R/ED Year Three Update 2026
Racial & Ethnic Disparities Collaborative
Utah’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities Report — Year Three
Submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Compliance Monitoring Tool.
Introduction
Utah’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities (R/ED) Collaborative operates as part of the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ). UBJJ is the State Advisory Group (SAG) and the Department of Criminal Justice (DOCJ) serves as the Designated State Agency (DSA) pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).
Designation. The R/ED Collaborative is designated as Utah’s coordinating body, composed of juvenile justice stakeholders at the state, local, or tribal levels, to advise efforts by the State, units of local government, and Indian Tribes to reduce racial and ethnic disparities.
Both the R/ED Collaborative and UBJJ are overseen by the Utah Department of Criminal Justice (DOCJ). DOCJ, previously known as the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, went through a name change and rebranding this past year to provide more clarity between the work of the department and the work of the commission itself. Senate Bill 323, Substitute 1 establishes the Utah Department of Criminal Justice under Title 75E by consolidating relevant statutes into a more intuitive, chronological framework. It is important to note that these changes are structural and do not involve substantive policy revisions.
This Racial and Ethnic Disparities Report follows the FY 2026 Title II Formula Grants Program Compliance Determination and Supporting Documentation Submission Instructions supplied by OJJDP. As part of the year three update of the R/ED action plan, states must address the following, which are designed to assist in determining progress toward identifying and reducing R/ED.
Required questions
- The state’s most recent data for juveniles in the justice system, including a discussion of whether the new data reflects a change in R/ED within the state.
- Whether the state met its goals as stated in the R/ED action plan, including a discussion of whether desired goals from previous years were met.
- If yes, what worked and what drove the success. If no, what the barriers were and how they might be overcome next year.
- How OJJDP can provide technical assistance, identifying any support needed or that no support is needed.
- How the state equipped juveniles to live crime-free, including how the mission goals connected to R/ED activities.
- The state’s R/ED goals for next year.
Statewide R/ED data
The state of Utah collects race and ethnicity data on school-aged population, arrest, court referral, diversion, pre-trial detention, and disposition commitments. The data source, time frame, definition, and notes are indicated below for each point of contact for the OJJDP 2026 Title II Formula Grants Program reporting.
Incident versus episode. Delinquency charges for a youth that occur during the same episode are counted as incidents. An episode can include multiple incidents. For example, a youth is alleged to have been involved in a fight and is charged with assault and disorderly conduct. This represents two incidents and one episode.
How each data point is collected
School-aged population
- Data source
- Utah State Board of Education
- Time frame
- Enrollment for school year 2025–2026
- Definition
- Youth in Utah ages 10 to 17 years old
Arrest
- Data source
- Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI)
- Time frame
- Federal fiscal year, 10/1/2024 – 9/30/2025
- Definition
- Youth are considered arrested when a law enforcement agency apprehends, cites, or refers a youth to Juvenile Court for having committed a delinquent act. Delinquent acts are those that, if committed by an adult, would be criminal. This includes crimes against persons, crimes against property, drug offenses, and crimes against the public order. The dataset includes youth ages 10 to 17 years old.
- Note
- Dataset reflects information submitted through the National Incident-Based Reporting System by participating law enforcement agencies. A new data sharing agreement was signed in 2024 which allows for an improved data collection process and more recent data uploads, reflecting the most recent federal fiscal year 2024 instead of past calendar years of reporting. Due to this change, it is not advised to rely on previously reported years of data.
Court referral
- Data source
- CARE, the statewide case management system for Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice & Youth Services
- Time frame
- Federal fiscal year, 10/1/2024 – 9/30/2025
- Definition
- Court referrals occur when a matter regarding a potentially delinquent youth is sent forward for legal processing and received by the Juvenile Court. The matter is either the result of law enforcement action or based upon a complaint by a school or government entity.
- Note
- Dataset represents episodes and may include duplications.
Court diversion
- Data source
- CARE, the statewide case management system for Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice & Youth Services
- Time frame
- Federal fiscal year, 10/1/2024 – 9/30/2025
- Definition
- Youth referred to Juvenile Court for delinquent acts are screened by the intake department. Intake may decide to dismiss the case for lack of legal sufficiency, to resolve the matter informally without the filing of charges (known as a non-judicial adjustment), or to resolve it formally.
- Note
- Dataset represents episodes and may include duplications.
Pre-trial locked detention
- Data source
- Juvenile Justice and Youth Services (JJYS)
- Time frame
- Federal fiscal year, 10/1/2024 – 9/30/2025
- Definition
- Youth held in a locked detention facility prior to adjudication.
- Note
- Dataset includes duplicated cases.
Dispositions: petition, probation, community placement, and secure care
- Data source
- CARE, the statewide case management system for Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice & Youth Services
- Time frame
- Federal fiscal year, 10/1/2024 – 9/30/2025
- Definition
- A disposition is any order of the court after adjudication. Community placement is residential care for youth committed to JJYS custody. Secure care is long-term locked confinement.
- Note
- Multiple dispositions are counted once based on the disposition order date. Sample sizes for community placement and secure care are significantly smaller than for other points of contact.
Data tables, 2024–2026
These tables are wide. On a narrow screen they scroll sideways, and the scrolling area can be reached and moved with the keyboard. Footnote markers link to the footnotes below the tables.
| Race or ethnicity | Population | Arrest1 (see footnote 1) | Court referral | Diversion | Pre-trial detention | Petition | Intake probation | Formal probation | Community placement2 (see footnote 2) | Secure care2 (see footnote 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 69.66% | 72.42% | 54.30% | 57.41% | 42.34% | 51.25% | 50.00% | 50.76% | 45.69% | 33.33% |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0.91% | 1.80% | 2.23% | 2.20% | 2.05% | 2.36% | 1.67% | 3.03% | 3.45% | 2.90% |
| Asian | 1.72% | 3.45% | 1.21% | 1.21% | 0.94% | 1.03% | 1.06% | 1.77% | 2.59% | 1.45% |
| Black | 1.32% | 7.88% | 5.76% | 4.21% | 10.47% | 7.79% | 4.86% | 5.81% | 8.62% | 15.94% |
| Latino or Hispanic | 21.13% | 12.38% | 29.64% | 28.58% | 39.65% | 29.87% | 35.56% | 30.56% | 33.62% | 34.78% |
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 1.62% | 1.61% | 2.02% | 1.80% | 2.51% | 2.45% | 2.58% | 1.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Multi-Racial or Other Race | 3.66% | 0.47% | 4.84% | 4.59% | 2.05% | 5.26% | 4.26% | 6.82% | 6.03% | 11.59% |
| Minority — All | 30.34% | 27.58% | 45.70% | 42.59% | 57.66% | 48.75% | 50.00% | 49.24% | 54.31% | 66.67% |
| Race or ethnicity | Population | Arrest1 (see footnote 1) | Court referral | Diversion | Pre-trial detention | Petition | Intake probation | Formal probation | Community placement2 (see footnote 2) | Secure care2 (see footnote 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 70.03% | 73.77% | 55.42% | 58.07% | 45.25% | 53.85% | 49.53% | 50.23% | 54.46% | 39.73% |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0.91% | 1.92% | 2.04% | 2.03% | 2.42% | 1.80% | 1.56% | 2.78% | 0.89% | 4.11% |
| Asian | 1.65% | 2.54% | 0.99% | 0.99% | 0.87% | 1.11% | 1.56% | 0.46% | 1.79% | 1.37% |
| Black | 1.32% | 7.07% | 6.13% | 4.31% | 11.30% | 8.05% | 6.72% | 4.86% | 9.82% | 12.33% |
| Latino or Hispanic | 20.88% | 13.02% | 28.46% | 28.23% | 36.50% | 27.97% | 33.59% | 32.64% | 30.36% | 35.62% |
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 1.57% | 1.35% | 2.02% | 2.18% | 1.68% | 1.63% | 2.34% | 0.23% | 1.79% | 0.00% |
| Multi-Racial or Other Race | 3.66% | 0.33% | 4.94% | 4.20% | 1.99% | 5.59% | 4.69% | 8.80% | 0.89% | 6.85% |
| Minority — All | 29.97% | 26.23% | 44.58% | 41.93% | 54.75% | 46.15% | 50.47% | 49.77% | 45.54% | 60.27% |
| Race or ethnicity | Population | Arrest3 (see footnote 3) | Court referral | Diversion | Pre-trial detention | Petition | Intake probation | Formal probation | Community placement2 (see footnote 2) | Secure care2 (see footnote 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 71.51% | 56.18% | 57.39% | 58.10% | 45.38% | 59.08% | 56.29% | 55.20% | 56.03% | 37.50% |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0.91% | 3.28% | 2.16% | 1.82% | 3.32% | 2.16% | 2.42% | 3.70% | 1.42% | 1.39% |
| Asian | 1.59% | 3.49% | 0.98% | 1.03% | 0.60% | 0.83% | 1.13% | 0.92% | 0.00% | 1.39% |
| Black | 1.30% | 10.40% | 5.20% | 3.92% | 10.39% | 5.98% | 4.03% | 4.85% | 6.38% | 6.94% |
| Latino or Hispanic | 19.52% | 24.89% | 30.56% | 30.75% | 37.76% | 29.13% | 32.90% | 32.33% | 50.50% | 48.61% |
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 1.50% | 1.76% | 1.81% | 2.33% | 0.85% | 1.10% | 2.26% | 1.15% | 2.13% | 0.00% |
| Multi-Racial or Other Race | 3.67% | 0.00% | 1.91% | 2.05% | 1.69% | 1.72% | 0.97% | 1.85% | 3.55% | 4.17% |
| Minority — All | 28.49% | 43.82% | 42.62% | 41.90% | 54.61% | 40.92% | 43.71% | 44.80% | 63.98% | 62.50% |
Table footnotes
- Data set reflects a new data collection process starting in the 2025 Compliance Monitoring Tool numbers. Return to Table A
- Sample sizes for community placement and secure care are significantly smaller than for other points of contact. Return to Table A
- Data set reflects information submitted through the National Incident-Based Reporting System by participating law enforcement agencies. This is a change from previous R/ED data submissions to OJJDP. Return to Table C
Question one
Most recent data and whether it reflects a change
The state’s most recent data for juveniles in the justice system. Response should include a discussion of whether the new data reflects a change in R/ED within the state.
Decades of literature have shown that juvenile justice system resources are best reserved for youth who have been assessed as needing moderate to high risk interventions to cease sustained delinquent behavior. Historically in Utah, as with the nation as a whole, the common practice was to refer youth to the juvenile justice system regardless of offense type, needs, or risk to reoffend. This practice resulted in high short-term costs and poor long-term outcomes. A deep dive into Utah’s juvenile justice data also found that disparities by race and geography persist at every stage of the system and are most pronounced for youth removed from their homes.
Utah’s state leaders responded by shaping policies that support the system reaching better outcomes through a more tailored approach. Through a collaborative effort, Utah has adopted a package of policies, starting with House Bill 239 in 2017, to help the juvenile justice system toward:
- Preventing deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system for youth needing lower-level interventions;
- Standardizing responses to reduce disparities based on race, ethnicity, and geography;
- Protecting public safety by focusing system resources on youth who pose the highest risk to public safety; and
- Improving outcomes through reinvestment and increased system accountability.
According to Utah’s most recent 2025 Juvenile Justice Report, the per capita referral rate of school-age children to Juvenile Court was 3.28 per 100 youth in calendar year 2024. This represents approximately a 30% decrease in court referrals compared with the rate from state fiscal year 2017 (4.65 per 100 youth). This overall reduction in court referrals is significant because Utah’s youth population also steadily grew during that same time period.
A note on comparability. There has been a different interpretation of Utah statute data requirements this past year, and reporting for the 2025 Juvenile Justice Report has transitioned from fiscal year to calendar year. As a result, it may be difficult to compare data year to year in that specific report. The figure of 3.28 per 100 youth for calendar year 2024 is reflected in the 2025 Juvenile Justice Report. For purposes of OJJDP’s Title II reporting, Utah continues to report the federal fiscal year.
Youth population
Over the past three reporting periods, Utah’s minority youth population has steadily grown — from 28.49% in the data for the 2024 Title II Solicitation, to 29.97% in the 2025 data, and to 30.34% in the current 2026 data. In the most recent data set, the largest minority youth population was youth identified as Latino or Hispanic (21.13%), followed by Multi-racial or Other Race (3.66%), Asian (1.72%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (1.62%), Black (1.32%), and American Indian or Alaska Native (0.91%).
It is worth noting that through the CARE system, the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, of which JJYS is a division, began reporting on a new race and ethnicity category. Middle Eastern or North African reflects the Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (SPD 15). However, due to a small sample size (fewer than five), this group was combined with Multi-racial or Other Race to protect data privacy.
Points of contact
For the data prepared for the 2026 Title II Solicitation, minority youth represented 27.58% of arrests, 45.70% of court referrals, 57.66% of pre-trial locked detention, 48.75% of petitions, 50.00% of intake probation dispositions, 49.24% of formal probation dispositions, 54.31% of community placement dispositions, and 66.67% of secure care dispositions. Minority youth represented 42.59% of all diversions, which is a slight increase from the previous year’s 41.93%. This indicates that minority youth continue to be diverted from the traditional juvenile court process.
The percentages for arrest, court referral, detention, petition, community placement, and secure care indicate an increase from the previous reporting period (2025 Title II data). Specifically, secure care increased from 60.27% to 66.67%, and community placement increased from 45.54% to 54.31%. However, variations in the percentage share for community placement and secure care cases are expected because the sample size is small. The percentages for intake probation and formal probation decreased from the previous reporting period.
Regarding arrest data, while the 2026 figure (27.58%) is a slight increase over the 2025 figure (26.23%), it remains significantly lower than the 2024 figure (43.82%). As noted in previous updates, this sharp variation between 2024 and later years may be due to a change in the data collection process and data sharing agreement with the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification.
Summary. From a percentage share perspective, there continues to be an overrepresentation of minority youth at the points of court referral, pre-trial locked detention, and deep-end system dispositions such as community placement and secure care. Additional data analysis would need to be evaluated to meaningfully understand the significance of percentage share, as these calculations do not consider factors such as the level of referred offenses or risk assessment levels.
Question two
Whether Utah met its action plan goals
Did your state meet its goals as stated in the R/ED action plan? Response should include a discussion of whether desired goals from previous years were met.
Yes, Utah’s R/ED Collaborative met its goals for this past year.
Mission and vision for successful R/ED reduction
The mission of Utah’s R/ED Collaborative is to make available quality data, research, and culturally responsive recommendations to address and prevent racial and ethnic disparities in Utah’s youth justice system.
Successful R/ED reduction in Utah looks like empowered stakeholders and communities implementing practices that employ data-driven and best-practice approaches at all levels within and outside of the juvenile justice system. Utah’s R/ED Collaborative envisions a youth justice system that provides fair treatment for all youth at all points of contact in the system. Such a system requires the following:
- Partners and communities working together to identify areas of disparities and creating opportunities for impacted areas to be well informed and provide input on recommendations and implementation.
- Agencies and practitioners effectively providing evidence-based services that employ data-driven, best-practice approaches at all levels of the youth justice system.
Desire and goals to reduce R/ED
Utah continues to be committed to reducing R/ED across the state’s juvenile justice system. As implementation and ongoing monitoring of juvenile justice reform efforts in Utah continues, R/ED issues are being closely monitored at all points of contact. Utah is tracking the specific contact points required by OJJDP as well as other contact points important to the review and monitoring of the state’s juvenile justice system.
Overarching R/ED Collaborative goals
- Fostering strong communication and expanding partnerships between the youth justice system, law enforcement, schools, other resource providers, and geographical areas where disparities exist.
- Raising awareness among youth and their families about the youth justice system.
- Educating stakeholders on current and anticipated issues, based on data, research, and other project findings, impacting system-involved youth and their families.
- Providing opportunities for youth who have had contact with the youth justice system, and their families, to be involved with R/ED Collaborative efforts and to have their opinions and perspectives shared.
R/ED Collaborative Three-Year Plan goal
Utah has no changes to the previously submitted Three-Year Plan.
For the R/ED Collaborative’s Three-Year Plan goal, Utah will continue its focus on identifying areas in the state where there are high rates of court referrals.
This past year, Utah continued focusing on areas in the state with the highest rates of court referrals by using its Geospatial Analysis work. Phase I combines court referral rates, hot spot analysis, inter-county comparison, and episode numbers to prioritize Utah neighborhoods. This first phase tackles the question of where there are higher rates of court referrals in Utah. From that analysis, the DOCJ Juvenile Justice team has identified 100 key neighborhoods, representing 14 different counties across Utah, both urban and rural. Phase II will begin to dig into what community factors influence these rates, and how much impact these factors have on Utah’s youth and families. Utah will be adding predictive analysis, protective factors, and county-level summaries, as well as building out more space for qualitative data from youth and families themselves.
Where the Geospatial Analysis was presented this year
Phase II work includes bringing this information to interested communities. Over the last year, the Geospatial Analysis was presented to:
- Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC) Juvenile Justice working group
- DHHS Office of Substance Use and Mental Health case management training
- Youth Violence Prevention: Salt Lake County and Weber partnership
- Utah Tech Higher Education for Incarcerated Youth
- JJYS Community Engagement and Opportunity Advisory Council
- School Security Interim Taskforce
- JJYS Associate Program Director meeting
- Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Advisory Council
- Weber County Criminal Justice Advisory Council
- Carbon and Emery Juvenile Justice Roundtable
- Uplift Midvale Community Engagement Series
- Salt Lake City’s Youth and Family Division
- Day Won Mentoring and Hunter High School People of the Pacific
- Westside Leadership Institute
- Utah Association of Local Health Departments
- Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee, Utah Department of Criminal Justice
- School Security Taskforce
- Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee
Salt Lake County and Midvale
This work has led to increased involvement throughout the state. The partnership with Salt Lake County continues to grow and has had a positive impact on Utah families. Salt Lake County’s Bureau of Justice Assistance Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative project has led to a faster decrease in violence for the target city, Magna, as compared to the rest of Salt Lake County. Magna’s Mentorship, Diversion, and Coordination model is igniting interest among other Utah counties, and this, combined with work with Weber County’s Criminal Justice Advisory Council, has paved the way for similar programming in Weber County.
Salt Lake County has also highlighted Midvale City as a target city. There, Utah is using its Community Engagement Model to connect with community members, leaders, and youth. Uplift Midvale, a Communities That Care coalition, is working to identify goals for Midvale youth based on identified risk and protective factors. They will be using the feedback from the Community Engagement workshop and community walks as part of their prevention programming design. Some of this work is described in the Juvenile Justice Team blog post on Uplift Midvale.
Weber County and Ogden
Weber County has four neighborhoods in the top ten of the 100 key neighborhood list. This means Weber is a key location for partnership and community-driven organizing. Co-presenting with Salt Lake County to Weber County’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council led to a Weber and Salt Lake County prevention programming model that they took to the Utah Legislature for an appropriations request. Now awarded, Weber will begin its own prevention model, responsive to the needs and strengths of that area.
For example, Ogden City, within Weber County, already has a strong Youth Court. Although Youth Courts are part of Magna’s diversion pillar, Weber County will likely look to support and strengthen their youth court while building out programming in other areas, such as gang prevention. Utah also maintains strong relationships with a local agency, Voices for Utah Children, through their membership in the R/ED Collaborative, UBJJ, and the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee. Voices for Utah Children is organizing a new Community Center project in Ogden. Through a partnership with Ogden School District and other key partners, the Community Center seeks to meet the unique needs of the Ogden community, strengthen the district’s current partners, and provide families the opportunity to thrive. There is interest and excitement about weaving in youth justice issues, including safety and belonging, as this moves ahead.
Rural communities
Utah has also made it a goal to partner with rural communities, and is currently working with Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan counties. A judge from this area sits on the R/ED Collaborative. Collectively, these counties make up both a unified Health District and the 7th Judicial District. They also have five cities on the 100 key neighborhood list. Utah has presented to their Juvenile Justice Roundtable group and is working with them on possible next steps, including access to funding and connection to larger bodies such as the Utah Association of Counties and Emery’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils.
As an outcome of the geospatial presentation to Juvenile Justice and Youth Services, Utah has partnered on a new Data Sharing Agreement that will sustain and expand the geospatial work, incorporating data such as documented risk factors. In Utah, JJYS maintains physical custody of young people in community placement and secure care, the most restrictive placements.
Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee
In addition to this geospatial work, Utah is furthering the goals of the R/ED Collaborative by intertwining work with the state’s Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC). JJOC is statutorily responsible for gathering and analyzing data that measures the impact of juvenile justice policy changes. JJOC ensures that policy objectives are being fulfilled with implementation fidelity, oversight, data monitoring, and ongoing research evaluation. R/ED Collaborative members are invited to participate in all JJOC meetings and working groups.
Three working groups in particular are connected to R/ED goals:
- Mentorship. Exploring the creation of a mentorship clearinghouse. The clearinghouse aims to standardize training requirements for mentors and address gaps for specific youth at risk of justice involvement, or those already connected to the justice system. A variety of mentorship organizations are involved in the planning, including those who utilize mentors with system experience.
- Training and Education. Designed and organized panel presentations at two state conferences. Panel members included representatives from the R/ED Collaborative, UBJJ, and JJOC. Next, the group is partnering with JJYS to build a better narrative around how community placements, locked detention, and secure care operate to balance public safety, accountability, and rehabilitation. The Director of JJYS is the R/ED Collaborative Chair and multiple JJYS staff members are R/ED members.
- Non-Judicial Adjustment. Looking at Utah’s non-judicial adjustment process, policy, and data to analyze gaps and identify areas of improvement.
Communication and community engagement
Utah continues to communicate with partners and the community while providing the resources and tools they need to best understand the juvenile justice system, including quarterly newsletters and regular email updates to R/ED members in the months between meetings.
Utah is engaging with youth and families with lived experience in new ways. The R/ED Coordinator continues to be a representative in the JJYS Community Engagement and Opportunity Advisory Group. The group has worked collectively on a poetry project for youth in secure care, a professional clothing drive for young people going to their Parole Board hearings, and an introductory lesson on the themes of the Geospatial Analysis for their secure care Youth Councils.
This year, the R/ED Coordinator has been working closely with the JJYS Community Engagement and Opportunity Director as they pilot a Parent and Guardian Council, modeled after their Youth Councils. Education has been brought to parents on topics such as how to get involved in DOCJ’s boards and commissions, along with a presentation from Utah’s 211 scheduled in August. Utah will continue to bring information and education to these parents with the long-term goal of involving interested parents in juvenile justice work.
Utah’s State Advisory Group added three new youth members who are also attending the R/ED working group. These youth members have participated in the UBJJ grant review group and various partner presentations and tours. They have also attended a state conference, the Promising Youth Conference, and observed juvenile court hearing proceedings. A presentation from the youth members to youth in JJYS custody is currently being planned.
Question three
What worked and what drove the success
If yes, what worked? What drove the success? If no, what were the barriers? How might you overcome them next year?
Yes, Utah continues to meet its goals of partnership, education, and community engagement.
As both the Juvenile Justice Specialist and the R/ED Coordinator have completed their first year with DOCJ, they have both continued to nurture and grow key partnerships. The R/ED Collaborative continues to be involved and excited about connecting with communities through the geospatial work. Individuals from the R/ED Collaborative have connected with their communities, attended and participated in presentations, and are essential in establishing next steps.
The R/ED Coordinator position and the Juvenile Justice Specialist position, supervised by the Juvenile Justice Director, have continued their high level of cohesion. Each individual brings their own expertise and experience in youth-serving spaces while also collectively partnering on shared work and goals, creating less siloed work. They have aligned agency goals, Juvenile Justice team goals, and UBJJ and R/ED goals so that all work is interconnected. This collaboration positions the Juvenile Justice team, UBJJ, and the R/ED Collaborative as leaders in the Utah juvenile justice space.
Question four
Technical assistance from OJJDP
How can OJJDP provide technical assistance? Response must identify any support needed from OJJDP or that no support is needed.
No support is needed from OJJDP.
Utah has appreciated the support given over the last year when so much of the federal landscape was up in the air. As much as possible, Utah appreciates any effort at ongoing communication, whether directly or through contracted technical assistance providers.
Question five
Equipping youth to live crime-free
How did your state equip juveniles to live crime-free? Response should include a discussion of how the mission goals were connected in some way to R/ED activities.
Utah equips juveniles to live crime-free by directly tying the R/ED Collaborative’s overarching goals to targeted, community-level interventions and youth empowerment strategies. By executing its mission to use data-driven, evidence-based approaches, the state has linked its foundational goals to specific activities in the following ways.
Fostering communication and expanding partnerships where disparities exist
The R/ED Collaborative utilized Phase I of its Geospatial Analysis to identify 100 key neighborhoods across Utah, which helped to build localized prevention models. Collaboration with Salt Lake County resulted in a Mentorship, Diversion, and Coordination model in Magna and Midvale, which is actively decreasing youth violence in those targeted cities. Similarly, Weber County is utilizing this neighborhood data to strengthen their youth violence intervention strategies, while rural counties like Carbon and Emery are participating to strategize access to funding and explore interventions. As a working group of UBJJ, the R/ED Collaborative supports the UBJJ Grant Program, which provides funding to programs and services for delinquency prevention and intervention programming, with a special emphasis on programming targeting youth in key geographic areas.
Educating stakeholders and raising awareness among youth and families
To ensure community leaders and partners can effectively support youth, the R/ED Collaborative widely shared its geospatial data and community engagement approach with multiple local advisory councils, health departments, and task forces. By working directly with Midvale City’s coalition and youth council, information and awareness reaches those who need it most. To further equip communities with the right tools, the R/ED Collaborative is working with the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee to explore the creation of a mentorship clearinghouse. This initiative aims to connect interested mentors and mentoring agencies directly to young people in need, while also assuring mentors receive appropriate support and training to work with at-risk or justice-involved youth.
Providing opportunities for youth and families to share their perspectives
Utah is a partner with JJYS and their newly formed Parent Council, where the goal is educating families with system experience about resources, the justice system, and how to make their voices heard. This ensures they have the tools to advocate for their children and families. Localized efforts, like the Uplift Midvale initiative, are also utilizing a Community Engagement Model to directly involve community members and youth in designing prevention programming based on their unique risk and protective factors.
Question six
Goals for next year
What are the state’s R/ED goals for next year?
First, Utah’s R/ED Collaborative will develop its next Three-Year Plan. Utah will work directly with engaged and interested communities who appear on the 100 Key Neighborhood list, and will ensure that community experiences are uplifted and are part of the stories shared regarding Utah data.
The next phase of the Geospatial Study includes assessing community factors. Through partnerships with communities implementing preventative programs, initiatives like the Utah Healthy Places Index, and resource directory providers such as Utah’s 211, Utah will assess community factors, what they have contributed, and how much impact they have on juvenile court referrals. DOCJ’s data team will continue to add to the study itself through predictive analysis and studying the impact of protective factors.
The R/ED Collaborative will work towards supporting youth and families in ways specific to each community, reflecting their strengths, goals, and needs, with the overarching goal of reducing youth contact with the juvenile justice system by reducing court referrals.