. Altogether, 

these findings suggest that there is no evidence that SB 200 exacerbated racial and ethnic disparities in 

subsequent complaints; however, we also did not find evidence that it helped reduce disparities in 

subsequent complaints. 

Finding #6: SB 200 did not change the existing relationships between the number 

of adjudicated youth of color and youth of color placed in any out-of-home facilities. 

Without controlling for changes in youth and case characteristics and only looking at the proportion of 

youth of color and White youth, pre- and post-SB 200, a greater proportion of youth of color were 

adjudicated and placed in out-of-home facilities after SB 200. Before SB 200, an average of 35% of 

adjudicated cases were for youth of color; post-SB 200 this rose to 41%. For out-of-home placement, 

35% of youth of color were placed in any out-of-home facilities prior to SB 200 and this increased to 

46% after SB 200. 

However, after we controlled for changes in youth and case characteristics over time, we found that SB 

200 did not have a significant effect on adjudication and out-of-home placements among youth of color 

and White youth. That is, once we have accounted for important youth and case characteristics before 

and after SB 200, our findings do not provide evidence that SB 200 changed the existing relationships 

between race/ethnicity and number of adjudicated cases and out-of-home placement counts, and thus, 

is unlikely to have addressed racial disparities. However, we also did not find evidence that SB 200 

exacerbated existing disparities. Again, it is important to note that these analyses only test the 

relationship between number of youth of color and each outcome examined. ITS analysis in general is 

a population-level analysis, and cannot be used to make statements about individuals: for example, it 

would be inappropriate to conclude, based on this analysis, that SB 200 had no effect on a given youth 

of color’s likelihood of being adjudicated. 

Altogether, our findings on the effect of SB 200 on racial and ethnic disparities show that SB 200 did 

not exacerbate existing racial and ethnic disparities at certain stages of juvenile justice processing; but, 

notable disparities still exist in juvenile justice outcomes between youth of color and White youth. 

Racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system are well documented. For example, although 

delinquency case rates have declined for all racial groups in recent years, delinquency case rate for 

Black youth remains significantly higher than any of the other racial and ethnic groups. In 2018, the 

delinquency case rate for Black youth was 55.5, three times the rate for American Indian (22.8), White 

(19.3), and Hispanic (18.0) youth (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2020). Although the presence of racial 

and ethnic disparities in the legal system is well-established, the mechanisms through which it exists 

remain unclear. SB 200 magnified and brought attention to existing disparate outcomes for racial and 

37 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
ethnic minority youth population, but it also has the potential to address these issues and create 

outcomes that are more equitable for youth. Indeed, Kentucky state officials have engaged in proactive 

actions to better understand and confront issues surrounding racial and ethnic disparities. Likewise, 

research should continue to examine current policies and practices under SB 200 (e.g., charging levels, 

judicial overrides; see Kaasa et al., 2019 and Harvell et al., 2020) that may potentially contribute to 

existing racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice outcomes. 

Strengths and Limitations 

We note two important strengths of this study. First, this study offers a unique opportunity to conduct a 

natural policy experiment to examine the effects of a statewide policy on youth outcomes. We 

employed an interrupted-time series approach, a robust quasi-experimental design that includes 

multiple time points before and after an intervention is implemented. In practice, implementation of a 

policy change happens in phases. Using ITS allows us to capture and account for the phased-in nature 

of SB 200 implementation and how this might have affected youth outcomes. As opposed to merely 

comparing before and after intervention effects and outcomes, ITS allows us to control for confounding 

factors that may also influence changes in outcomes over time. For example, our ITS models control for 

autocorrelation (the dependence of trends across time), seasonal fluctuations, and changes in the 

demographics and case characteristics of the Kentucky juvenile justice population over time. We are 

also able to examine trends after full implementation separately for most outcomes, which is important 

because the effect of SB 200 may not be fully evident during the implementation period. Second, we 

draw upon information gathered through the Implementation Evaluation and Assessment of 

Community-Based Services to contextualize findings from the outcome evaluation. This mixed-method 

approach provides a richer understanding of SB 200’s implementation successes and challenges as 

well as the associated outcomes. 

There are also several limitations to keep in mind when interpreting the study findings. Although the use 

of ITS is among the most rigorous approaches when a randomized control trial is not a possibility, we 

did not use a comparison group in our analysis. Including a comparison group would strengthen our 

ability to make causal inferences about the impact of SB 200 on outcomes. However, most youth, 

except those involved in the commission of sex offenses and those transferred to the adult court, are 

eligible for diversion as well as other programming and services under SB 200. Thus, there is no 

practical way to identify a viable group of youth for comparison. Second, we are limited by the 

availability of data on reoffending. SB 200 defines reoffending as an adjudication of a new public 

offense within three years of release from an out-of-home placement or release from commitment and 

includes adult convictions. Because SB 200 consists of a wide range of reforms, implementation 

happened gradually and lasted through late 2018. This did not give us adequate time to assess 

reoffending after post-full implementation of SB 200. Although we accounted for the rollout and pilot 

periods of SB 200 in our analyses, only one year of post-full implementation data was included in the 

38 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
analyses (with the exception of diversion cases, which only included six months of post-full 

implementation data). In order to assess the long-term effects of an intervention on outcomes, sufficient 

data points after full implementation are needed. 

Recommendations for Research, Policy, and 

Practice 

Since passage of SB 200, Kentucky has made significant strides in juvenile justice reform. Below, we 

provide recommendations for research, policy, and practice to support continued improvement and 

sustain promising outcomes resulting from SB 200. These recommendations reflect the amalgamation 

of findings and lessons learned from the Implementation Evaluation, Assessment of Community-Based 

Services, and the current study. 

Research 

 Continue to track and compare trends regarding use of diversion over a multiyear period 

 Track long term outcomes of youth who have been diverted or are otherwise involved in the 

juvenile justice system 

 Examine specific components of enhanced case management under SB 200, including 

refinement of risk and needs assessment tools, development of graduated sanctions, increased 

collaboration among youth-serving agencies, and staff trainings 

 Conduct periodic needs assessment to identify gaps and ensure that current and new policies 

and practices are responsive to stakeholder needs (e.g., CDS/CDWs, probation officers, youth, 

families) 

 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis that will compare the cost associated with implementation of SB 

200 mandates to the benefits from anticipated increased use of community-based services, 

decreased use out-of-home placements, and improved youth outcomes 

Policy 

 Examine further the unintended consequences of “upcharging”

overrides 

and prosecutorial and judicial 

 Expand the types of low-level offenses that may be considered for a mandatory diversion referral 

to include additional misdemeanor complaints and first-time non-violent felonies 

 Evaluate the implementation and outcomes of the Fiscal Incentive Fund 

39 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Practice 

 Incorporate youth and family voice in research, policy, and practice decision-making 

 Continue to implement and review strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities 

 Bring in additional stakeholders and experts around racial justice to provide recommendations, 

conduct trainings, and advise policymakers 

 Continue staff trainings (including booster trainings) and expand trainings to other stakeholders, 

including county attorneys, judges, education, and law enforcement 

 Continue enhanced data tracking and monitoring, and data sharing between agencies to better 

inform policies and practices 

Lessons Learned for Other Jurisdictions 

Although Kentucky was not the first state to undergo profound reforms of their juvenile justice system, 

the findings of this evaluation are some of the first large scale data demonstrating the effects of a wideranging set of policies and practices. As such, these findings provide critical roadmaps for other 

agencies looking to enact similar, sweeping reforms, and may provide for cautious optimism for 

adopting similar policies and practices. For states considering justice reform, there are several key 

takeaways to consider. 

Stakeholder Buy-in and Integration 

SB 200 was implemented with wide support and brought a wide variety of stakeholders together to both 

establish and implement new policies and procedures. For example, a taskforce for independent 

review, the Juvenile Justice Oversight Council (JJOC), was established and served as a platform for 

multidisciplinary stakeholders to meet regularly and discuss juvenile justice issues. Interagency 

collaboration is vital to implementing new policies and is critical to the effectiveness of reforms. 

40 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Lessons Learned to Promote Buy-In and Include Diverse Voices 

1. Identify a champion devoted to leading the reform effort. Infrastructure must be implemented to 

aid in supporting the champion and sustainability of reforms. 

2. Obtain support from technical and training assistance (TTA) providers early on in the 

process to help with planning, development, and implementation of reforms. 

3. Provide funding for the reform up front to allow for partnerships with TTA providers and 

reduce challenges with implementation. 

4. Develop a buy-in and stakeholder engagement plan to help manage statewide transitions. 

5. Implement diverse and comprehensive trainings for staff directly involved in reforms and 

others whose buy-in is necessary. 

6. Establish a multi-agency oversight council to support inter-agency communication and 

leadership support of reform implementation. 

Data Gathering, Sharing, and Utilization 

SB 200 created an infrastructure for collecting and sharing data between justice agencies, AOC and 

DJJ. This data collection underscored several issues endemic in the juvenile justice system prior to 

and during the implementation of SB 200, including racial and ethnic disparities in youth outcomes and 

gaps and barriers to service provision for youth in the communities. Although improving data monitoring 

procedures and data management systems are still in progress, Kentucky has adopted initial, critical 

steps to monitoring and addressing these issues through the SB 200 data collection and sharing 

mandates. 

Lessons Learned to Promote Data Gathering, Sharing, and Utilization 

1. Improve data tracking before, during, and after implementation of the reform to effectively 

identify areas for reform and monitor successes and unintended consequences. 

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

3. Support data collection policies and practices with manuals and data codebooks. 

4. 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. 

5. Create a Memorandum of Understanding (or Information Sharing Agreement) to allow for data 

sharing across agencies. 

41 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
 

References 

Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using SAS: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, 

Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39–55. 

Bernal, J., Cummins, S., & Gasparrini, A. (2017). Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of 

public health interventions: A tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46, 348–355. 

Cauffman, E., Fine A., Mahler, A., & Simmons, C. (2018). How developmental science influences 

juvenile justice reform. UC Irvine Law Review, 8, 21-40. 

Connell, C. M. (2012). Survival analysis in prevention and intervention programs. In L. A. Jason, & D. S. 

Glenwick (Eds.), Innovative methodological approaches to community-based research: Theory 

and application (pp. 147–164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Espinosa, E., & Skowyra, K.R. (2015). Diverting youth at probation intake: The Front-End Diversion 

Initiative. National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. Available at 

http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/798. 

Harvell, S., Sakala, L., Olsen, R., Lawrence, S., & Hull, C. (2020). Assessing juvenile diversion reforms 

in Kentucky. Urban Institute. Available at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessingjuvenile-diversion-reforms-kentucky. 

Hockenberry, Sarah, and Puzzanchera, Charles. 2020. Juvenile Court Statistics 2018. Pittsburgh, PA: 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Kaasa, S., Meadows, K., Vidal, S., Foster, M., & Lowe, N. (2019). Evaluation of juvenile justice reform 

effort in Kentucky: Findings from implementation evaluation. Prepared for the National Institute of 

Justice. Available at https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/kentucky-juvenile-justice-reformevaluation-implementation-evaluation-report. 

Loeffler, C. E. and Grunwald, B. (2015). Decriminalizing delinquency: The effect of raising the age of 

majority on juvenile recidivism. Journal of Legal Studies, 44, 361-388. 

National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. National 

Academies Press. Available at https://www.nap.edu/read/14685/chapter/1#xiii. 

Penfold, R. B., & Zhang, F. (2013). Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care 

quality improvements. Academic Pediatrics, 13(6 Suppl), S38–S44. 

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2014, July). Kentucky’s 2014 juvenile justice reform: New law will strengthen 

community supervision and reduce secure confinement. Available at 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/07/psppkyjuvenilejusticereformbriefjuly2014.pdf. 

Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical 

Psychology, 5, 547-573. 

42 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.
Tanenhaus, D. (2013). First things first: Juvenile justice reform in historical context. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 

46. Available at http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/985. 

Weber, J., Umpierre, M., & Bilchik, S. (2018). Transforming juvenile justice systems to improve public 

safety and youth outcomes. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. Washington, D.C. Available at 

https://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Transforming-Juvenile-Justice-Systemsto-Improve-Public-Safety-and-Youth-Outcomes.pdf. 

Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: A metaanalytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 497-518. 

Vidal, S., Kulbicki, K., Arthur, T., Kaasa, S., Harmon, M., Foster, M., & Lowe, N. (2020). Assessment of 

community-based services for justice-involved youth in Kentucky. Prepared for the National 

Institute of Justice. Available at https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/kentucky-juvenile-justicereform-evaluation-assessment-community-based. 

43 Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 on Youth Dispositional Outcomes and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

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.