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, Executive 

Summary

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

Arhtur, Michelle Harmon, Megan Foster, 

Nathan Lowe

Document Number: 255931

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.
Improving Lives Through Research®

Prepared by:

Sarah Vidal, Elizabeth Petraglia, Trey Arthur, and Michele Harmon,

Westat 

Megan Foster and Nathan Lowe, 

American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) 

September 2020

Kentucky

Juvenile Justice

Reform Evaluation 

Assessing the Effects of SB 200 

on Youth Dispositional Outcomes 

and Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

Executive Summary
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

1 

1

Introduction

In 2014, Kentucky embarked on a vast reform 

of the state’s juvenile justice system through 

Senate Bill (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.

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)1

 and an assessment of community-based services for 

justice-involved youth in Kentucky (Vidal et al., 2020)2. 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 (see Figure 1).

Objectives of SB 200 Legislation

• Focus resources on the 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.

• Number of cases

placed on diversion

• Risk for subsequent

complaints

Complaints 

(Referrals)

Racial and 

Ethnic 

Disparities

Dispositions 

and Outof-home 

Placements

Effects 

of SB 200 • Number of probated cases

• Number of commitments

• Number of placements in

detention centers, youth

development centers, and

group homes

Figure 1. Summary of Evaluation Goals and Outcomes

1 Available at https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/kentucky-juvenile-justice-reform-evaluation-implementation-evaluation-report.

2 Available at https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/kentucky-juvenile-justice-reform-evaluation-assessment-community-based.

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

2 

2

Methodology 

We analyzed administrative data from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the 

Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) that include closed cases from January 1, 2011 through 

December 31, 2019. Recorded events between January 2011 and April 2014 were considered pre-SB 

200 and events that happened between May 2014 and December 2019 were considered post-SB 200. 

Figure 2 below provides an illustration of the SB 200 timeline.

Figure 2. SB 200 Implementation Timeline

We conducted two sets of analyses focusing on (1) population-level data, using Interrupted Time 

Series (ITS) modeling and (2) individual, youth-level data, using Cox Regression, survival analysis. 

April 2014

SB 200 Passage

January 2011 –

April 2014

Pre-SB 200

May 2014 –

December 2019

Post-SB 200

May 2014 –

December 2017

Rollout

January 2018 –

December 2018

Pilot

January 2019 –

December 2019

Post-Full 

Implementation

• Examines the effect of SB 200

on the population of referred or

adjudicated cases

• Accounts for population-level

characteristics such as race/ethnicity,

offense severity

• Accounts for important preintervention trends

• Cannot draw conclusions about the

effect of SB 200 on individual youth

1 Population-Level Analysis

• Accounts for the youth’s age,

gender, race/ethnicity, severity of

referral offense, SB 200 time period,

diversion status

• Also examines the interaction

between SB 200 and youth’s race/

ethnicity and diversion status

• Allows inference on the effect of SB

200 on individual youth

2 Individual-Level Analysis

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

3 

3

Findings

1 The number of cases placed on diversion increased after implementation 

of SB 200. 

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.

Population-Level Analysis (Cases)

104* more diversions 

per month post-SB 200

Youth placed on diversion

Individual-Level (Youth)

preSB 200

40%

postSB 200

60%

Pre-SB 200

15.4* months to 

subsequent complaint

Post-SB 200

18.9* months to 

subsequent complaint

Time to Subsequent Complaint (in months)

Figure 3. Proportion of Youth With a Subsequent Complaint

0

0%

10%

20%

30%

5 10 15 20 25

For example, at ten months 

following baseline referral, 

approximately, 12% of youth whose 

baseline referral occurred pre-SB 

200 had a subsequent complaint 

compared to approximately 9% 

of youth whose baseline referral 

happened post-SB 200. 

* Numbers are an average.

12%

9%

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

4 

4

3 

The number of commitments decreased post-SB 200 (see Figure 3); however, 

the number of placements in detention centers, YDCs, and group homes, as 

well as cases on probation, did not change.

Figure 3. Average Monthly Count of Commitments

Pre-SB 200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Post-SB 200

36.6

24.5

Figure 4. Racial and Ethnic Breakdown of Individual Youth Referred in 2011-2019

Total

Youth

Youth 

of Color

71%

73% 27%

13%

16%

White Youth 

of color

Black Hispanic Other

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

5 

5

4 

The number of youth of color placed on diversion increased post-SB 200.

Population-Level Analysis (Cases)

After SB 200, there were 

53 additional diversions 

per month for every 

100 youth of color 

referred as compared 

to White youth

Individual-Level (Youth)

% Points 

13

Proportion 

of youth of 

color placed 

on diversion 

after SB 200

(increase from 

50% to 63%)

% Points 

11

Proportion 

of White 

youth placed 

on diversion 

after SB 200 

(increase from 

63% to 74%)

Figure 5. Average Number Versus Proportion of Referrals for Youth of Color

Pre-SB 200 Post-SB 200

71% 29% 66% 34%

White Youth of color

2,131

Referrals

1,593

Referrals

Although the average number of referrals for youth of color decreased 

post-SB 200, there was an increase in the proportion of youth of color 

among referrals—about 85 more referrals per month.

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

6 

6

5 

Youth of color and White youth had comparable risk for subsequent complaint 

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

subsequent complaint overall.

Post-SB 200

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.

ITS, Regression Modeling (Adjusts for changes in case characteristics and demographics over time)

SB 200 did not exacerbate existing racial and ethnic disparities in the number of 

adjudicated cases and cases placed in out-of-home placements.

Descriptive Statistics (Does not account for case and demographic characteristics)

Average number 

of adjudicated 

cases decreased 

by 39% postSB 200

Proportion of 

adjudicated 

youth of color 

increased from 

35% to 41%

post-SB 200

Total number 

of placements 

decreased 

by 26%

Proportion of 

youth of color in any 

placement facility 

increased from 36% 

to 46% post-SB 200

17% 18%

Pre-SB 200

23% Youth of color with 

subsequent complaint

14.7* months to 

subsequent complaint

23% Youth of color with 

subsequent complaint

18.2* months to 

subsequent complaint

17% White youth with 

subsequent complaint

15.6* months to 

subsequent complaint

18% White youth with 

subsequent complaint

19.1* months to 

subsequent complaint

23% 23%

* Numbers are an average.

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

7 

7

Recommendations

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 (e.g., risk 

and needs assessment 

tools, graduated sanctions)

• Conduct periodic needs 

assessment to identify 

gaps and ensure that 

current and new policies 

and practices are responsive 

to stakeholder needs

Policy

• Examine further the 

unintended consequences 

of “upcharging” and 

prosecutorial and 

judicial overrides

• Expand the types of lowlevel 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

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

• Continue enhanced data 

tracking and monitoring, 

and data sharing between 

agencies to better inform 

policies and practices

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.
Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation

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

8 

8

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 state-wide 

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.

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.

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.