We’ve all heard different things about juvenile crime: that it’s on the rise (at best) or completely out of control (at worst), that teens today are more inherently prone to violence than any other generation in memory, or that the legal system is failing to hold them accountable. Combine that with around-the-clock accessibility to some of the worst images, videos, and headlines of violent incidents and it can be challenging for any of us to know how prevalent crime in our communities actually is.

We know that violence occurs and that sometimes kids are responsible for it, that interventions and accountability should be informed by evidence-based research and data, and that the complexities of this issue require multi-faceted solutions. This state legislative session, we saw several one-size-fits-all responses that largely ignore root causes and proven solutions, instead mandating some of the harshest punishments we’ve seen in the Commonwealth.

Which laws were passed and how will they affect kids?

SB 20 will reinstate the automatic transfer of youth to circuit court for certain offenses, a policy that was just overturned in 2021. Under this law, any child who is at least 15 years old, is alleged to have committed a Class A, B, or C felony, and who was in possession of a firearm (it’s not required to be functional) at the time of the alleged crime will be required to be tried as an adult. These kids will remain in a detention center until they are 18 – at which time they will be transferred to an adult facility – and they will not be eligible for early release.

This is a one-size-fits-all response that contradicts the science and research about what actually works and ignores the data showing that violence is not on the rise. 

Kids’ brains are still developing, making them far more impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure, and significantly less likely to understand the consequences of their actions. They also have a greater potential for rehabilitation, which supports the need for judicial discretion to hold individualized hearings and consider relevant factors before determining whether a case will be transferred. Instead, most kids who end up in circuit court will languish in youth detention centers for months or even years awaiting a resolution to their cases, even when those cases are ultimately amended down or dismissed.

We know that incarceration, especially at a young age, is proven to significantly increase the likelihood of recidivism; to negatively affect educational outcomes, employment opportunities, and overall health and wellbeing; and that harsher penalties have never been a deterrent.

The legislature also passed HB 611, a truancy-related bill that requires Directors of Pupil Personnel (DPP) to report to the County Attorney when a child in 6th-12th grade has 15 or more unexcused absences and gives the County Attorney discretion to pursue formal court action. Court Designated Workers (CDWs) will also be required to refer complaints for truancy to the county attorney. 

Currently, when a child is truant the DPP uses intervention strategies and home visits to improve their attendance, before consulting with the CDW about referring the case to the Family Accountability, Intervention, and Response (FAIR) team for additional support and solutions. This model has proven effective at keeping kids on the right track and out of a courtroom. 

Unfortunately, HB 611 is a significant step back that will have widespread consequences. 

  • It weakens the diversion options and processes for CDWs by removing graduated sanctions when a child violates rules about school attendance and instead requires them to automatically fail a child’s diversion and have the case sent to court. 
  • It extends diversion programs from six months to twelve months – thereby extending the time a child is under the supervision of the court system – while shortening the window for the FAIR teams to take action on these cases from 90 days to 30 days. 
  • It increases the likelihood that a child will end up in juvenile detention by expanding opportunities for a child to be sent to court. A truant child can’t be sent to a detention center, but a truant child who violates a court order to not miss any more school can.

More on chronic absenteeism and truancy in this blog post.

Where do we go from here?

A critical step in policy advocacy is evaluating long-term outcomes. Among other things, that means monitoring whether laws are implemented as intended; analyzing quantitative and qualitative data to understand the impact they’re having on kids, families, and systems; and identifying unintended consequences or emerging disparities resulting from these laws.

Advocacy is always a challenge, and even more so when progress is nullified and effective reforms are chipped away at. It requires advocates to rethink our strategies, lean on existing partners and engage new ones, and to use setbacks as motivation to keep going.

Important update for advocates:

The US Department of Justice has opened a formal investigation into the KY Department of Juvenile Justice for potential civil rights violations at each of their youth detention centers and the Adair Youth Development Center – read Kentucky Youth Advocates’ statement on the announcement here. The investigation will look into whether children in detention were protected from “excessive force and punitive isolation…violence and sexual abuse” and whether the state provides “adequate mental health services and required special education and related services to children with disabilities”. There is no timeline for the investigation, so we’ll share updates as they become available. 

If you or someone you know has relevant information to share, you’re encouraged to contact the US DOJ at (888) 392-8241 or by email at Kentucky.Kids@usdoj.gov.