Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation: Assessment of Community-Based Services for Justice-Involved Youth, 2011-2019 (ICPSR 37889)

Version Date: Dec 5, 2022

Cite this study |

Principal Investigator(s):
Sarah Vidal, Westat Inc.

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37889.v2

Version V2 ()

  • V2 [2022-12-05]
  • V1 [2022-11-14] unpublished
Slide tabs to view more

Summary

In 2014, Kentucky undertook a reform of the state's juvenile justice system through Senate Bill 200 (SB 200). The SB 200 legislation sought to improve systems and youth outcomes by expanding access to treatment and supervision in the community, focusing the most intensive resources on serious offenders, and enhancing data collection and oversight mechanisms to ensure that the policies work. Westat, in partnership with the American Probation and Parole Association, worked with Kentucky agencies to evaluate key reforms under SB 200. Evaluation consisted of three components. First, an implementation evaluation documented barriers and successes to implementation, with a particular focus on the Family Accountability, Intervention and Response (FAIR) teams and the impacts of system-wide sociopolitical context, allocation of resources, agency leadership and organizational culture on the reform. Second, using geographic information systems (GIS), researchers assessed the availability of community-based services for youth referred to the juvenile justice system in Kentucky and also identified gaps in service areas and potential disparities in access to services. Third, researchers conducted an outcome evaluation to assess the effect of SB 200 on youth dispositional outcomes and racial and ethnic disparities among referred, diverted, and adjudicated youth.

Citation

Vidal, Sarah. Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation: Assessment of Community-Based Services for Justice-Involved Youth, 2011-2019. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2022-12-05. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37889.v2

Export Citation:

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

Funding

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2016-JF-FX-0058)

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

ZIP code

Restrictions

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

Distributor(s)

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

Time Period(s)

2014-05 -- 2019-12 (Post-SB 200 period), 2014-05 -- 2017-12 (SB 200 Rollout period), 2018-01 -- 2018-12 (SB 200 Pilot period), 2018-01 -- 2019-12 (SB 200 Post-Full Implementation period), 2011-01 -- 2014-04 (Pre-SB 200 Period)

Data Collection Notes

  1. For additional information on the Kentucky Juvenile Justice Reform Evaluation, please visit the OJJDP website.
Hide

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate key reforms under Kentucky Senate Bill 200 using a multi-part approach that assessed barriers and successes to implementation of the law, the availability of community-based services for youth referred to the juvenile justice system in Kentucky, and an outcome evaluation to assess the effect of SB 200 on youth dispositional outcomes and racial and ethnic disparities among referred, diverted, and adjudicated youth.

Sample

Sampling approach differed by study component:

1. Implementation Evaluation

Interviews with Stakeholders: Forty-nine semi-structured telephone and in-person interviews were conducted with a total of 71 individuals. The researchers used Kentucky's Administrative Office of the Courts 12 supervision regions to sample family/district court judges, court designated specialists, and court designated workers, randomly selecting one county from each region (there are 120 counties in Kentucky) and inviting those individuals assigned to the county to participate. Additionally, the Crime and Justice Institute training and technical assistance provider and all Juvenile Justice Oversight Council members were invited to participate in individual interviews. Representatives from public defenders' offices, directors of pupil personnel (DPPs), and youth and family advocates were identified by Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) contacts and invited to participate in group interviews. The Director of Pupil Personnel (DPP) is a board of education-appointed school official responsible for monitoring and enforcement of the compulsory attendance law in a school district.

Observations of Family Accountability Intervention Response (FAIR) Team Meetings: Twelve meeting observations were conducted during FAIR team meetings from the randomly selected counties in each of Kentucky's Administrative Office of Courts 12 supervision regions.

2. Assessment of Community-Based Services

Documentation of Community-based Programs: In October 2018, AOC provided Westat with a list of community-based programs available in each county in Kentucky (a total of 120 MS Word-formatted documents). The resource guides were last updated between September 2017 and October 2018.

Court Designated Worker Case Management System (CDWCMS): The CDWCMS is a statewide electronic case management and information system maintained by the Department of Family and Juvenile Services of the AOC. It collects information on youth referrals, including, but not limited to, youth race/ethnicity, most recent zip code, age at referral, date of referral, referral charge, and diversion status.

As described above, the documentation of community-based services received from Kentucky agencies was last updated between 2017 and 2018. To provide an accurate description of the clientele of youth that community-based programs serve as accurately as possible, the researchers restricted their sample of youth to those who were referred to the justice system during the time period October 2017 to September 2018. Because the CDWCMS data included a record for every single referral that a youth received (i.e., a youth may have multiple referrals), data were deduplicated by selecting the most recent referral on record for every individual youth between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018.

3. Outcome Evaluation

This included closed cases from January 2011 through December 2019. Two primary types of analysis files were created for the outcome evaluation: files 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.

The population-level and individual-level data files were created by first de-duplicating the CDWCMS and Juvenile Offender Resource Information (JORI) Legal History and Placement History administrative data files.

Universe

Kentucky justice-involved youth and Kentucky state and local agency officials

Unit(s) of Observation

Individual

Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection

Response Rates

Response rate only applies to qualitative data: Seventy one out of the 88 (81%) stakeholders invited for the interview agreed to participate.

Hide

Original Release Date

2022-11-14

Version History

2022-12-05 Collection and processing note web references revised.

Hide

Notes

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

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