HB 239 elevated the use of evidence-based programs and practices in Utah’s juvenile justice system. Utahns benefit from this because research shows these approaches promote public safety, hold juvenile offenders accountable, and control costs. This report provides an initial look at how the system is adjusting to policies that went into effect in fiscal year (FY) 2018. Overall, the state relied more on community resources, progressed in standardizing decision-making, and advanced measurement of how well juvenile justice approaches meet evidence-based standards. Implementation is a complex process and it will take many years before we can evaluate policy outcomes. Nevertheless, findings from the first year that select policies went into effect suggest that Utah is on track for meeting policy goals.
-
Youths charged with low-level offenses were diverted from the juvenile justice system at much higher rates through nonjudicial adjustments. Local data supports that in the past, Utah youths charged with low-level offenses experienced better outcomes than similar youths who received a petition and appeared before a judge. Diverting these youths frees up court dockets and judicial resources for the most serious cases.
-
Admissions to locked detention continued to decline. Detention admissions of youths found in contempt of court are down 69%. Utah data shows that low-risk youths who are ordered to detention reoffend at higher rates than similar youths who are not.
-
Referrals to JJS Receiving Centers grew while referrals to the Juvenile Court declined. Receiving Centers are located across the state to evaluate a youth’s need for security and care and make referrals for services. These resources offer an avenue to reduce unnecessary detention and to help address school based behaviors.
-
The Division of Juvenile Justice Services made strides to ensure youths in custody receive evidence-based programming. Evidence-based programs are the best available options for providing youths with the tools that they need to reduce their likelihood of having further contact with the system.
-
The state diverted funds from out-of-placement options to reinvest in front end services. The closure of residential Observation & Assessment and Work Camps freed up ≈ $6.4 million for statewide expansion of services intended to prevent youths from unnecessary system involvement.
-
Racial and ethnic disparities continued to exist at each stage of the juvenile justice system. While there has been measurable progress in many respects, this progress has not been equally realized across all racial and ethnic groups. For instance, while nonjudicial adjustments have increased and detention has decreased for all racial and ethnic groups, nonwhite youths have had relatively smaller increases in NJAs and decreases in detention admissions as white youths. This suggests that more work is required to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in our system.
Policy changes focused on preventing deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system for youths who are referred for lower-level offenses, protecting the community by focusing system resources on youths who pose the highest risk to public safety, and improving outcomes through reinvestment and increased system accountability.