It has been about six years since Kentucky “fundamentally overhauled” its juvenile justice system with the enactment of a law mandating that diversion programs be offered for all youth following their first misdemeanor or first-time felony complaint
It was an effort to put an emphasis on behavioral rehabilitation instead of punishment.
According to an Urban Institute study of the reforms, the law has “significantly increased” the proportion of Kentucky youth diverted from formal court involvement. Nearly nine out of 10 youth completed diversion and avoided formal court involvement, according to their report published last week.
Nevertheless, race and ethnic disparities in the diversion programs were “significant and persisted,” and recidivism rates didn’t statistically change, the researchers found.
To complete their analysis, the Urban Institute researchers, Samantha Harvell, Leah Sakala, Daniel Lawrence, Robin Olsen, and Constance Hull, all looked at data from Kentucky’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and Court Designated Worker (CDW) case management program, which holds information on every review and complaint filed against a minor.
They looked at files between January 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019 to get a comprehensive scope of what the criminal justice youth-involved data looked like before and after the institution of Senate Bill 200.
Through their examination, they identified changes in three case decision points: diversion, detention and referral to court.
Diversion
To begin, the passing of Senate Bill 200 gave youth caught up in the justice system for their first offense the opportunity to take part in a diversion program instead of going to court and spend time in jail.
This relatively new mandate impacts thousands of youth and families in Kentucky each year, as the diversion programs typically include behavioral therapy, counseling, anger management, and other rehabilitation programs geared towards setting the youth on the right track.
The researchers discovered that youth diversion rates increased in every region of Kentucky, with overall diversion agreements increasing from 67 percent of cases in 2014 to 80 percent in 2018.
Notably, even though diversion rates have increased, the average completion rate has stayed the same. In other words, even though there are more youth entering these diversion programs, the same statistical amount of individuals are completing the program.
The authors found that nearly nine out of 10 youth diverted completed their specific program agreements and avoided formal court involvement. Moreover, “For youth referred to intake on a first-time misdemeanor complaint in 2018, that success rate was 94 percent,” the authors note, citing this as good news.
Nevertheless, some young people didn’t get the chance to even participate in a diversion program — typically due to the judge’s use of overrides.
Detention & Overrides
If a young person’s case was affected by a judge’s use of overrides, they were sent to a detention facility instead of a diversion program.
The researcher’s analysis suggests that the use of judicial overrides in first-time misdemeanor cases did decrease — meaning more youth were sent to diversion programs following the bill’s enactment when compared to data before the bill’s passing. However, the use of judicial overrides varied geographically, and the use of judicial overrides for Black youth increased.
The Urban Institute researchers said that they did not investigate these trends further, noting the law did not limit or change the rules surrounding judicial overrides, but they add that these trends warrant additional attention and scrutiny.
Overall, “each year between 2010 and 2018, approximately 10 percent of youth referred to intake were detained, which was consistent for youth referred on public and status complaints (again, public complaints are considered crimes if committed by an adult, whereas status complaints are not),” the authors found.
Referral to Court
The racial disparities in the researcher’s findings persisted, especially when it came to court referral data.
“With few exceptions, Black youth were less likely to be diverted and more likely to be referred to court than white youth both before and after reform,” the authors wrote.
In other words, Black youth were less likely to be given the opportunity to enter a reform program, and more likely to go to court for their crimes compared to white youth.
Moreover, In 2018, roughly one-quarter of youth criminal complaints that went on to court for formal processing were school-related, down from roughly half in 2014, the authors explained.
Overall, as mentioned above, nine out of 10 youth were able to complete their diversion programs, avoiding formal court referrals entirely.
Recommendations
The authors note that Kentucky has made “substantial progress” in overhauling its juvenile justice system. To that end, they write that these findings suggest new avenues and more opportunities “to build on early successes.” They recommend the following:
-
-
- “Expand eligibility criteria for mandatory diversion to include additional misdemeanor complaints and, potentially, first-time felony complaints;
- Identify and address barriers to diversion for youth who enter the juvenile justice system on a first-time misdemeanor complaint and are not diverted (one in five youth);
- Identify residential placement alternatives to detention for youth who need a “cooling off” period after domestic violence incidents;
- Continue strategizing to address racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities in case decision making; consider local-level, cross-agency collaborations or workgroups to monitor data and develop solutions.
-
The researchers also note that there should be stronger school-justice system partnerships where diversion programs are implemented in the school programs. They suggested more support services for youth who have difficult home lives, and for those at a high runaway risk.
Samantha Harvell is a principal policy associate for the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Leah Sakala is a senior policy associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Daniel Lawrence is a principal research associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. Robin Olsen is a senior policy associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Constance Hull is a policy analyst in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center.
The full report can be accessed here.
Andrea Cipriano is a TCR staff writer.