FY 2026 Juvenile Justice Report

The following data represents Fiscal Year 2026.

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.⁷ Because local and national research shows that the most effective strategy for youth who are determined to be at lower-risk to reoffend is to minimize involvement with the Juvenile Court,⁸ a core objective of policies that passed in 2017 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. It is important to note, there have been various juvenile justice policies that have passed since 2017. Interpretation of trends should take into consideration all juvenile justice policies that have impacted the justice system.

Overall, there were 14,273 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2026, which represents a per capita referral rate⁹ of 3.39 per 100 youths.

Figures 1.1-1.3 provide information on Juvenile Court referrals by Judicial District and risk level. Figures 1.4-1.7 provide episode counts broken down by Judicial Districts on the number of petitions, number of petitions that were dismissed, number of adjudications, number of order to show cause, and number of information filed.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Figure 1.1 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court for FY 2026 was 3.39 per 100 youths. This represents a 32% decline when compared to 4.99 per 100 youths in FY 2017.

Figure 1.2 shows the rate of referrals per 100 youths to Utah’s Juvenile Court by Judicial District for FY 2026. Of note, the rate of referrals take into account each judicial district's youth population based off of the Utah State Board Education School Year 2026-2027 data.

Figure 1.4 shows the rate of petitioned cases per 100 youths to Utah’s Juvenile Court by Judicial District for FY 2026. Of note, the rate of petitioned cases take into account each judicial district's youth population based off of the Utah State Board Education School Year 2026-2027 data.

Figure 1.5 shows number of petitioned cases dismissed by Judicial District for FY 2026.

Figure 1.6 shows number of adjudications by Judicial District for FY 2026.

Figure 1.7 shows number of order to show cause episodes by Judicial District for FY 2026.

Information Filed a minor 16 or 17 years of age who commits any of the listed offenses in Utah Code 80-6-503(1)(a)(ii) and is a principal actor of said offense, or a minor 14 or 15 years of age who commits aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, murder, or attempted murder could be bound over to district court to answer as an adult to the charges. In these cases, a criminal information will be filed in the juvenile court. An "information" is an accusation, in writing, charging a person with a public offense which is presented, signed, and filed in the office of the clerk where the prosecution is commenced. Anytime after the filing of the criminal information, a party may file a motion to extend the juvenile court's continuing jurisdiction until the minor is 25.

In FY 2026, there were 5 distinct youths for whom information was filed for their case to be transferred to the District Court. Additionally, there was 1 bound over.

In FY 2026, 66.33% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of Non-Judicial Adjustments.

Policy Summary

Nonjudicial adjustments (NJAs) are agreements between a youth and a Probation Officer that present youths with an opportunity to avoid having the alleged offense petitioned to court. 2017 juvenile justice policies intend to ensure that youths who engage in lower-level delinquency are offered an NJA because research suggests that youths, families, and communities experience better outcomes when youths other than those who present the highest risk to the community are held accountable through diversion outside of the court.¹¹

The following section provides an overview of (1) the share of NJAs entered and Petitions in FY 2026, (2) the share of NJAs by Judicial District, (3) the breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful or unsuccessful, (4) NJAs outcome by Judicial District (5) the time on NJA in period, and (5) the share of youths who entered an NJA by PSRA risk level.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Figure 2.1 shows the share of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.¹² for FY 2026. About 66.33% of youths entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2026.

Figure 2.2  shows the rate of nonjudicial cases per 100 youths by Judicial District. Of note, the rate of nonjudicial cases take into account each judicial district's youth population based off of the Utah State Board Education School Year 2026-2027 data.

Figure 2.3 provides a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful, meaning the youth completed the terms of their agreement, or unsuccessful for FY 2026. The vast majority of NJAs, 93.51% were deemed as successful for FY 2026.

Figure 2.4 shows NJA Outcomes by Judicial District for FY 2026.

Figure 2.5 shows the percentage breakdown as it relates to the length of time youths spend on an NJA. About 41.41% of the total NJAs were 90 days and under with 25.76% falling between 91-120 days, and 31.84% over 121 days.¹³

Court supervision through Intake or Formal Probation is guided by a youth’s risk and needs.

Policy Summary

2017 juvenile justice policies reinforced that standards of supervision should be individualized and guided by a youth’s risk and needs levels. This first contact between a referred youth and the Probation Officer takes place at the Preliminary Inquiry where the assessments are conducted and the NJA is offered (if applicable). Alternatively, when a youth is formally petitioned to court and appears before a judge, a youth may be placed on Formal Probation, which statute defines as court monitoring that includes field supervision, or Intake Probation, court monitoring that does not include field supervision. 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.

The following section provides an overview on Intake and Formal Probation in these areas (1) the rate youths are ordered to Probation, (2) the number of Probation orders by Judicial District, (3) time in period for completion, and (4) the number of youths by PSRA/PRA risk level.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Figure 3.1 shows the orders to Formal and Intake Probation for FY 2026.  The rate for Intake Probation was 2.39 per 100 youths while the rate for Formal Probation was 1.28 per 100 youths.

Figure 3.2 shows the number of Probation Orders by Judicial District for FY 2026. 

Figure 3.3 and 3.4 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Intake and Formal Probation for FY 2026.  39.35% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with 47.19% falling between 91-180 days, and 13.46% above 181 days.

For Formal Probation, 26.81% were under 90 days with 37.02% falling between 91-180 days, and 36.17% above 181 days.

While changes in policy reform provide a 90 day time frame 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.¹⁴

The rate of Community Placement orders was less than 1 per 1,000 youths in FY 2026

Policy Summary

Community Placement is for youths ordered into the custody of JJYS and are usually private residential settings outside of the home. Placements could include Group Homes, Proctor Placements, and Independent Living programs.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate¹⁵ of orders to Community Placement for FY 2017-2026, (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement by Judicial District, and 3)  the share of Community Placement orders by PSRA/PRA risk level

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based here means one or more commitments of a particular type (Community Placement) that were ordered by the Court on the same date.

Figure 4.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement for FY 2017-2026. The rate of Community Placement Orders was .35 per 1,000 youths in FY 2026.

Figure 4.2 shows the number of Community Placement Orders by Judicial District for FY 2026. 

Figure 4.3 shows the number of Community Placement Orders by risk level for FY 2026.

The rate of Secure Care orders was less than 1 per 1,000 youths in FY 2026

Policy Summary

Secure Care is for youths ordered into the custody of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services by a Juvenile Court Judge with oversight by the Youth Parole Authority. JJYS provides services to youths who are ordered Secure Care commitment by the Juvenile Court.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate¹⁶ in Secure Care admissions for FY 2017-2026, (2) the number of Secure Care episodes by Judicial District, and 3) the share of Secure Care episodes by PSRA/PRA risk level

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based here means one or more commitments of a particular type (Secure Care) that were ordered by the Court on the same date.

Figure 5.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Secure Care for FY 2017-2026. The rate of Secure Care orders for FY 2026 was .23 per 1,000 youths.

Figure 5.2 shows the number of Secure Orders by Judicial District for FY 2026.

Figure 5.3 shows the number of Secure Care Orders by risk level for FY 2026.

Current Work by the Department of Criminal Justice (DOCJ), Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee, Utah Board of Juvenile Justice, and R/ED Collaborative

The DOCJ has completed Phase I of our Juvenile Justice Statewide Geospatial Study, utilizing data provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Phase I of the study seeks to identify neighborhoods for intervention, providing communities with data while lowering court referral rates. This is an important tool as we seek to support all youth and families while addressing all disparities that exist within the system including geospatial, socio-economic, race/ethnicity, and others.

Initially, we asked where there are significant rates of court referrals. From that analysis, we identified 100 key neighborhoods, roughly representing 14 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 our youth and families. We will be adding predictive analysis, protective factors, county-level summaries, as well as building out more space for qualitative data from youth and families.

Our R/ED Collaborative is instrumental in this geospatial work: identifying interested communities, engaging using strength-based approaches, and working with youth-serving partners on reducing court referral rates in these key neighborhoods. Through this geospatial work, we are also building connections and furthering our overarching goals of youth and family involvement. The R/ED Collaborative will continue to bring this information to County-level Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils, youth-serving programs, schools, and other community agencies.

The Department of Criminal Justice invites you to explore our geospatial website and our R/ED Year-Three Update to learn more about our work, including areas of the state where we are partnering with communities.

"School-based offense" means any infraction, misdemeanor, or felony offense that occurs at school when school is in session, at the location of a school-sponsored activity during the activity, or on school district transportation, including a school bus.

House Bill 304, Juvenile Justice Revisions, was passed during Utah’s 2023 General Session. House Bill 304 made several changes to the juvenile justice system including when class C misdemeanors, infraction, or status offenses can be referred to the Juvenile Court, when notifications are sent to schools, eligibility criteria for NJAs, and include additional data reporting requirements.¹⁷

Additionally, House Bill 362 passed during the 2024 General Session reduced two previous occasions down to one previous occasion before being able to refer class C misdemeanors, infractions, or status offenses to Juvenile Court; expanded reintegration plans to include serious offenses which would include a violent felony (76-3-203.5), theft of a firearm offense (76-6-4), or a weapons offense (76-10-5); added handgun possession by a minor to the list of 3rd degree felonies; and clarifies habitual truancy and probation notices.¹⁸

Further, HB 48, HB 188 passed during the 2026 General Session on the definition of school-based offenses, referrals, defining recidivism, and referrals to court for drug possession charges. To learn more about the 2026 juvenile justice legislation changes, see here.

The Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee put together a school offense referral guide to help aid law enforcement and school personnel. You can find the guide here.

The below Figures provide information on (1) the rate of school-based offenses referred to the Juvenile Court, (2) type of school-based offenses, and (3) information on habitual truancy.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge. The Administrative Office of the Courts have updated their database to reflect the new school-based offense definition. As such, this year's data and comparison to previous year's data is cautioned.

Figure 7.1 shows the rate of school-based referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court for FY 2026 was 3.95 per 1,000 youths. It is important to note a new school-based offense flag was created following changes in 2026 legislation. Interpretation is cautioned.

The table below shows the top 5 type of School-Based offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in FY 2026.

The Utah State Board of Education collects data on school disciplinary and law enforcement action.

House Bill 304, Juvenile Justice Revisions, was passed during Utah’s 2023 General Session. House Bill 304 requires the Utah State Board of Education to submit data collected on school disciplinary and law enforcement action to the Department of Criminal Justice.¹⁹

To access the School Disciplinary and Law Enforcement Action Report on the Data and Statistics Report website, the report is located under “Utah State Board of Education Superintendent’s Annual Report (SAR)” on the “Schools” tab which you can find here.

HB 304 passed in the 2023 General Session initiated new requirements regarding reintegration plans.

During the 2023 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 304.²⁰ This bill initiated new requirements regarding reintegration plans, and the method for reentry of students who have allegedly committed or committed specific offenses back into the educational setting. In the 2024 legislative session, HB 84, HB 362, HB 418, and SB 246 introduced new guidance and standards.

Further, HB 48, HB 188, HB 299, SB 51, and SB 167 were key 2026 juvenile justice legislation that impacted schools and the juvenile justice system. For detailed changes, see here.

HB 362 passed in the 2024 General Session changed the type of offenses that will trigger a notification to Schools from the Juvenile Court, Juvenile Justice and Youth Services, and Law Enforcement.

During the 2024 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 362²¹. This bill changed the type of offenses that will trigger a notification to Schools from the Juvenile Court, Juvenile Justice and Youth Services, and Law Enforcement. Specifically Section 80-6-103 states if a minor is taken into temporary custody for a serious offense defined as a violent felony (Section 76-3-203.5), theft of a firearm offense (Section 76-6-4), or a weapons offense (Section 76-10-5), a notification shall be sent to the minor’s school. These offenses could have occurred or allegedly occurred outside of the school setting.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the overall number of court referrals for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode, and (2) type of serious offenses.

Figure 10.1 shows the rate of serious offense episodes to Utah’s Juvenile Court for FY 2026 was 3.67 per 1,000 youths.

The table below shows the top ten serious offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in FY 2026.

Figure 10.2 shows serious offense episodes by risk level for FY 2026. In FY 2026, 38.31% were assessed as low risk, 30.76% as moderate risk and 30.93% as high risk to reoffend.

While efforts are being made to accurately identify firearm-related offenses, caution is advised in the interpretation of trends based on this data. The juvenile court is now identifying offenses for which the statute includes “firearm” in the elements or title of the offense as a firearm-related offense. 

House Bill 304, Juvenile Justice Revisions, was passed during Utah’s 2023 General Session. House Bill 304 added additional data reporting requirements including information on firearm-related offenses.²²

The following section provides an overview of (1) the overall number of firearm-related offenses, where the firearm offense was the most serious offense, (2) type of firearm-related offenses, (3) risk to reoffend, (4) firearm offense and intake decision, (5) the youth’s age at the time the offense was allegedly committed, and (6) a breakdown of the youth’s zip codes.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Figure 11.1 shows the rate of firearm-related offense episodes to Utah’s Juvenile Court for FY 2026 was .70 per 1,000 youths.

The table below shows the top five firearm-related offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in FY 2026.

Figure 11.2 shows firearm-related offense episodes by risk level for FY 2026. In FY 2026, 31.97% were assessed as low risk, 32.34% as moderate risk and 35.69% as high risk to reoffend.

In FY 2026, there were a total of 296 firearm-related offenses. Figure 9.3 shows the majority of firearm offenses, 94.3% were petitioned to court, 3% entered into an NJA, 2.7%s were denied by a prosecutor. 

Lastly, there were 8 firearm episodes where a minor was found in possession of a firearm while school was in session or during a school-sponsored activity.

Figure 11.4 shows that over half of youths referred to court for an alleged firearm offense were 17 (n=92) and 16 years of age(n=89).

The map and table below shows a breakdown of alleged firearm-related offenses by the youth’s ZIP code. The map indicates the majority of youth lives along the Wasatch front. 

House Bill 48 and 188 passed in the 2026 General Session provided a statewide standard definition for juvenile recidivism.

During the 2026 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 48 and 188. These two bills created a statewide standard definition for juvenile and school-based recidivism. Because the bills also created a new definition for school-based offense, school-based recidivism analysis will not be included in this year's report.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the overall percentage share of nonjudicial and petition recidivism, and (2) the rate of nonjudicial and petition recidivism utilizing the new definition as outlined in statute:

"Juvenile recidivism" means a diversion, adjudication, or conviction of an individual for an offense within six months, one year, two years, and three years after the day on which:

(i) the individual accepted a nonjudicial adjustment; or (ii) the juvenile court ordered a disposition for the individual resulting in secure care, community-based placement, formal probation, or intake probation."

The following data represents recidivism based on juvenile data and does not account for potential reoffending in the adult system if the youth ages out. Further, petition numbers take into account any potential disposition of intake probation, formal probation, community placement, or secure care.

Figure 12.1 shows nonjudicial recidivism at 12 month follow-up including only fiscal years that had the full opportunity for a follow-up period.

Figure 12.2 shows petition recidivism at 12 month follow-up including only fiscal years that had the full opportunity for a follow-up period.

Table 5 shows the percentage share of youths who reoffended at each follow up period by fiscal year.  Please note, there may be not a full opportunity for a follow up period to occur for more recent years.

Table 6 shows the percentage share of youths who reoffended at each follow up period by fiscal year.  Please note, there may be not a full opportunity for a follow up period to occur for more recent years. Petition numbers take into account any potential disposition of intake probation, formal probation, community placement, or secure care.

Table 7 shows the rate of per 100 youths who reoffended at each follow up period by fiscal year.  The rate takes into account the youths that entered into an NJA for a given fiscal year. Please note, there may be not a full opportunity for a follow up period to occur for more recent years. 

Table 8 shows the rate of per 100 youths who reoffended at each follow up period by fiscal year.  The rate takes into account the youths that had a petition for a given fiscal year. Reoffense would include a new Nonjudicial or Petition. Please note, there may be not a full opportunity for a follow up period to occur for more recent years.