Current Juvenile Justice Policies

Decades of literature has shown that system resources are best reserved for youths who have been assessed as moderate to high risk to engage in sustained delinquent behavior. Historically, in Utah as with the nation as a whole, the common practice was to refer youths to the system regardless of offense type or risk to reoffend. This practice resulted in high short term costs and poor long term outcomes. Our state leaders responded by shaping policies that support the system reaching better outcomes through a more tailored approach. Through collaborative effort, Utah adopted a package of policies, House Bill (HB) 239, to help the system move toward a better place by specifically preventing deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system for lower level youths, protecting public safety by focusing system resources on youths who pose the highest risk to public safety and improving outcomes through reinvestment and increased system accountability. HB 239 was signed into law in March 2017. Two further pieces of legislation, HB 132 and HB 404, were passed with the intention that they would support the implementation of the new direction represented by HB 239.

Row

Policy Implementation Timeline

The below timeline shows the effective dates for recent juvenile justice policies. A small set of policies went into effect in FY 2018 while the rest did so in FY 2019. 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.

Column

Row

Stakeholder Efforts in FY 2019

With the passing of HB 239, HB 132, and HB 404, stakeholders continue to support implementation and oversight efforts. The Utah Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC) meets on a quarterly basis while the working groups meet as needed, depending on the targeted project or subject area. ¹ Described below are the working groups for FY 2019.

Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee

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 outcome measures that pertain to juvenile justice policies. The group’s efforts in FY 2019 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 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.

Education Working Group This group works to identify resources to lend support to schools and education partners in preventing and intervening with youths who have engaged in school misbehavior. The group also promotes positive school climate across all local education agencies while connecting with parents and the community at large for services and resources.

Row

Definitions

Utah has eight judicial districts that covers the state’s 29 urban and rural counties. The Figure below shows the geographical boundaries for these districts as shown by the color-coded regions.

Adjudication: The court process that determines if a minor 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.

CODA. This is an acronym for a Court Order Determination Assessment. If the Juvenile Court finds that a child is at risk of being removed from the home or that the family is in crisis, the court may order DCFS to complete a CODA to determine if DCFS in-home services are appropriate. The CODA aligns with best practices and replaces the current 5-day notice assessment and Home and Family Risk Assessments.

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.

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.

Home Detention: An alternative to Locked Detention for youths awaiting a Juvenile Court hearing for a new delinquent offense.

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.”

Figure 1 shows the process that involves admission to Locked Detention after arrest. In general, youths may be taken to Locked Detention or an alternative placement by law enforcement upon arrest. Youths who meet admission guideline criteria and are not eligible for diversion from Locked Detention through the detention risk assessment tool (DRAT) process 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 or are identified as being eligible for diversion from admission to Locked Detention are referred to an alternative placement. Additionally, youths can be released prior to the Detention hearing by a Probation Officer.

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.

Figure 2 shows the process for offering youths an NJA. This represents one option for diverting youths from a court petition. The decision to offer youths an NJA is made under the following standards

1. Youths who are referred to the court and meet certain criteria must be offered an NJA.²

2. The Probation Officer can offer an NJA to youths who do not meet the mandatory criteria.

3. All youths who are not offered an NJA by the Probation Officer must have their circumstances reviewed by the Prosecutor.

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: A court-ordered legal status in which a youth is supervised by the probation department of the Utah Juvenile Court. Probation supervision includes assessment of the youth’s risk and needs, individualized case planning, targeted skill-building and participation in interventions and treatment programs.

PRA: The Protective & Risk Assessment (PRA) is a risk and needs assessment tool validated to assess the risk that youths 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 youths’ 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 youths 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 potentially delinquent youths are 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 JJS 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 youths who have 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 youths 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.

Row

Acknowledgements

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.

Authors

Row

Row

Limitations

While Utah has robust juvenile justice and child welfare data systems, data collection will always entail some degree of error. More importantly, the data presented in this report offers summary statistics only and does not attempt to make causal inference of any kind. Measuring changes through time can be valuable in understanding policy effects, but it also poses challenges as changes that may occur through time, not accounted for in the reform package. These factors could influence populations discussed here. Lastly, though the measures presented here are useful in understanding initial system changes, implementation of new policies and practices take time and are in need of support and resources before they can reach their full potential.

Row

Executive Summary

Policies in HB 239 elevated the use of evidence-based programs and practices in Utah’s juvenile justice system. Several broad policy objectives include: increasing public safety, holding juveniles accountable for their delinquent behavior, and controlling costs. These objectives are meant to ensure that youths are being given the best opportunity to succeed while being held accountable for their actions. This 3rd annual report provides an update on how well the juvenile justice system is adjusting to policies that went into effect in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and 2019. Findings take into account the growth in Utah’s youths population.

Overall, referral of youths to Juvenile Court are down in all judicial districts and there has been an additional $4.9 million in savings in FY 2019 that will be reinvested in front end services. Utah continued to rely more heavily on community resources, progressed in standardizing decision-making, and advanced measurement of how well juvenile justice approaches meet evidence-based standards. Highlights from this year’s report are as follow:

• Referrals to Utah’s juvenile court system continued to decrease in FY 2019. Overall, there were 17,354 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2019. This represents a decline of 5% from FY 2018 and a continuation in the general trend of decreasing referrals.

• More youths are being diverted from the system through the use of Nonjudicial Adjustments. Policies that emphasized diversion from formal juvenile court processes increased the share of youths entering an Nonjudicial Adjustment agreement from 30 to 56%. These findings are consistent among judicial districts and nonminority and minority youths.

• Standards of court supervision through Intake or Formal Probation are guided by a youth’s level of risk and needs. For FY 2019, the rate for Intake and Formal Probation differed, with Intake Probation orders increasing and the latter decreasing. The trend in Formal Probation was experienced differently among youths who identified as minority and nonminority.

• The use of Locked Detention continued to decline in FY 2019. While showing a downward trend before the implementation of HB 239, youths admitted to Locked Detention continued its downward trend in FY 2019. This trend was consistent among youths who identified as nonminority and minority.

• Amendments to Community Placement have reduced the share of youths being ordered to out of home placements. HB 239 limited the use of Community Placement to youths who are in need for residential treatment and when non-residential options have been exhausted. These orders decreased from a rate of 2.6 to 1.2 per 1000 youths. This decline was similar for youths who identified as nonminority and minority.

• The rate of admissions to Secure Care remained similar between FY 2015 and 2019. Though HB 239 restricted the use of Secure Care unless certain criteria were met, the rate of admissions remained similar between the selected time period, hovering between .5 and .6 per 1000 youths.

• Removing youths from their homes in delinquency cases with no involvement of abuse, neglect, or dependency has zeroed out in FY 2019. Policies that restricted direct removal of youths in the Division of Child and Family Services’ custody, from their home allowed more opportunities for assessments to determine whether in‐home family preservation services were appropriate.

• Savings from closing down facilities are being reinvested into the front-end of the system. The Division of Juvenile Justice Services closed a number of facilities in FY 2019. Savings realized from these closures are being held in a restrictive account for use in re-investing in important front-end services.

With a staggered implementation timeline and many moving parts, FY 2019 was the first year where all HB 239 policies went into effect. Findings indicate that while some areas are in need of further analyses, overall the system is moving in the direction of meeting HB 239 policy goals. The Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee remains committed to continue to support and evaluate the outcomes of Utah’s juvenile justice reform efforts.

Row

System Trends

While declining prior to policy reforms, referrals to Utah’s juvenile justice system continued its downward trend in FY 2019. This trend was seen across our state’s judicial districts and mainly pertained to low risk youths.

Historically, a large share of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court pertained to relatively minor levels of delinquency and even misbehaviors that do not rise to the level of delinquency.³ Because research shows that low risk youths are harmed by these practices, a core objective of HB 239 was to ensure that our juvenile justice system reserve its resources for youths charged with severe delinquent behavior and those who are at high risk of experiencing sustained delinquency without system intervention.

Overall, there were 17,354 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2019, a decline of 5% from FY 2018 and a continuation in the general trend of decreasing referrals. This reduction is substantial given that Utah’s population (of school aged children) grew about 2% each calendar year between 2014 and 2018.⁴ Furthermore, the per capita referral rate of school age children to the Juvenile Court was 58 per 1000 youths in FY 2015, and down to 40 per 1000 youths in FY 2019 (a 31% decrease). The below Figures provide information around Juvenile Court referrals, as a total, by judicial district/risk level and the intersection between Juvenile Court and local education agencies.

Overall

Figure 3 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court between FY 2015 and 2019. While declining prior to the implementation of HB 239 policies in FY 2017, the rate of referrals continued its downward trend in FY 2019, measuring at around 4 per 1000 youths (a decline of 31% between FY 2015 and 2019). This continued decline was expected given the policy changes in HB 239 and HB 132.

Referrals by Judicial District

Policies in HB 239 standardized practices and procedures in Utah’s juvenile justice system to ensure that youths are being treated the same regardless of what judicial district the delinquent behavior occurred in. Figure 4 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court by judicial district between FY 2015 and 2019. Though the number of referrals vary by district, there is an overall decreasing trend in each judicial district between these years, with some numbers remaining similar between FY 2018 and 2019.

Risk Level


Figure 5 shows Juvenile Court referrals by risk level between FY 2015 and 2019. As seen, the majority of youths that were referred to Juvenile Court were considered low risk to engage in further delinquent behaviors throughout the selected time period. Specifically, in FY 2019, 74% were assessed as low risk, 15% as moderate risk and 10% as high risk. The large share of low risk referrals is expected considering both national research and data on referrals in Utah through time.

Contempts


Figure 6 shows the number of contempt cases between FY 2015 and 2019. As seen, these cases reduced from 196 in FY 2018 to only 5 in FY 2019, a 98% decline. This stark reduction was due to the Juvenile Court’s changes in practice as Probation focused on implementing incentives and intermediate sanctions rather than directly filing Contempt for violation of court orders.

Referrals by Schools

One of the ways that youths can be referred to Juvenile Court is through a school referral. Figure 7 shows the number of referrals from schools to Juvenile Court was 2,043 in FY 2015 and 3,687 in FY 2019, a 66% increase. However this trend is largely artificial and should be interpreted with caution given that Utah’s Juvenile Court made changes to their data collection process. The “school-based” delineation in the Juvenile Court’s data system was implemented on July 30, 2017. Additionally, data for FY 2016 and 2017 included Habitual Truancy referrals that were not there in FY 2018 and parts of FY 2019. This was because HB 239 eliminated Habitual Truancy referrals to juvenile court until HB 132 allowed a temporary option for such referrals.

Habitual Truancy Referrals by Schools

Figure 8 provides the number of referrals to Juvenile Court by schools from FY 2015 to 2019 for habitual truancy. The decreasing trend in the number of habitual truancy referrals to the court can be seen prior to reform with a substantial drop to 12 in FY 2018. This stark drop is expected as HB 239 restricted such referrals. However, with the passing of HB 132, the number of referrals for FY 2019 is 171. It is expected these referrals may continue to fluctuate as annual amendments are made to juvenile justice related legislation.

Row

Nonjudicial Adjustments

HB 239 standardized the use of nonjudicial adjustments (NJAs). In FY 2019, over 55% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of these agreements. The trend in the number of youths who received an NJA slightly differed for youths identified as minority and nonminority.

Policy Summary

Nonjudicial adjustments (NJAs) are agreements between a youth (and the youths’ parents/guardians) and a Probation Officer that present youths with an opportunity to avoid having the alleged offense petitioned to court. HB 239 policies intend to ensure that youths who engage in lower-level delinquency and are low risk to reoffend are offered an NJA because research suggests that youths, families, and communities experience better outcomes when youths who are low risk to reoffend are held accountable through diversion outside of the court.

• The probation department shall offer a NJA if the minor (1) is referred for a misdemeanor, infraction, or status offense; (2) has fewer than three prior adjudications; and (3) has no more than three prior unsuccessful nonjudicial attempts

• The probation department may refer a minor who is otherwise eligible for a mandatory NJA to the prosecutor for review if: (1) a risk and needs assessment indicates the minor is high risk; or (2) a risk and needs assessment indicates the minor is moderate risk and the referral is for a class A misdemeanor violation under Title 76, Chapter 5 (person offenses) or Title 76, Chapter 9, Part 7 (voyeurism, sexual battery, lewdness involving a child).

• Efforts to effect a NJA may not extend for a period of more than 90 days without judicial approval of the court, who may extend the period for an additional 90 days.

Given these policy changes, it would be expected that the percent of youths entered into an NJA would align with the share of youths who are low risk to reoffend and engage in non-felony and non-violent behaviors. Furthermore, it is expected the time spent on an NJA should fall within the policy guidelines. The following section provides an overview of (1) the percent of NJAs entered from FY 2015 to 2019, (2) the breakdown of NJAs and petitions, (3) the number of NJAs by statewide and judicial districts, (4) the time on NJA in period, (5) the share of NJAs by youths identified as nonminority,⁵ and minority,⁶ and (6) the number of youths who entered an NJA by PSRA risk level.

Overall


Figure 9 shows the percent of youths who entered into an NJA between FY 2015 and 2019 after being referred to the Juvenile Court. While this share increased significantly between FY 2017 and 2018 (from 30 to 55%), it remained similar between FY 2018 and 2019. Specifically, 55% of youths were entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2019, a percentage increase of 83% since FY 2015.

NJA & Petitions


Figure 10 shows the number of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.⁷ As discussed in last year’s report, the number of NJAs increased significantly between FY 2017 and 2018 while the number of petitions declined. Both NJAs and petitions leveled off a bit between FY 2018 and 2019.

NJAs by Judicial District

Figure 11 shows the number of NJAs across Utah’s eight judicial districts for FY 2019 while further providing a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful and unsuccessful. Across all districts, the vast majority of NJAs were deemed as successful.

Time on NJA in Period

Figure 12 shows the percentage breakdown as it relates to the length of time youths spend on an NJA. An \(\approx\) 57% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 28% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 15% over 121 days.⁸ While changes in policy reform provide a 90 day timeframe for NJAs, the time on an NJA may fluctuate depending on whether a judge grants an extension to the NJA.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 13 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority who entered into an NJA for FY 2015 to 2019. It is expected that youths who are low risk to reoffend and engage in non-violent behaviors enter an NJA. This should hold regardless of demographic characteristics of youths. As shown in the figure, the share of NJAs slightly decreased for nonminority youths while a slight increase can be seen with minority youths for FY 2019. It should be noted that 387 youths were identified as unknown in FY 2019. Unknown data were not available for FY 2015 - 2018.

Risk Level

Figure 14 shows the percent of NJAs by risk level from FY 2015 to 2019. NJAs were largely comprised of youths who were low risk to reoffend in FY 2019. The number of NJAs to those youths with a missing risk level continued to decline in FY 2019. Such a decline is attributed to an increased effort of screening youths at intake.

Row

Locked Detention

Locked Detention is costly and is harmful for youths who have not engaged in severe levels of delinquency. Findings show that the rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention continued to decline statewide in FY 2019. This trend was consistent among youths who identified as nonminority and minority.

Policy Summary

Experts agree that restricting the use of Locked Detention is important. The reason behind this is two-fold: (1) local data patterns show 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. To ensure that the system is utilizing Locked Detention in a manner consistent with best practices, HB 239 supported the following policies:

• Detention admission guidelines - these guidelines provide structured criteria that ensure that Locked Detention is reserved for use with youths who have engaged in relatively severe levels of delinquency.

• Detention risk assessment tool - this process includes an empirically based instrument that estimates the likelihood that youths will reoffend as well as criteria for mandatory admission to Locked Detention of youths regardless of their likelihood to reoffend.

• Detention length of stay - A minor may not be held in detention longer than 72 hours following a disposition order of the Court. The Court may extend the period of detention for seven calendar days. The Court may further extend the period of detention if the Court finds that JJS does not have space for the minor and the safety of the minor and community requires an extension. JJS shall report to the Court every 48 hours regarding the status of a placement for the minor.

Given these policy changes, it is expected the trend in admissions to Locked Detention should be guided by the utilization of the detention admission guidelines along with the results of the detention risk assessment tool. The following section provides an overview of (1) Locked Detention facilities across the state, (2) the rate⁹ in detention admissions from FY 2015 to 2019, (3) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day¹⁰ from FY 2015 to 2019, (4) the trend in the average number of youths served each day¹¹ by individual facilities, and (5) the share of youths¹² ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,¹³ minority,¹⁴ and unknown.¹⁵ Figure 15 provides the location of Locked Detention facilities across the state.

Admissions to Locked Detention

Figure 16 shows admissions to Locked Detention from FY 2015 to 2019. The rate of admissions decreased from a rate of 8.7 per 1000 youths in FY 2015 to a rate of 3.5 per 1000 youths in FY 2019. This decline equates to \(\approx\) 60% change in rate in FY 2019 when compared to FY 2015. It is important to note that there was a downward trend in admissions to detention prior to reform in FY 2017. It is expected for the decline to continue as policies focused on restricting detention for youths who either (1) do not meet the detention admission guidelines or (2) assessed by the detention risk assessment tool as not meeting criteria for admission.

Average Youths Served Each Day Overall

Figure 17 shows the average number of youths served each day across all 11 detention facilities from FY 2015 to 2019. The average number of youths served each day decreased from an \(\approx\) 161 in FY 2015 to an \(\approx\) 76.4 in FY 2019. This decline equates to an \(\approx\) 53% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2019 when compared to FY 2015. This decline may be attributed to the continued decreasing trend in the number of admissions to Locked Detention.

Average Youths Served Each Day by Individual Facilities

Figure 18 shows the average number of youths served each day by detention facilities from FY 2015 to 2019. While there is some variation among individual facilities by year, there is an overall decreasing trend in the average number of youths served each day from FY 2015 to 2019.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 19 shows the percent of youths in care identified as nonminority, minority, and unknown for FY 2015 to 2019. The information in the figure suggests the share of youths in care identified as nonminority and minority stayed the same in FY 2018 and 2019.

Row

Probation

Policies in HB 239 reinforced the alignment of court supervision standards to a youth’s level of risk and needs. In FY 2019, fewer youths were placed on Formal Probation while being presented with more opportunities for diversion or a less intense level of court supervision. The trend in Formal Probation was experienced differently among youths who identified as minority and nonminority.

Policy Summary

HB 239 reinforced that standards of supervision should be individualized and guided by a youth’s risk and needs levels. Utah has two levels of court ordered probation: Intake Probation and Formal Probation. Initially, all youths who enter the justice system are given a probation officer regardless of the severity of the alleged offense. This first contact with the Probation Officer takes place at the Preliminary Interview where the assessments are conducted and the NJA is offered (if applicable). If youths assess at a higher risk level and present with higher needs, they may be placed on Formal Probation where there will be a higher level of supervision by the Juvenile Court. HB 239 also focused on setting presumptive time limits to assure that cases do not linger in the system (e.g. for fines only) after the youths complete the majority of their court obligations.

• July 2018 - Probation conditions shall be: individualized, based on risk and needs, and based on information provided to the Court. Prohibits standard orders that include control-oriented conditions. The Court shall establish a presumptive term of probation. The presumptive maximum for Intake Probation shall not exceed three months. The presumptive maximum for Formal Probation shall not exceed four to six months. The Court shall terminate probation after the presumptive term unless: termination of jurisdiction would interrupt a necessary treatment program; the minor commits a new misdemeanor type or felony type offense; service hours have not been completed; or there is an outstanding fine.

Given these policy changes, it is expected the level of court supervision, Intake or Formal Probation, and subsequent standards of supervision be individualized and guided by a youth’s risk and needs. The following section provides an overview on Intake and Formal Probation in these areas (1) the rate youths are ordered to probation, (2) time in period for completion, (3) the number of orders to probation by youths identified as nonminority,¹⁶ and minority,¹⁷ and (4) the number of youths by PSRA risk level.

Overall


Figure 20 shows the orders to Intake and Formal Probation from FY 2018 to 2019. The rate of orders for Intake Probation increased from a rate of 4.91 per 1000 youths in FY 2018 to a rate of 6.84 per 1000 youths in FY 2019. This increase equates to an \(\approx\) 40% change in rate in FY 2019 when compared to FY 2018. On the other hand, the rate of orders for Formal Probation decreased from a rate of 5.4 per 1000 youths in FY 2018 to a rate of 4.82 per 1000 youths in FY 2019. This decline equates to an \(\approx\) 11% change in rate in FY 2019 when compared to FY 2018.

Time on Probation in Period

Figure 21 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Intake and Formal Probation. An \(\approx\) 30% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 45% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 23% between 181-360 days. For Formal Probation, an \(\approx\) 24% were on were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 40% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 30% between 181-360 days. While changes in policy reform provide a 90 day timeframe for Intake Probation and 120-180 days for Formal Probation, the time on probation may vary depending on the individualized probation orders or if there are changes in statutory guidelines. It is also important to note, the small percentage of Intake or Formal Probation falling around the 360 days time period is likely due to data errors in cases not being closed in CARE.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 22 shows the number of youths identified as nonminority and minority who were ordered to Formal or Intake Probation. The share of Intake Probation orders increased for youths identified as nonminority while the share of Formal Probation orders increased for youths identified as minority. Note: 387 youths were identified as unknown in FY 2019. Unknown data was not available for FY 2015 - 2018.

Risk Level

Figure 23 shows the percent of Formal and Intake Probation orders by risk level from FY 2018 to 2019. As expected, a larger share of low risk youths accounted for Intake Probation compared to Formal Probation.

Row

Community Placement

Community Placements should be used once non-residential options have been exhausted. The number of youths ordered to Community Placement continued to decline in FY 2019. This downward trend was experienced similarly among youths identified as nonminority and minority.

Policy Summary

Community Placement is for youths ordered into the custody of JJS and are usually private residential settings outside of the home. Placements could include Group Homes, Proctor Placements, and Independent Living programs. Stakeholders agree that restricting the orders of community out-of-home placements is crucial because (1) the pattern of data supports youths who are placed in state custody compared to youths on probation, the overall recidivism rates were similar and (2) community out-of-home placements is a cost intensive resource. ¹⁸

• HB 239 restricted JJS Community Placement for youths unless there is a need for residential treatment as assessed by a validated risk and needs assessment and non-residential options have been exhausted, the youths are adjudicated for one of the following (a) felony type offense; (b) misdemeanor type and they have five prior misdemeanor or felony adjudications arising from separate delinquency episodes; or (c) misdemeanor involving the use of a dangerous weapon.

Given these policy changes, it is expected the trend in orders to Community Placement should be guided by the results of a validated risk and needs assessment. The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate¹⁹ of orders to Community Placement from FY 2015 to 2019, and (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement for youths identified as nonminority,²⁰ minority,²¹ and unknown.²²

Rate of Orders to Community Placement


Figure 24 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2019. In FY 2015, this rate measured at 2.6 per 1000 youths. While showing a downward trend prior to HB 239, referrals continued to decline through FY 2018, with numbers remaining similar between FY 2018 and 2019 (at around 1.2 per 1000 youths in FY 2019).

Minority Status Overall


Figure 25 shows the make up of youths placed on Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2019. As seen, nonminority youths made up the largest share at 58% in FY 2015, followed by minority youths at around 40%. While the share of minority youths declined a few percentage points in 2016 and 2017, in FY 2018 and 2019, it increased to levels seen in FY 2015.

Row

Secure Care

Our juvenile justice system reserved Secure Care as a resource for youths who pose the highest risk to public safety. The rate of admissions to Secure Care remained similar between FY 2015 and 2019. Some differences were seen in this trend for youths identified as nonminority and minority. The use of Secure Care varied across individual facilities.

Policy Summary

Secure Care is for youths ordered into the custody of JJS by a Juvenile Court Judge with oversight by the Youth Parole Authority. JJS provides services to youths who are ordered to both a Community Placement or Secure Care commitment by the Juvenile Court. Similar to Locked Detention and Community Placement, Secure Care is a relatively cost intensive resource and should be reserved for youths who pose the highest risk to reoffend. ²³

• HB 239 restricted orders to Secure Care for youths unless they are a risk of harm to others, and are adjudicated for (1) a felony type offense, or (2) a misdemeanor type and they have five prior misdemeanor or felony adjudications arising from separate delinquency episodes; or (3) misdemeanor involving the use of a dangerous weapon.

Given these policy changes, it is expected the utilization of Secure Care should be reserved for youths who requires a higher level of system intervention. The following section provides an overview of (1) the Secure Care facilities across the state, (2) the rate²⁴ in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2019, (3) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day²⁵ from FY 2015 to 2019, (4) the trend in the average number of youths served each day²⁶ by individual secure care facilities, and (5) the share of youths²⁷ ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,²⁸ minority,²⁹ and unknown.³⁰ Figure 26 provides the location of Secure Care facilities across the state.

Admissions to Secure Care


Overall, a small share of youths that are in contact with the juvenile justice system is admitted to Secure Care. Figure 27 show trends in these admissions from FY 2015 to 2019. As seen, the rate of admissions remained similar between the selected time period, hovering between .5 and .6 per 1000 youths.

Average Youths Served Each Day Overall


Figure 28 shows the average number of youths served each day across all 6 Secure Care facilities from FY 2015 to 2019. While there is some variation, the average number of youths served each day decreased from 143.3 in FY 2015 to 121.5 in FY 2019. This decline equates to \(\approx\) 22% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2019 when compared to FY 2015. It should be noted that Wasatch Youth Center closed Secure Care services in FY 2018.

Average Youths Served Each Day by Individual Facilities

Figure 29 shows the average number of youths served each day by individual Secure Care facilities from FY 2015 to FY 2019. While some variation existed among individual facilities by year, there is an overall decreasing trend in the average number of youths served each day from FY 2015 to 2019. It should be noted that Farmington Bay Youth Center did not provide secure services in FY 2015 and that Wasatch Youth Center closed Secure Care services in FY 2018.

Minority Status Overall


Figure 30 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were ordered to Secure Care for FY 2015 to 2019. While youths identified as minority continue to make up a disproportionate large share of Secure Care admissions, the rate in this growth appears to have slightly declined in FY 2018 and 2019.³¹

Row

Child Welfare and Juvenile Delinquency

Policies in HB 239 emphasized the need of an assessment before removing youths from their home in delinquency cases. As a result, in FY 2019 there were no cases wherein youths were placed in DCFS custody before an assessment was conducted. And as expected, the number of assessments increased from 121 in FY 2018 to 135 in FY 2019.

Policy Summary

HB 239 restricted direct orders for removal of youths from their home and to DCFS custody in delinquency cases. However, if the juvenile court has reasonable suspicion that abuse, neglect, or dependency is present in a youth’s case, HB 239 created the option for an order to DCFS for an assessment (Court Order Determination Assessment). Based on the results of the assessment, the court can order in-home DCFS family services for youths. Stakeholders supported this change because local data found (1) youths in delinquency cases were placed in non-secure out-of-home placements where youths with no delinquency history were also housed and (2) variation among districts of orders to DCFS custody in delinquency cases without a finding of abuse, neglect or dependency.

• The Court may not order custody to DCFS in delinquency cases not involving abuse, neglect, or dependency. Courts may order a Court Order Determination Assessment (CODA) of a minor by DCFS to determine whether in‐home family preservation services are appropriate. Requires DCFS to provide in-home family services if ordered by the Court. Removes mandate for JJS to provide services to minors placed in the custody of DCFS for reasons other than abuse or neglect. Removes requirement to establish programs for minors who are placed with DCFS based on delinquency.

Given these policy changes, it is expected the number of Direct Orders to DCFS should be minimal and the number of CODAs should align with cases where there may be an involvement of abuse, neglect, or dependency. The following section provides an overview of (1) the number of DCFS Direct Orders and (2) the number of CODAs.

Direct Orders


Figure 31 shows the number of direct court order cases to DCFS with ungovernable, delinquency, status offense as a primary reason from FY 2015 to 2019. As shown, the number of direct orders zeroed out in FY 2019 due to policy restrictions. Though, HB 239 closed the doors for delinquency cases going straight to DCFS, youths may still be referred to child welfare services through other resources.

Court Order Determination Assessment (CODAs)

Figure 32 shows the number of CODAs from FY 2018 to 2019. As the number of direct orders to DCFS continued to decline and eventually zero-ing out, the number of CODAs increased from 121 in FY 2018 to 135 in FY 2019 respectively.

Row

Reinvestment

Reinvest in front-end evidence-based services and programming to prevent deeper involvement with the system. In FY 2019, \(\approx\) $4.9 million was saved.

Policies in HB 239 focused on preventing youths from engaging in delinquent behaviors by relying on services to match the risk and needs of youths. In doing so, the juvenile justice system should continue to respond respectively where there is a need for services and resources. Particularly where there are savings realized from one area of decreased utilization, the system should continue to funnel tax dollars toward other services that help Utah youths and families the best way possible.

To continue to support this endeavor, HB 404 was passed in March 2019, which created the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Restricted Account to capture savings resulting from the reduction in JJS Community Placements. HB 404 authorizes the JJS to spend the funds: (a) for the statewide expansion of nonresidential community-based programs, including receiving centers; mobile crisis outreach teams, youth courts, and victim-offender mediation; (b) for nonresidential evidence-based programs and practices in cognitive, behavioral, and family therapy; (c) to implement: nonresidential diagnostic assessment; and nonresidential early intervention programs, including family strengthening programs, family wraparound services, and truancy interventions; or (d) for infrastructure in nonresidential evidence-based juvenile justice programs including staffing and transportation.

Given these policy changes, it is expected where savings continue to be realized, there should be continued reinvestment in evidence-based programming to prevent youths from having deeper involvement with the system. The following section provides information from JJS and their detailed reinvesment plan.

JJS has made several changes to its programs and practices in the past couple of years. Specifically, the agency has closed a number of programs and facilities, which has resulted in realized savings. The above graphic shows that for FY 2019, JJS has saved \(\approx\) $4.9 million which will be reinvested to pay for direct services for youths and their families. Moving forward, JJS plan to utilize the funding to develop infrastructure in nonresidential evidence-based juvenile justice programs including:

• Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
• Multi-Systemic Therapy
• Peer Supports
• Partial Day Treatment
• Respite Services
• Behavior Consultation

Row