HB 239 elevated the use of evidence-based programs and practices in Utah’s juvenile justice system. Utahns benefit from this because research shows these approaches promote public safety, hold juvenile offenders accountable, and control costs. This report provides an initial look at how the system is adjusting to policies that went into effect in fiscal year (FY) 2018. Overall, the state relied more on community resources, progressed in standardizing decision-making, and advanced measurement of how well juvenile justice approaches meet evidence-based standards. Implementation is a complex process and it will take many years before we can evaluate policy outcomes. Nevertheless, findings from the first year that select policies went into effect suggest that Utah is on track for meeting policy goals.
Youths charged with low-level offenses were diverted from the juvenile justice system at much higher rates through nonjudicial adjustments. Local data supports that in the past, Utah youths charged with low-level offenses experienced better outcomes than similar youths who received a petition and appeared before a judge. Diverting these youths frees up court dockets and judicial resources for the most serious cases.
Admissions to locked detention continued to decline. Detention admissions of youths found in contempt of court are down 69%. Utah data shows that low-risk youths who are ordered to detention reoffend at higher rates than similar youths who are not.
Referrals to JJS Receiving Centers grew while referrals to the Juvenile Court declined. Receiving Centers are located across the state to evaluate a youth’s need for security and care and make referrals for services. These resources offer an avenue to reduce unnecessary detention and to help address school based behaviors.
The Division of Juvenile Justice Services made strides to ensure youths in custody receive evidence-based programming. Evidence-based programs are the best available options for providing youths with the tools that they need to reduce their likelihood of having further contact with the system.
The state diverted funds from out-of-placement options to reinvest in front end services. The closure of residential Observation & Assessment and Work Camps freed up ≈ $6.4 million for statewide expansion of services intended to prevent youths from unnecessary system involvement.
Racial and ethnic disparities continued to exist at each stage of the juvenile justice system. While there has been measurable progress in many respects, this progress has not been equally realized across all racial and ethnic groups. For instance, while nonjudicial adjustments have increased and detention has decreased for all racial and ethnic groups, nonwhite youths have had relatively smaller increases in NJAs and decreases in detention admissions as white youths. This suggests that more work is required to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in our system.
The report authors extend their gratitude to our partners and the stakeholders whose efforts made this report possible. In particular, thank you to the members of the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC) and JJOC Working Groups. Please see the Oversight & Stakeholder Efforts section in this report for a full list of these members.
Robbi Poulson
Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice,
PhD Candidate, Economics, University of Utah
Sofia Nystrom
Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice,
PhD, Economics, University of Utah
Van Nguyen
Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice,
PhD Candidate, Social Work, University of Utah
br>
Utah juvenile justice policies intend to help the state foster positive outcomes for stakeholders. 1 This goal is reached when Utah youths receive the type and level of service that will keep them from going in, or back to, the justice system.2 Many youths, of course, do not need any services to reach this goals. Others may need a small degree of services, and some may benefit from intensive programming. To support its goals, Utah passed broad changes to juvenile justice policies in 2017 through House Bill (HB) 239 with effective dates in fiscal year (FY) 20183 and 2019. 4 This report provides an initial look at how the system is adjusting to the policies that went into effect in FY 2018.5
Figure 1 shows the different paths youths may experience when it is believed that they have committed a delinquent offense.6 HB 239 policies intend to help guide youths toward the path that will lead to the best outcome for them. This might entail 1) services provided as an alternative to a Juvenile Court referral, or 2) a referral to the Juvenile Court. The flowchart highlights the path that diverts youths from the Juvenile Court in light green. The paths that may be taken as a result of a petition to the Juvenile Court are signified by a light grey color.
Policy changes in FY 2018 related to alternatives to referring youths to the Juvenile Court center on nonjudicial adjustments and school-based behaviors. Information for these areas can be found in the Nonjudicial Adjustments and Early Intervention - Responses to School Based Behaviors sections of this report. Policy changes that affect what happens to youths who are referred to the Juvenile Court are discussed in the Locked Detention and Evidence-Based Approaches sections. System changes often involve changes in resource allocation. HB 239 is centered on moving tax dollars from programming that has not been shown by research to be effective to those that have. The Reinvestment section of this report discusses the shifts in expenditures that occurred in connection with HB 239 in FY 2018.
The below timeline shows the effective dates for HB 239 policies. This timeline helps put the roll out of Utah juvenile justice policies into perspective. A small set of policies went into effect in FY 2018 while the rest did so in the following year. The table below the timeline includes a summary of each of these policies.
Timeline Instructions. The reader can adjust various features in the above timeline. The interactive features are activated by clicking inside of the timeline’s window (the window will have a light blue shadow behind it when activated). Then, the ‘+’ and ‘-’ signs in the upper left corner can be used to zoom in or out. Placing the cursor over the policy titles will activate a pop out box that provides a summary of the policy. Lastly, the placement of the boxes containing policy titles can be dragged be clicking on and dragging the boxes.
Table 1 provides a summary of the HB 239 policies highlighted in the above figure.
Table 1 Instructions. The reader can search the table to find the implementation date and description for each policy using the search box in the upper right corner. The dropdown box in the upper left corner can be used to change the number of policies shown in the table; this allows the reader to view all of the policies at once, or a few at a time. Each column can be sorted by clicking on the column’s title.
Adjudication: The court process that determines if a juvenile committed the act they were charged for. Adjudicated is analogous to the criminal justice system’s term “convicted” and indicates that the court had sufficient evidence that the juvenile committed the act.
Adult Living for Transitional Achievement: A program that provides temporary housing, reentry services, and skills development to youths in JJS custody who are returning to the community after a placement in a secure care facility or residential placement for youths who are high risk.
AOC: An acronym for the Administrative Office of the Courts. The AOC serves as staff to the Judicial Council, rules committees, boards of judges, standing and ad hoc committees, and nominating commissions and provides support to Clerks of Court and Trial Court Executives throughout the state.
Brief Community Intervention: Cognitive focused programming for moderate- to high-risk youth after school hours.
Community Placement: Residential placements for youths committed to JJS Custody by the Juvenile Court. These include proctor care, group homes, and boarding schools.
Contempt of Court: Contempt of court involves a willful violation or refusal to obey an order of the court.
Day Skills Intervention: A JJS program for moderate- to high-risk youths during school hours.
Delinquency: An act committed by a juvenile for which an adult could be prosecuted in a criminal court, but when committed by a juvenile is within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. Delinquent acts include person, property, drug, and public order offenses.
Evidence-based: HB 239 defines evidence-based as “…a program or practice that has had multiple randomized control studies or a meta-analysis demonstrating that the program or practice is effective for a specific population or has been rated as effective by a standardized program evaluation tool.” HB 132 adds that evidence-based interventions to address school-based behaviors include programs and practices that have been approved by the State Board of Education. 7
Home Detention: An alternative to secure detention for youths awaiting a court hearing for a new delinquent offense.
House Bill 239: House Bill 239, Juvenile Justice Amendments, was passed during Utah’s 2017 General Session. HB 239 is a package of policies designed to promote public safety, hold juvenile offenders accountable, control costs, and improve outcomes.8
House Bill 132: House Bill 132, Juvenile Justice Modifications, was passed during Utah’s 2018 General Session. HB 132 was developed to address implementation concerns and language clarification from HB 239.9
In-Home Observation & Assessment: 30-day evaluation crisis intervention, treatment planning and recommendations for adjudicated youths pending disposition.
JJS: This is an acronym for the Division of Juvenile Justice Services. JJS provides a continuum of intervention, supervision, and rehabilitation programs to juvenile offenders in the state of Utah.
Locked Detention: In Utah, the Division of Juvenile Justice Services provides locked detention services. According to this agency, “Locked Detention provides short-term locked confinement for delinquent youths awaiting adjudication, placement, or serving a sentence as ordered by a Juvenile Court Judge.” 10
Nonjudicial Adjustment (NJA): HB 239 defines a nonjudicial adjustment as a closure of the case by the assigned probation officer without judicial determination upon the consent in writing of: (a) the assigned probation officer; and (b) (i) the minor; or (ii) the minor and the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or custodian.
Mobile Crisis Outreach Team: Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams provide 24-hour phone service staffed by mental health professionals. These specialists provide crisis intervention, suicide prevention, information and referral, emotional support, and assistance to individuals experiencing emotional distress or psychiatric crisis.
Petition: Formally charged (petitioned) delinquency cases are those that appear on a court calendar in response to the filing of a petition, complaint, or other legal instrument requesting the court to adjudicate a youth as a delinquent or status offender, or to waive jurisdiction and transfer a youth to criminal court. Petitioning occurs when a juvenile court intake officer, prosecutor, or other official determines that a case should be handled formally.
Probation: According to the Utah Juvenile Court, the Juvenile Court “…administers a probation department. Probation officers prepare dispositional reports, supervise youth who have been placed on probation by the Court, conduct evaluations, and submit reports on the progress of each juvenile.” 11
PRA: The Protective & Risk Assessment (PRA) is a risk and needs assessment tool validated to assess the risk that youth who have contact with Utah’s juvenile justice system will reoffend. The tool generates a level of low, moderate, and high risk to reoffend that corresponds to that generated by the PSRA (see PSRA definition below). Further, this tool helps to identify the criminogenic risk factors that may be contributing to a youth’s delinquent behaviors and the protective items that may be helping to mitigate the frequency and severity of these behaviors.
PSRA: The Pre-Screen Risk Assessment (PSRA) is a risk assessment tool validated to assess the risk that youth who have contact with Utah’s juvenile justice system will reoffend. The tool classifies youths as low, moderate, or high risk to reoffend. The results help to inform level of contact and placement decisions as well as to indicate whether further assessment is needed.
PSRA Risk Level: A classification of low, moderate, or high risk to reoffend generated by the risk assessment tools in Utah’s juvenile justice system, the PSRA and PRA.
Referral: When a potentially delinquent youth is sent forward for legal processing and received by a juvenile court either as a result of law enforcement action or upon a complaint by a citizen, school, government entity, or other individual or organization.
Receiving Center: A non-secure, nonresidential program established by the division or under contract with the division that is responsible for juveniles taken into custody by a law enforcement officer for status offenses, infractions, or delinquent acts.
Risk/Risk Level: Generally, in juvenile justice, risk/risk level indicates a classification of how likely a youth who has contact with the system will reoffend from a validated risk assessment tool. For this report, the terms risk and risk level refer to the level of risk that youth will reoffend that is identified by the PSRA or PRA, which for both of these assessments, is called the PSRA Risk Level (see PSRA Risk Level definition above).
Secure Care: Long-term locked confinement facilities for serious and habitual delinquent youths who are high-risk to reoffend and 12-20 years of age.
Youth Court: HB 239 defines Youth Court as a diversion program that provides an alternative disposition for cases involving juvenile offenders in which youth participants, under the supervision of an adult coordinator, may serve in various capacities within the courtroom, acting in the role of jurors, lawyers, bailiffs, clerks, and judges.
Stakeholders across the state work hard to ensure Utah has a strong and effective juvenile justice system. These efforts have continued with the passing of HB 239 and are supported by the Utah Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC). This group is charged with supporting statewide policy implementation efforts and is a multi-disciplinary and geographically diverse committee that works to help the system reach HB 239 goals. The JJOC meets regularly to monitor implementation and serve as a solutions-oriented body that is responsive to what is happening in communities across the state. 12 Additionally, several working groups, or subcommittees of the JJOC, meet regularly to ensure success of the reforms as described below.
Communication Working Group. This group hosts roadshow forums across the state to share information about juvenile justice in Utah and answer questions from community members. They also develop materials to explain and support implementation efforts.
Data Working Group. This group works to identify and collect performance and outcomes measures that pertain to juvenile justice policies. The group’s efforts in FY 2018 resulted in the performance measures included in this report.
Detention Risk Assessment Working Group. This group is charged with developing, piloting, and implementing a data-driven detention risk assessment tool that will help guide decision-making for youth detention admissions. The group’s efforts in FY 2018 resulted in statewide rollout of the Utah Detention Risk Assessment Tool (DRAT) in FY 2019.
Funding and Services Working Group. This group monitors services and funding to support services that are consistent with the goals and vision of HB 239; members also help identify service needs and gaps, advise on the prioritization of services, and find solutions to existing barriers to service access. In FY 2018, the group completed an assessment of services needs throughout the state.
Juvenile Justice System Mapping Working Group. This group works to meet the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s SUCCESS+ Inititiative13 and to identify and eliminate duplication in services in the juvenile justice system. In FY 2018, the group created a set of recommendations for the juvenile justice system.
Nonjudicial Adjustment Sliding Scales Committee. This group developed a statewide sliding scale for the assessment of fines, fees, and restitution based on the ability of the youth’s family to pay that was implemented in FY 2018.
Training Working Group. This group assists in the development of training juvenile justice stakeholders, including educators, law enforcement officers, probation staff, judges, Division of Juvenile Justice Services staff, Division of Child and Family Services staff, and program providers. In FY 2018, the group developed guidelines that were adopted by the JJOC to assist stakeholders in meeting the training requirements described in HB 239.
The below tabs provide a list of the members of the JJOC and its Working Groups.
This section provides information about system-wide experiences in Utah’s juvenile justice system. The measures in this section may not speak directly to HB 239 policies; however, they may provide context to the reader. Specifically, this section provides information about the number of referrals14 to Utah’s Juvenile Court, the percent of referrals by risk level and offense severity, as well as the number of youths committed to JJS Community Placement. To put the system measures in this report into perspective, Figure 2 illustrates the eight court districts in Utah.
The below four tabs provide information about statewide referrals to the Utah Juvenile Court from FY 2015 to 2018.
Figure 3 shows the number of referrals to the Utah Juvenile Court. Referrals declined by 10% from FY 2015 to 2016, 11% from 2016 to 2017, and 13% from 2017 to 2018. (Please see Table A13 in the Appendix for the count of referrals over time by type).
Figure 3 Instructions. The reader can mouse over the top of bars in Figure 3 to activate a pop out box that shows the number of referrals to the Juvenile Court in a particular year (e.g., there were 18,874 referrals in FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 4 shows that most youths referred to the Juvenile Court in FY 2018 were low risk to reoffend. (Please see Table A14 in the Appendix for the count of referrals by PSRA risk level).
Figure 4 Instructions. The reader can mouse over the different risk level categories in the stacked bars to see the percent of referrals accounted for by the risk level (e.g., mousing over the darkest blue color in FY 2018 bar shows that \(\approx{53}\)% of referrals were for youths identified as low risk to reoffend). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 5 shows the percent of referrals to the Juvenile Court by offense severity. Around 70% of referrals were for misdemeanor charges in FY 2018. (Please see Table A15 Appendix for the count or referrals by offense severity).
Figure 5 Instructions. The reader can mouse over the different offense severities in the stacked bars to see the percent of referrals accounted for by the risk level (e.g., mousing over the darkest blue color in FY 2018 bar shows that \(\approx{70}\)% of referrals were accounted for by those where the most serious charge was for a Misdemeanor). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 6 shows the number of youths served in JJS Community Placement from FY 2015 to 2018. This number declined each year. (Please see Table A17 in Appendix for the number of youths served and service episodes for JJS Community Placement).
Figure 6 Instructions. The reader can mouse over the line to activate a pop out box that shows the specific count of youths served in a particular quarter (e.g., 372 youths were served by JJS Community placement in the first quarter of FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
What does this policy accomplish?
Utah nonjudicial adjustment (NJA) policies promote public safety, hold youths accountable, and control costs by increasing the chance that youths who are low risk to reoffend and have not been referred for a violent or felony offense are diverted from a petition to the Juvenile Court. Research and local data show that these youths are held accountable for their actions and are less likely to reoffend when they receive a nonjudicial adjustment. Diverting these youths from the court process also ensures that resources are reserved for those youths who are higher risk to reoffend and are referred for severe offenses.
Section Highlights
55% of referrals to the Juvenile Court resulted in an NJA offer in FY 2018, up from an average of 22% from the three preceding years.
Preliminary data suggest that most youths who are low risk to reoffend and are referred for a Misdemeanor or Status Offense received an NJA in FY 2018.
The percent of youths who received an NJA referral increased for all racial and ethnic groups in FY 2018. However, some groups tended to receive NJAs at higher rates than others.
HB 239 includes criteria for offering youths nonjudicial adjustments (NJA). NJAs are agreements between a youth (and the youth’s parents/guardians) and a Probation Officer that present youths with an opportunity to avoid a charge in court. The policy aims to ensure that youths who engage in lower-level delinquency15 and are low risk to reoffend are offered an NJA.16 This is expected to increase the system’s ability to hold youths accountable for their actions, ensure fairness, and improve outcomes. Given these policy changes, it would be expected that the percent of NJAs offered would increase throughout the state. Specifically, it is expected that youths who are low-risk to reoffend and engage in non-felony and non-violent behaviors receive these offers. This should hold regardless of of geographic location and demographic characteristics of youths.
Figure 7 shows the process for offering youths an NJA. This represents one option for diverting a youth from a court petition. The decision to offer a youth an NJA is made under the following standards
Youths who are referred to the court and meet certain criteria must be offered an NJA.17
The Probation Officer can offer an NJA to youths who do not meet the mandatory criteria.
All youths who are not offered an NJA by the Probation Officer must have their circumstances reviewed by the Prosecutor.
The below six tabs contain information about NJAs in Utah from FY 2015 to 2018. The first tab shows the overall trend for NJA offers. The second tab shows the number of all referrals to the juvenile court along with those referrals that resulted in an NJA offer and those that went on to petition. The third and fourth tabs present information about NJAs in reference to youth risk level and offense severity, respectively. The fifth tab illustrates changes in the percent of referrals offered an NJA by court district. The last tab shows NJA offers for different race and ethnic groups.
Figure 8 shows the percent of youths who were offered NJAs before and after the passing of HB 239. 18 The figure shows that 55% of youths were offered an NJA in FY 2018. This represents a 72% increase from the previous year. As mentioned, most youths referred to the Juvenile Court were low risk to reoffend or were referred for relatively less severe offenses. (Please see Table A1 in Appendix for the data underlying the calculations in Figure 8).19
Figure 8 Instructions. The reader can mouse over the points in Figure 8 to activate a pop out box that shows the specific percent of intake decisions resulting in an NJA for a particular year (e.g., \(\approx{55}\)% of intake decisions results in an NJA offer in FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 9 shows the number of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA or a petition. NJAs increased and petitions continued to decline in FY 2018. (Please see Table A1 in Appendix for the data underlying Figure 9).
Figure 9 Instructions. The reader can hover over the bars in Figure 9 to activate a pop out box that shows the number of referrals with intake decisions resulting in a petition and an NJA each quarter (e.g., there were 1,792 intake decisions resulting in a petition in the first quarter of FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 10 Instructions. The reader can compare the FY 2015 to 2017 averages to FY 2018 by clicking on the Play button in Figure 10. Also, the reader can hover over the bars in the figure to activate a pop out box that shows the percent of referrals by risk level that resulted in an NJA offer in these years (e.g.,\(\approx{78}\)% of youths who were identified as low risk were offered an NJA in FY 2018). The figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 11 Instructions. The reader can compare the FY 2015 to 2017 averages to FY 2018 by clicking on the Play button in Figure 11. Also, the reader can hover over the bars in the figure to activate a pop out box that shows the percent of referrals by offense severity that resulted in an NJA in these years (e.g.,\(\approx{59}\)% of youths referred for a Misdemeanor offense were offered an NJA in FY 2018). The figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 12 Instructions. The reader can compare the FY 2015 to 2017 averages to FY 2018 by clicking on the Play button in Figure 12. Also, the reader can hover over the bars in the figure to activate a pop out box that shows the percent of referrals by offense severity that resulted in an NJA in these years. The figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
The use of NJAs across different racial and ethnic groups is shown in Table 2. The table provides the rate of NJA offers for each group and the percent change in these rates in FY 2018 compared to previous years. The percent of youths who were offered an NJA increased for all groups. (Please see Table A5 in Appendix for the data used for the calculations in Table 2).20
What does this policy accomplish?
Utah’s policies on responses to school based behaviors promote public safety, hold youths accountable, and control costs by increasing the chance that youths are not referred to the court for behaviors that should be addressed in the youth’s community. Research and local data show that better outcomes occur when youths are held accountable for behaviors such as truancy, status offenses, infractions, and class C misdemeanors in their communities rather than through a court referral. This also reserves resource intensive services involved with a court referral for those youths who need them.
Section Highlights
HB 239 includes standard criteria for referring youth to the Juvenile Court for school based behaviors. The intent is to divert more low-level youth from the system and reduce disparities throughout the state.
After years of decline, referrals to Juvenile Receiving Centers increased by 11% in FY 2018 compared to 2017.21 Conversely, referrals to the Juvenile Court decreased in this time. This may indicate that the percent of youth being referred to JJS Receiving Centers as an alternative to the court is increasing. However, it is unknown whether the changes can be directly attributed to recently enacted policies.
At this early stage of implementation, changes in referrals were inconsistent throughout the state and referrals were disproportionate based on race and ethnicity of youths.
As mentioned, HB 239 policies intend to divert youths who are low risk to reoffend and engage in less severe types of delinquency from going deep into the system. The policies also focus on holding youth accountable and facilitating appropriate service delivery. As part of this, the bill includes standards for handling behaviors in schools. HB 239 prohibits the referral of youths enrolled in school to law enforcement or to the court for certain offenses on school property.22 These youths may be referred to alternative interventions, including a
Mobile crisis outreach team;
Receiving center operated by JJS;
Youth court or comparable restorative justice program;
Evidence-based interventions created and developed by district; and
Other evidence-based interventions that may be jointly created and developed by a local education agency, the State Board of Education, the Juvenile Court, local counties and municipalities, the Department of Health, or the Department of Human Services.23
Figure 13 shows the paths a youth may experience as a result of misbehavior and delinquent behaviors at school. The figure shows that youths may be referred to the Juvenile Court for certain offenses. Youths who engage in low-level types of behaviors must be referred to an intervention within HB 132 and 239 criteria (as explained in the above bulleted list). Youths who refuse to participate in these alternatives may be referred to the Juvenile Court.
Figure 14 shows the number of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers. These referrals declined in FY 2016 and 2017. There were more referrals in FY 2018 than 2017; however, the number of referrals to the Juvenile Court declined in this same period.24 This may indicate that the percent of youth being referred to JJS Receiving Centers as an alternative to the court is increasing. Again, it is unknown whether the changes can be directly attributed to the policies. 25 (Please see Table A6 in Appendix for the count of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers and break out of referral source for the totals presented in Figure 14).
Figure 14 Instructions. The reader can hover of the bars in Figure 14 to activate a pop out box that shows the number of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers in a given year (e.g., there were 2,758 referrals to JJS Receiving Centers in FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Resource utilization is an important factor to consider when analyzing policies. Figure 15 shows the different JJS Receiving Centers in Utah. A green dot indicates that the number of referrals was at least 5% higher in FY 2018 compared to 2017, while a blue dot indicates that referrals were at least 5% lower over this time. A grey dot shows there was not a change in either direction that was within a 5% range, or there were no referrals in one of the years.
Table 3 shows the percent of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers by race and ethnicity. It appears that the rate of referrals for the groups in the table has stayed about the same over the years. The table also includes the percent of Utah’s population based on these groups.26 The information in the table suggests that the rate that youths are referred to these centers does not match the state’s population (e.g., White youths accounted for 54.3% of JJS Receiving Center referrals and 74.6% of Utah’s population).27 (Please see Table A8 in Appendix for the data behind the table).
Table 3 Instructions. The reader can sort Table 3 columns in ascending or descending order by clicking on their titles.
What Does this Policy Accomplish?
Experts agree that locked detention should be reserved for youths who put community safety at risk if not admitted to detention. Restricting the use of locked detention is important because (1) research shows that youths who are admitted to locked detention tend to experience worse outcomes than similar youths who received alternative placement and (2) locked detention is a relatively cost-intensive resource. HB 239 directed JJS and stakeholders to develop new detention admission guidelines to help the system place youths appropriately.
Section Highlights
The number of youths admitted to locked detention continued to decline under newly enacted admission guidelines.
The decline in admissions to locked detention was experienced statewide in FY 2018.
Length of stay for youths admitted to locked detention who were waiting for a placement decreased substantially.
A policy change to detention that went into effect in FY 2018 was new admission guidelines. 28 The intent of these guidelines is to help reserve locked detention so that only youths who pose a substantial risk to public safety are admitted to these facilities.29 Given this, these guidelines may affect the number of admissions to locked detention. This section provides an overview of detention admission from FY 2015 to 2018.
Figure 16 shows the process that involves admission to locked detention after arrest. In general, a youth may be taken to locked detention or an alternative placement by law enforcement upon arrest. Youths who meet admission guideline criteria can be admitted to locked detention. These youths can also be referred to an alternative placement. Youths who do not meet the guideline’s criteria are referred to an alternative placement.
Figure 17 shows the admissions to locked detention from FY 2015 to 2018. These admissions decreased every year presented here. The rate of decline in FY 2018 appears to be greater than in previous years. At this stage, it is unknown whether this decline can be attributed to policy changes. (Please see Table A9 in Appendix for the count of detention admissions by reason from FY 2015 to 2018).
Figure 17 Instructions. The reader can hover over the bars in Figure 17 to activate a pop out box that shows the number of admissions to Locked Detention in a given year (e.g., there were 3,776 admissions to Locked Detention in FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Figure 18 Instructions. The reader can compare the FY 2015 to 2017 averages to FY 2018 by clicking on the Play button in Figure 18. Also, the reader can hover over the bars in the figure to activate a pop out box that shows the percent of referrals by offense severity that resulted in an NJA in these years. The figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Table 4 Instructions. The reader can sort Table 4 columns in ascending or descending order by clicking on their titles.
Figure 19 Instructions. The reader can hover over the points that represent different JJS Locked Detention facilities in Figure 19 to activate a pop out box that compares the number of admissions in FY 2017 and FY 2018 (e.g., Cache Valley had 357 admissions in FY 2017 and 174 in FY 2018). Also, the figure can be adjusted using a variety of options by mousing over the upper right corner and clicking on the icons that appear in a horizontal menu.
Table 6 shows the percent of admissions to locked detention by race and ethnicity. The table also includes the percent of Utah’s population based on these groups. The information in the table suggests that locked detention admissions do not reflect the state’s demographic profile. 30 (Please see Table A11 in Appendix for the data behind the table).
Table 6 Instructions. The reader can sort Table 6 columns in ascending or descending order by clicking on their titles.
Table 7 shows the changes in the percent of decisions from Detention Hearings. Decisions that resulted in a continued stay in locked detention and released to Home Detention decreased. Decisions that results in a release from locked detention increased. (Please see Table A12 in Appendix for the count of detention hearing decisions for FY 2015 to 2018).
Table 7 Instructions. The reader can sort Table 7 columns in ascending or descending order by clicking on their titles.
What does the policy accomplish?
Ensuring that youths who enter the juvenile justice system are provided with evidence-based programming and practices is a central aspect of HB 239. Such an emphasis assures that the system is using the best available avenues to meet the goals of juvenile justice policies.
Section Highlights
The keystone of Utah’s juvenile justice system is the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) model. This model provides an evidence-based framework to providing youths who have contact with the system the level and type of service that will produce the best possible outcome.
The Division of Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) is moving toward meeting HB 239 standards through implementing the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) in its Residential Programs.
Implementation of evidence-based practices is an intensive process requiring time, resources, oversight and attention to quality and fidelity.
HB 239 supports the use of evidence-based practices. The bill defines evidence-based as
“…a program or practice that has had multiple randomized control studies or a meta-analysis demonstrating that the program or practice is effective for a specific population or has been rated as effective by a standardized program evaluation tool.”31
Evidence-based practices are the best options to meet the goals of HB 239. Utahns can have confidence in these approaches because they have been shown to work. The Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC) has supported the implementation and expansion of these services. This includes working toward statewide expansion of evidence-based programs and practices for youths who have contact with Utah’s Juvenile Court and JJS. This section explores this effort for screening, assessment, and case planning by the Juvenile Court and JJS as well as for JJS Custody Services.While Utah has made substantial efforts in incorporating an evidence-based approach in juvenile justice it is important to note that mplementation of evidence-based practices is an intensive process requiring time, resources, oversight and attention to quality and fidelity.
Utah’s Juvenile Justice System
Utah’s juvenile justice system is founded on the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model.32 This approach is evidence-based in that decades of research shows that it generates positive outcomes when used with youths who enter the justice system. Under this model, a validated risk assessment tool is administered to youths who have engaged in delinquent behavior to help understand the likelihood that they will reoffend. This risk level should guide the level of services and placement of the youth. Research shows that the best outcomes are achieved when youths who are low risk to reoffend receive little to no services and youths who are higher risk are provided with more intensive programming.
The services provided to youths who are moderate to high risk to reoffend should be determined by a needs assessment. These assessments should include items within eight broad categories that have been shown to be connected with the likelihood that a youth will reoffend. These domains include 1) delinquency history, 2) antisocial personality pattern, 3) procriminal attitudes, 4) procriminal associates, 5) substance abuse, 6) family/marital, 7) school/work, 8) leisure/recreation.33 The results of the assessment highlight the factors that are reducing or exacerbating a youth’s risk to reoffend (i.e., protective factors and risk factors). These factors are then used to drive a youth’s case plan.
Decisions about the level of contact and services provided to youths who enter Utah’s juvenile justice system are based on the results of risk and needs assessments that have been validated for this purpose in Utah.34 Currently, all youths who are referred to the Juvenile Court are administered the Pre-Screen Risk Assessment (PSRA). This relatively short tool assesses whether a youth is low, moderate, or high risk to reoffend. All youths who 1) have contact with the juvenile court and are identified as moderate or high risk to reoffend or 2) are ordered to JJS custody are administered a lengthier risk and needs assessment, the Protective and Risk Assessment (PRA). This tool also identifies the risk level of a youth, but goes a step beyond by assessing the youth’s risk and protective factors which are then used to guide a youths’ case plan. .
In the past, screening, assessment, and case planning efforts were reserved for youths whose offenses were petitioned and adjudicated in formal Juvenile Court hearings. With the passing of recently enacted policies, this process now extends to all youths who are referred to the Juvenile Court. This means that a youth’s risk level is assessed no matter if they receive an NJA or go before the Juvenile Court. Also, all youths who are identified as moderate to high risk to reoffend will receive the relatively lengthier needs assessment to determine what services will best help reduce the chance that they will reoffend regardless if they experience an NJA or adjudication by the Juvenile Court.
JJS Custody Services
In this report, JJS Custody Services refers to services provided by JJS to youths ordered to JJS custody by the Juvenile Court. 35 JJS provides services to youths who are ordered to a Community Placement or Secure Care commitment by the Juvenile Court. JJS Case Management and Secure Care Facilities provide these services along the Wasatch Front. JJS Case Management and Youth Centers provide these services in rural areas.
The agency uses the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) to fulfill the HB 239 requirements. The CPC is an evidence-based program evaluation tool that assesses the degree to which a program adheres to standards that have been shown to reduce the likelihood youths will reoffend. This entails a rigorous process over many years. Programs receive scores on a four tiered scale. These scores are paired with recommendations for improvement. Most programs receive low ratings in the first few years of CPC implementation. However, programs that commit to applying evidence-based principles will eventually achieve high ratings.
The Social Research Institute (SRI) performs these evaluations for JJS custody programs. JJS and SRI are partnering to roll this process out to all JJS Custody Programs over the next few years. Future reports will include more details about this progress.
Why is reinvestment important?
Utah juvenile justice policies are centered on preventing youths from engaging in delinquent behaviors. Research shows that this is achieved when services match the risk and needs of youth. This requires that the system reinvests funds into services that have been shown to work for youths similar to those in Utah. The intent of recently enacted policies is hence to continue to funnel tax dollars toward services that help Utah youths and families the best way possible.
This section provides information on HB 239 related expenditures for JJS, the Utah Juvenile Court, and the Attorney General’s Office. Each of these agencies focused on using funds to support the intent of Utah’s juvenile justice policies of maximizing positive outcomes for Utahns.
As directed by HB 239, JJS made several changes to its programs and practices. Specifically, JJS closed all of their Work Camps and Residential Observation & Assessment (O&A) programs in FY 2017. As of January 1, 2018, JJS reinvested $6.4 million from these closures. Working with CCJJ, the Division is continuing to assess how to most effectivity use these dollars. FY 2018 entailed investment in early intervention, mental health and transitional services as illustrated by Figure 20. Details about each of these reinvestment areas are provided below.
In-Home O&A became available in Logan, Cedar City, St. George, Richfield, Price, Moab, and Vernal. The estimated reinvestment for this was $728,400.36
Brief Community Intervention became available in Logan, Cedar City, St. George, Richfield, Price Moab and Vernal. This is associated with an estimated reinvestment of $1,192,400.
Day Skills Intervention became available in Ogden, Salt Lake, Provo, St. George, and Vernal. This was estimated as a $1,343,700 reinvestment.
School Based Outreach became available in Cedar City, St. George, Richfield, Price, Moab, and Vernal at an estimated reinvestment of $974,800.
Home Detention became available in Logan, Price, Blanding, and Vernal. This corresponds to a reinvestment of $428,700.
Adult Living for Transitional Achievement (ALTA) programs were opened in Provo and Ogden. This results in a reinvestment of $1,616,500.
A Transition Services Staff worker was added. This is associated with a reinvestment of $103,000.
A Clinical Supervisor was added. This is associated with a reinvestment of $98,400.
JJS and the Department of Human Services (DHS) are committed to a continued focus on reinvesment that will result in additional supports to reduce youth involvement with the juvenile justice system, including:
Increased community partnerships through direct care and early intervention contracts.
Ongoing development of a performance based contracting system. This system will provide incentives for using evidence-based practices and promotes service delivery in rural areas.
A commitment to evaluate current outcomes and community partnership opportunities to sustain and strengthen early intervention programming established following the passing of HB 239.
The Utah Juvenile Court was appropriated $1 million for HB 239 related programming initiatives. Details about the HB 239 related expenditures follow.
The Juvenile Courts’ FY 2018 expenses included 2.5 FTE at a cost of $179,883. This included salaries and benefits for 2 full time Evidence-Based Practice/Quality Assurance Coordinators and 0.5 Finance Officer/Performance Based Contracting Specialist. Information technology (IT) related costs accounted for $1,074,480 and involved 12.5 full-time employees that worked on various projects. Overall, the agency spent $1,254,480 on HB 239 related projects. Funds that surpassed the $1 million mark were obtained by reallocating funds from deferring IT projects.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) was appropriated $178,000 to provide counsel in HB 239 Implementation. According to this agency, $172,108 has been spent from these funds. The agency reported that most of the expense for this program was for staff time, including one AAG as well as paralegal and secretarial support and supervision ($154,739), travel ($4,309) and operational expenses ($13,061).
The AGO completed the following as a result of the above summarized expenses.
Implemented an ongoing education track for the major partners involved in the juvenile justice system: courts, the Division of Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS), and county prosecutors. This includes engaging in multiple trainings and discussions with these groups, as well as conducting presentations at the DJJS Basic Orientation Academy, the Juvenile Justice Statewide Conference, and other gatherings.
Monitored cases at DJJS and the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) to ensure compliance with HB 239, particularly those centered on children with serious mental health or high behavioral needs who may be at greater risk for adverse custody events and/or those that require specialized placement creation/procurement.
Responded to requests to provide general counsel on the new statutory requirements to DJJS staff, including clarification on points of law or implementation analysis. The AGO has attended frequent internal meetings of DJJS staff and external meetings between DJJS and their partners, as well as state commissions and committees, to ensure that policies and policy decisions are HB 239 compliant.
Drafted and/or reviewed a wide range of documents including, but not limited to, youth assessments, contracts, MOUs, and statements of work to ensure the smooth implementation of the statute and compliance with statute and the DJJS policy agenda.
Presented at the Juvenile Court Judges Conference and attending local district round table meetings to respond to specific questions about the law in a manner that circumvents contravention of the new law and facilitates a strong relationship with and a lasting change of the judiciary’s understanding of the new law, since local prosecutors lack the expertise to engage judges on these issues and do not have the same incentives as DJJS to encourage compliance.
Identified and continued to work with DJJS on liability pitfalls such as unlawful detention of minor immigrants who may be eligible for refugee or asylum status and unlawful detention of high-needs individuals.
This report centers on HB 239 policies that went into effect in FY 2018. The measures in this report show system movements in a number of areas. Although the measures are useful in understanding system changes at this early stage, important limitations should be recognized.
While Utah has robust juvenile justice and child welfare data systems, data collection always entails some degree of error.
Also, in a real-world context, many external factors cannot be considered. This limits the ability to connect trends to particular policies.
Finally, it would be unrealistic to expect that all intended changes would be realized at this early stage of the process.
HB 239 policies are based on three goals: promoting public safety, holding juvenile offenders accountable, and controlling costs. Current policies seek to reach these objectives with
Standardized criteria around the use of non-judicial adjustments that divert low-level youths from further involvement with the system,
Reliance on services in the community rather than the juvenile justice system to address school based behaviors,
New guidelines around the use of locked detention, and
A focus on evidence-based programs and practices.
This annual report provides initial insight on how well the system is adjusting to many of the policies in HB 239, while providing information on system-wide trends. At year one of implementation, early data indicate Utah relied on community resources more, progressed in standardizing decision-making, and advanced measurement of how well juvenile justice approaches meet evidence-based standards. These efforts lay the foundation for meeting HB 239 goals.
FY 2018 findings are encouraging. However, advancing these results requires high quality implementation. Critical factors of this include training, effective resource allocation, system-wide support, and time. Along the way, we need to continue to measure performance through data and stakeholder input. Then, we can engage in informed decision-making as we move forward.
This appendix includes all aggregate data presented in figures and tables throughout this report. The purpose is to foster transparency in, and reproducibility of, CCJJ research.
Table A1 shows the annual count of different initial intake decisions. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 8 and Figure 9 in Nonjudicial Adjustments.
Table A2 shows the annual count of different referrals and NJAs to the Juvenile Court by risk level. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 10 and Figure 11 in Nonjudicial Adjustments.
Table A3 shows the quarterly count of different referrals and NJAs to the juvenile court by offense severity. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 12 and Figure 13 in Nonjudicial Adjustments.
Table A4 shows the average annual count of different referrals to the juvenile court by court district for the FY 2015 to 2017 combined and the annual count of these referrals for FY 2018. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 12 in Nonjudicial Adjustments.
Table A5 shows the average annual count of different referrals and NJAs to the juvenile court by race and ethnicity in the three years preceding HB 239 combined and the one year after on its own. These numbers provide the foundation for Table2 in Nonjudicial Adjustments.
Table A6 shows the annual count of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers by referral source. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 14 in Early Intervention - Responses to School Based Behaviors.
Table A7 shows the annual count of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers by facility. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 15 in Early Intervention - Responses to School Based Behaviors.
Table A8 shows the annual count of referrals to JJS Receiving Centers by recorded race and ethncity of youths. These numbers provide the foundation for Table 3 in Early Intervention - Responses to School Based Behaviors.
Table A9 shows the annual count of admissions to JJS Locked Detention facilities by recorded admission reason. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 17 in the Locked Detention section of this report.
Table A10 shows the quarterly count of and length of stay for releases from JJS Locked Detention facilities by recorded admission reason. These numbers provide the foundation for Table 4 in the Locked Detention section of this report.
Table A11 shows the annual count of admissions to JJS Locked Detention facilities by recorded race and ethnicity of youths. These numbers provide the foundation for Table 6 in the Locked Detention section of this report.
Table A12 shows the annual count of results of detention hearings. These numbers provide the foundation for Table 7 in the Locked Detention section of this report.
Table A13 shows the quarterly count of referrals to the Juvenile Court by the most serious charge from the referral. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 3 in System Trends.
Table A14 shows the average annual count of referrals to the Juvenile Court by the PSRA risk level37 for FY 2015 to 2017 combined and FY 2018 on its own. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 4 in the System Trends section of this report.
Table A15 shows the average annual referrals to the Juvenile Court by the offense severity for FY 2015 to 2017 combined and FY 2018 on its own. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 5 in System Trends.
Table A16 shows the average annual referrals to the Juvenile Court by recorded race and ethnicity of youths for FY 2015 to 2017 combined and FY 2018 on its own. These numbers provide context for the report.
Table A17 shows the quarterly count of youths served and service episodes for JJS Community Placement. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 6 in System Trends.
Table A18 shows the admissions to Locked Detention by facility. These numbers provide the foundation for Figure 19 in the Locked Detention section of this report.
The system is assured that the best possible outcomes are fostered when evidence-based programs and practices are implemented with quality and fidelity.↩
Please refer to Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (Sixth ed.) for an overview of the research prescription for matching youth needs with services in the justice system.↩
Fiscal years range from July 1st to June 30th.↩
House Bill 239 can be found here. Information about this legislation can also be found here.↩
Please see Policy Implementation Timeline of this report for details about HB 239 policy implementation timeframes.↩
The flowcharts in this report are based on the work of Leila Khelfaoui and Tessa Upin from the Crime and Justice Institute.↩
Please see § 53G-8-211 of HB 132 for details.↩
Quote from the JJS website.↩
Quote from the Utah Courts.↩
Please visit the CCJJ website for a listing and summary of JJOC meetings in FY 2018.↩
Please click here for more information about this initiative.↩
Here the word “referral” means a number of incidents that occurred on the same day, with the same referral number, and referral agency. The Administrative Office of the Courts refers to this as “episodes.”↩
This includes behaviors that do not fall under felony type or violent behaviors.↩
Research suggests that youth, families, and communities experience better outcomes when youth who are low risk to reoffend are held accountable through diversion outside of the court.↩
Please see HB 239 or the NJA flowchart for details about these criteria.↩
It should be noted that this measure is limited in that it does not show whether the youthS who were offered NJAs 1) were low-level offenders, 2) accept the NJA offer, 3) successfully completed the terms of the NJA agreement. Also, pending intake decisions limits the ability to draw conclusions about the proportion of episodes that are petitioned to court or receive a nonjudicial adjustment. According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, pending intake decisions should be resolved and their data should be reasonably reliable within 3 to 6 months of the initial intake decision.↩
Episodes with an initial nonjudicial adjustment may result in a petition if the nonjudicial adjustment is not successful. Currently, AOC is working to build a non-successful indicator for nonjudicial adjustment into the Court and Agencies Record Exchange (CARE) data system.↩
For a deeper analysis of rates of contact with the system given race/ethnicity characteristics, please refer to the Disproportionate Minority Contact Reports found at the CCJJ website.↩
Please refer to previous JJS Annual Reports for historical JRC referral trends not included in this report.↩
HB 239 prohibits the referral of a minor who is enrolled in school to law enforcement or to the court for an alleged offense on school property that is a class C misdemeanor, an infraction, a status offense on school property, or truancy. Schools may refer a youth to the Juvenile Court if the youth refuses to engage in an evidence-based alternative under § 53G-6-201. This provision expires in 2020.↩
Please see lines 111-122 HB 132.↩
Please see System Trends in this report for the number of referrals to the Juvenile Court.↩
It should be mentioned that it is unclear whether recent increases in the number of JJS Receiving Centers referrals is a result of policies in HB 239. It may be that more youth who would have been referred to the Juvenile Court from schools in the past are now being referred to these centers instead. Or, it may be that these youth are being referred to these centers by other stakeholders and for other reasons.↩
The overall Utah population is reported here as youth enrolled in public and charter schools during the 2017 school year. The information was obtained from the Utah State Board of Education.↩
Interpretations of these differences is limited in that other points of contact a youth may have with the system are not considered (e.g. arrest, referral to juvenile court, admission to detention, and petition)↩
These are the R547 Detention Admission Guidelines, which can be found here.↩
Experts agree that locked detention should be reserved for youth who put community safety at risk if not admitted to detention. Restricting the use of locked detention is important because (1) research shows that youth who are admitted to locked detention tend to experience worse outcomes than similar youths who received alternative placement and (2) locked detention is a relatively cost-intensive resource. HB 239 includes guidelines for the use of this resource. These guidelines help ensure that placement in locked detention is reserved for appropriate youth.↩
Interpretations of these differences is limited in that other points of contact a youth may have with the system are not considered (e.g. arrest, referral to juvenile court, admission to detention, and petition)↩
Please see lines 2641 to 2643 of HB 239.↩
Please refer to Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (Sixth ed.) for a detailed explanation of this model and the research that backs it.↩
Please refer to Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (Sixth ed.) for more information.↩
DeWitt, J., & Lizon, R. (2008). The Utah Pre-Screen Risk Assessment (PSRA) and the Protective and Risk Assessment (PRA) Validation Study. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Adminstrative Office of the Courts and Division of Juvenile Justice Services.DeWitt, J. R., Poulson, R. N., & Wetherly, E. (2016). The Utah Pre-Screen Risk Assessment (PSRA) and the Protective and Risk Assessment (PRA) Validation Study II. Salt Lake City: Utah Adminstrative Office of the Courts and Division of Juvenile Justice Services.↩
These youths may also receive services from private providers contracted by JJS, but these are not included in this report.↩
The agency experienced a budget cut for these services, but met its target of offering the service statewide by restructuring it.↩
The term PSRA Risk Level refers to the level of risk determined by Utah’s Pre-Screen Risk Assessment and Protective and Risk Assessment.↩