Definitions & Acronyms

Adjudication: The court process that determines if a juvenile committed the act they were charged for.

Adjudicated is analogous to the criminal justice system’s term “convicted” and indicates that the court had sufficient evidence to find that the referred allegations are true.

Bound over is when a minor who commits a serious offense that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, is tried in the adult system and can receive an adult sentence or penalty.

Community Placement: Residential placements for youths committed to JJYS Custody by the Juvenile Court. These include proctor care, group homes, and boarding schools.

Contempt of Court: Contempt of court is a finding by a judge that a youth has willfully and knowingly violated 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.

Episode-based: Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. Data for this report is displayed by episodes.

Evidence-based: HB 239 defined 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 added that evidence-based interventions to address school-based behaviors include programs and practices that have been approved by the State Board of Education. ¹

Information Filed: Information Filed means a case was directly filed in an adult district court. The only cases that would qualify for a direct file are over 16 for murder and aggravated murder.

House Bill 239: House Bill 239, Juvenile Justice Amendments, was passed during Utah’s 2017 General Session. HB 239 is a package of policies designed to promote public safety, hold juvenile offenders accountable, control costs, and improve outcomes.²

House Bill 304: 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 additional data reporting requirements.³

JJYS: This is an acronym for the Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services within the Department of Health and Human Services. JJYS provides a continuum of intervention, supervision, and rehabilitation programs to juvenile offenders in the state of Utah.

JJYS Custody: Community Placement and Secure Care are different types of “JJYS Custody” that a youth can be placed under. These are also places a youth under a specific custody typically reside. Community Placement may include proctor care, group homes, and boarding schools while Secure Care are long-term locked confinement facilities.

Locked Detention: In Utah, the Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth 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.”⁴

Nonjudicial Adjustment (NJA): HB239 defines a nonjudicial adjustment as a “closure of the case by the assigned probation officer, without an adjudication of the minor’s case under 80-06-701, upon 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”. Initially, a representative from the courts is assigned to work with all youths who enter the justice system, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense. During the preliminary interview, or the first contact with the juvenile court, assessments are conducted, and a nonjudicial adjustment (NJA) is offered (if applicable).⁵

Order to Show Cause: An “Order to Show Cause” is shorthand for a Motion for an Order to Show Cause which is a motion asking the judge to make a finding that a youth willfully and knowingly violated a court order and enter orders that provide a consequence for the youths actions. When a judge grants a Motion for an Order to Show Cause, the judge holds the youth in contempt of court.

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: Utah has two levels of court-ordered probation: Intake Probation and Formal Probation. A Judge may order either formal or intake probation when a youth appears in court for a referral that has been petitioned. Initially, a representative from the courts is assigned to work with all youths who enter the justice system, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense. During the preliminary interview, or the first contact with the juvenile court, assessments are conducted that help the court to determine how best to work with a youth.

PRA: The Protective & Risk Assessment (PRA) is a risk and needs assessment tool validated to assess the risk that youth who have contact with Utah’s juvenile justice system will reoffend. The tool generates a level of low, moderate, and high risk to reoffend that corresponds to that generated by the PSRA (see PSRA definition below). Further, this tool helps to identiCY the criminogenic risk factors that may be contributing to a youth’s delinquent behaviors and the protective items that may be helping to mitigate the frequency and severity of these behaviors.

PSRA: The Pre-Screen Risk Assessment (PSRA) is a risk assessment tool validated to assess the risk that youth who have contact with Utah’s juvenile justice system will reoffend. The tool classifies youths as low, moderate, or high risk to reoffend. The results help to inform level of contact and placement decisions as well as to indicate whether further assessment is needed.

Referral: When a potentially delinquent youth is sent forward for legal processing and received by a juvenile court either as a result of law enforcement action or upon a complaint by a citizen, school, government entity, or other individual or organization.

Receiving Center: A non-secure, nonresidential program established by the division or under contract with the division that is responsible for juveniles taken into custody by a law enforcement officer for status offenses, infractions, or delinquent acts.

Risk/Risk Level: Generally, in juvenile justice, risk/risk level indicates a classification of how likely a youth who has contact with the system will reoffend from a validated risk assessment tool. For this report, the terms risk and risk level refer to the level of risk that youth will reoffend that is identified by the PSRA or PRA, which for both of these assessments, is called the PSRA Risk Level (see PSRA Risk Level definition above).

Secure Care: Long-term locked confinement facilities for serious and habitual delinquent youths who are high-risk to reoffend.

Serious Offense: During the 2024 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 362⁶. 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.

Row

Stakeholder Efforts in CY 2024

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. Described below are the working groups in Calendar Year (CY) 2024.

Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee: The JJOC is comprised of various stakeholders from the following organizations:

• Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
• Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ)
• Department of Public Safety
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Division of Child and Family Services
• Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services (JJYS)
• Granite School District
• Layton Youth Court
• Salt Lake County Choose Gang Free
• Salt Lake County Division of Youth Services
• Third District Juvenile Court
• Utah Juvenile Defender Attorneys
• Utah State Board of Education
• Voices for Utah Children
• Utah County Attorney’s Office
• Wasatch Behavioral Health
• Youth Providers Association

The following groups were a continuation from the previous year or started in CY 2024.

Data Working Group: This group works to identiCY and collect performance and outcome measures that pertain to juvenile justice policies. This group meets annually and as needed to assess policy changes as it relates to data collection.

Detention Risk Assessment Working Group: This group is charged with monitoring and refining the Utah Detention Risk Assessment Tool (DRAT). Stakeholders include individuals from the AOC, JJYS, and JJOC.

Gun Interventions: This working group is a continuation from 2023 efforts to focus on the issue of youth gun violence. Following the 2024 session, this working group reconvened and included a school safety focus to ensure communication and efforts across all groups are aligned. This working group identified an intervention may be needed at the court level once the youth comes to court with a gun possession related charge, and at the prevention level within schools and communities. The working group has gone through the research and other existing literature on effective programming/intervention at the court level, specifically identiCYing possible avenues to enhance existing probation services.

Juvenile Justice Stakeholder Legislative Working Group: Members from the JJOC as well as CCJJ’s other juvenile justice groups of the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice and the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Collaborative meet weekly during the legislative session to review and discuss juvenile related bills.

Youth and Gangs: This working group was created from concerns that were raised by stakeholders including a trend in youth committing more serious offenses and joining gangs at a younger age, and that violent delinquency trends have been increasing due to changes in juvenile justice reform. This working group includes individuals from the Department of Public Safety, Salt Lake Metro Gang Unit, other local law enforcement, AOC, JJYS, JJOC, Defense, Prosecution, and others. The working group has met several times and have been reviewing existing data on overall delinquency trends and serious offenses trends (which includes violent offenses, theft of a firearm, and weapon offenses). Please see new tab on “Serious Offenses” for further information.

Miscellaneous: Members of the JJOC may also participate in other groups led by members of the Utah legislature throughout the year. For CY 2024, several JJOC members are a part of the School Security Task force.⁷

Row

Limitations

Utah has worked hard to establish and maintain robust and integrated juvenile justice data systems. This allows for studying policy and program effectiveness as well as population trends through time. In these annual reports we focus on summary statistics before and after the implementation of Juvenile Justice Reform in Utah. We do not attempt to establish causal relationships of any kind. While measuring population changes through time can be valuable in understanding potential policy effects, robust statistical methods are needed to account for changes that often occur through time that may be independent of the policy or program one aims to study. One example of such change could include the effects of the continued COVID-19 pandemic on various juvenile justice partners as they had to adjust policy and practice within their systems. In other words, these factors could influence the population outcomes we discuss here. Furthermore, while the measures presented here are useful in understanding initial system changes, implementation of new policies and practices takes time and requires support and resources before they can reach their full potential. To learn more information on all performance metrics of the juvenile justice reform, please visit our transparency website.

Row

1. System Trends

The following data represents Calendar Year 2024.

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.⁸ 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,⁹ 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 13,989 referrals to the Juvenile Court in CY 2024, which represents a per capita referral rate¹⁰ of 3.28 per 100 youths.

Figures 1.1-1.4 provide information on Juvenile Court referrals by Judicial District, minority status, and risk level. Figures 1.5-1.9 provide episode counts broken down by Judicial Districts on the number of petitions, number of petitions that were dismissed, number of adjudications, number of contempts, 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.

Overall

Figure 1.1 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court for CY 2024.

Referrals by Judicial District

Figure 1.2 shows the rate of referrals per 1,000 youths to Utah’s Juvenile Court by Judicial District for CY 2024.

Minority Status

Figure 1.3 shows the share of Juvenile Court referrals for youths identified as minority, and nonminority. To place these numbers into context, while minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population,¹¹ minority youth made up about 43% of these referrals in CY 2024.

Risk Level

Figure 1.4 shows Juvenile Court referrals by risk level for CY 2024. In CY 2024, 67% were assessed as low risk, 17% as moderate risk and 17% as high risk.

Petitions by Judicial District

Figure 1.5 shows the number of Petition cases by Judicial Districts for CY 2024.

Petition and Dismissals by Judicial District

Figure 1.6 shows the number of Petition cases that were dismissed by Judicial Districts for CY 2024.

Number of Adjudications by Judicial District

Figure 1.7 shows the number of adjudications by Judicial Districts for CY 2024.

Contempts

Figure 1.8 shows the number of Orders of Contempt by Judicial Districts for CY 2024. Overall, the number of Contempt filings in Juvenile Court is low (48 cases) in CY 2024.

Order to Show Cause

An Order to Show Cause (OSC) is a short-hand reference to a Motion for an Order to Show Cause, which is a motion asking the judge to give consequences to a youth by entering an Order of Contempt because the youth did not follow through with court orders or they violated a court order. Figure 1.9 shows the number OSCs by Judicial Districts for CY 2024.

Information Filed

Information Filed means the youth was either directly filed in the adult system or a transfer hearing in the juvenile court system was triggered. In CY 2024, there were 12 distinct youths for whom information was filed for their case to be transferred to the District Court. Additionally, there were 2 bound overs.

Row

2. Nonjudicial Adjustments

In CY 2024, 65% 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. Reform 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.¹²

The following section provides an overview of (1) the share of NJAs entered and Petitions in CY 2024, (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, (5) the share of NJAs by youths identified as nonminority¹³ and minority,¹⁴ and (6) 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.

Overall

Figure 2.1 shows the share of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.¹⁵ for CY 2024. About 65% of youths entered into an NJA agreement in CY 2024.

NJAs by Judicial District

Figure 2.2 shows the number of NJAs by Judicial District for CY 2024.

NJAs Outcomes

Figure 2.3 provides a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful, meaning the youth completed the terms of their agreement, or unsuccessful for CY 2024. The vast majority of NJAs, 94% were deemed as successful for CY 2024.

NJA Outcomes by Judicial District

Figure 2.4 shows NJA Outcomes by Judicial District for CY 2024.

Time on NJA in Period

Figure 2.5 shows the percentage breakdown as it relates to the length of time youths spend on an NJA. About 56% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with 30% falling between 91-120 days, and 14% over 121 days.¹⁶

Minority Status Overall

Figure 2.6 shows the share of youths entering into an NJA by minority status for CY 2024.

Risk Level

Figure 2.7 shows the percent of NJAs by risk level for CY 2024.

Row

3. Probation

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

Policy Summary

Reform 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, (4) the number of orders to Probation by youths identified as nonminority¹⁷ and minority,¹⁸ and (5) the number of youths 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.

Overall

Figure 3.1 shows the orders to Formal and Intake Probation for CY 2024. It is important to note for CY 2024, there was an improvement made in the data system report. The change made is counting only adjudicated episodes, rather than all episodes a youth could come in with. For example, if a youth has five episodes/referrals and is going on probation, but the youth was adjudicated on only three episodes, we should only be counting the three, not five. For CY 2024, the rate for Intake Probation was 1.56 per 1000 youths while the rate for Formal Probation was 1.72 per 1000 youths.

Probation Orders by Judicial District

Figure 3.2 shows the number of Probation Orders by Judicial District for CY 2024.

Time on Probation in Period

Figure 3.3 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Formal and Intake Probation for CY 2024. For Formal Probation, an \(\approx\) 22% were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 48% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 30% between 181-360 days. An \(\approx\) 41% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 46% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 13% between 181-360 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.¹⁹

Minority Status Overall

Figure 3.4 shows the number of youths identified as nonminority and minority who were ordered to Formal or Intake Probation. While this data does not factor in the level of offense leading to youths being ordered to probation, it is important to note that minority youth makes up approximately 28% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 72%.²⁰

Risk Level

Figure 3.5 shows the percent of Formal and Intake Probation orders by risk level for CY 2024. As expected, a larger share of low risk youths accounted for Intake Probation compared to Formal Probation because reform policies reinforced that standards of supervision should be guided by a youth’s risk and needs levels.

Row

4. Locked Detention

Admissions to Locked Detention in CY 2024 show a slight decrease from CY 2023.

Policy Summary

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. In Utah, Locked Detention provides locked confinement (typically short-term) for delinquent youth awaiting adjudication or placement or who have received a disposition from a Juvenile Court judge to be held in a secure facility for a period of time.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate²¹ in detention admissions for CY 2017-2024, (2) the number of Locked Detention episodes by Judicial District, 3) average length of stay and (4) the share of Locked Detention episodes by youths identified as nonminority²² and minority.²³

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based here means consecutive assignments at the same Detention facility that were separated by four or fewer hours.

Admissions to Locked Detention

Figure 4.1 shows the rate Locked Detention episodes for CY 2017-2024. The rate for Locked Detention was 4.74 per 1,000 youths, a decreased from 4.91 per 1,000 youths in CY 2023.

Locked Detention Episodes by Judicial District

Figure 4.2 shows the number of Locked Detention episodes by Judicial District for CY 2024.

Average Length of Stay

Figure 4.3 shows the average length of stay of Locked Detention episodes (in days) for CY 2017-2024.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 4.4 shows the distribution of the Locked Detention episodes by minority status for CY 2017-2024. Minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population²⁴ while accounting for 54% in the Locked Detention population in CY 2024.

Row

5. Community Placement

The rate of Community Placement orders was less than 1 per 1,000 youths in CY 2024.

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 rate²⁵ of orders to Community Placement for CY 2017-2024, (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement by Judicial District, 3) average length of stay and (4) the share of Community Placement orders by youths identified as nonminority²⁶ and minority.²⁷

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.

Rate of Orders to Community Placement

Figure 5.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement for CY 2017-2024.

Community Placement Orders by Judicial District

Figure 5.2 shows the number of Community Placement episodes by Judicial District for CY 2024.

Average Length of Stay

Figure 5.3 shows the average length of stay of Community Placement episodes for CY 2017-2024.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 5.4 shows the distribution of the Community Placement episodes by minority status for CY 2017-2024. Minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population²⁸ while accounting for 49% in Community Placement episodes in CY 2024.

Row

6. Secure Care

The rate of admissions to Secure Care remains less than 1 per 1,000 youths for CY 2024.

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 rate²⁹ in Secure Care admissions for CY 2017-2024, (2) the number of Secure Care episodes by Judicial District, 3) average length of stay and (4) the share of Secure Care episodes by youths identified as nonminority³⁰ and minority.³¹

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.

Rate of Orders to Secure Care

Figure 6.1 shows the rate of Secure Care orders for CY 2017-2024.

Secure Care Episodes by Judicial District

Figure 6.2 shows the number of Secure Care Episodes by Judicial District for CY 2024.

Average Length of Stay

Figure 6.3 shows the average length of stay of Secure Care episodes for CY 2017-2024.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 6.4 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority for Secure Care episodes for CY 2024. Minority youth makes up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population³² while accounting for 67% of Secure Care episodes IN cy 2024.

Row

7. Racial & Ethnic Disparities

The Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice is excited to share our Statewide Geospatial Study as a tool in our work of reducing disparities.

Current Work by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee, Utah Board of Juvenile Justice, and R/ED Collaborative

The Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 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. We believe this study will be 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 are tackling the question of where there are significant rates of court referrals. From that analysis, we have identified 100 key neighborhoods, roughly representing six different locations 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 will be 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 be bringing this information to County-level Criminal Justice Coordinating Councils, youth-serving programs, schools, and other community agencies.

You can find the statewide geospatial studyhere.

The latest FY 2024 R/ED Data Presentation can be foundhere.

Row

8. School-Based Offenses

School-Based Offenses are alleged offenses that occurred on school grounds during school hours or during a school-sponsored activity.

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.³³

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.³⁴

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.

Referrals by Schools

Figure 8.1 shows the number of school-based offenses in CY 2024 was 1,871 episodes.This translates to a rate of 4.39 per 1,000 youths.

Type of School-based Offenses

The table below shows the top 5 type of School-Based offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in CY 2024.

Top_Five_Offenses
ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY/SUB RISK
MARIJUANA POSSESSION OR USE
CRIMINAL TRESPASS SCHOOL PROP.
POSSESSION DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
Possession of Controlled Substance Marijuana/Spice

Truancy Referrals by Schools

During the 2023 legislative session, a statutory change stopped Juvenile Court from accepting truancy and habitual truancy cases. However, in 2024, new statutory changes were made that allow Juvenile Court to receive referrals for habitual truancy. Those statutory changes define a habitual truant as a school-age child who is in grade 7 or above, unless the child is under 12 years old, and is subject to the requirements in 53G-6-202. The student must have been truant for at least 20 days in one school year or have not cooperated with the school’s efforts to address the truancy. Before a school may refer a minor to Juvenile Court, the minor must have been previously alleged of being a habitual truant twice during the same school year and been referred to an evidence-based alternative intervention, or for prevention and early intervention youth services, for at least two of the previous habitual truancies.

The Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee put together a habitual truancy services guide to help aid school personnel. You can find the guide here.

Row

9. School Disciplinary and Law Enforcement Action

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

Policy Summary

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 CCJJ.³⁵

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.

Row

10. Reintegration Plans

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

Policy Summary

During the 2023 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 304.³⁶ 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 84³⁷, HB 362³⁸, HB 418³⁹, and SB 246⁴⁰ introduced new guidance and standards.

The Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee put together a summary of these changes to help aid education partners understand the statutory changes. You can find the guide here.

Row

11. Serious Offenses

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.

Policy Summary

During the 2024 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 362⁴¹. 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, (2) type of serious offenses, (3) and the share of youths identified as nonminority⁴² and minority.⁴³

Serious Offense Court Referral Episodes

Figure 11.1 shows the overall number of court referrals for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode by fiscal year. Episode-based counts here 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. In CY 2024, the number of court referral episodes for serious offenses was 1,446.

Serious Offense Court Referral Rate

Figure 11.2 shows the per capita rate per 1,000 youths of serious offenses referred to court, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode by fiscal year. Episode-based counts here 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. In CY 2024, the rate of court referrals for serious offenses 3.39 per 1,000 youths in CY 2024.

Serious Offense Type Trend

Figure 11.3 shows the top 10 serious offense types for CY 2024. When looking at specifically homicide-related offenses, we saw ten episodes in CY 2024.

Serious Offenses and Intake Decision

In CY 2024, there were a total of 1,446 serious offenses court referral episodes. Figure 11.5 shows the majority of serious offenses, 1,172 episodes were petitioned to court, 79 episodes entered into a NJA, 136 episodes were denied by a prosecutor. Additionally there were 25 episodes categorized as “insufficient facts to justify,” and 22 episodes categorized as “request for action,” “request for decision,” “returned to referral source.”

It is important to note of those 79 episodes that entered into a NJA:

• There were 29 cases involving youth under 12, which by law may only receive a nonjudicial adjustment per Utah Code §80-6-304(8)(b).

• The remaining 50 cases involved youth 12 and older. Of those, only 6 were felony offenses.

Lastly, there were 12 serious offenses episodes that were directly filed in District Court.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 11.6 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were referred to court for an alleged serious offense.

Row

12. Firearm-related Offenses

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. Additionally, offenses including Murder, Aggravated Murder, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Burglary, and Aggravated Robbery were specifically reviewed for CY24 to determine whether or not the offense involved a firearm.

Policy Summary

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.⁴⁴

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) the youth’s age at the time the offense was allegedly committed, (3) a breakdown of the youth’s zip codes, (4) type of firearm-related offenses, (5) the disposition outcomes, and (6) the share of youths identified as nonminority⁴⁵ and minority,⁴⁶

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.

Firearm-related Offense Episodes and Intake Decision

In CY 2024, there were a total of 246 firearm-related offenses episodes with 67 episodes being flagged as a restricted person. Figure 12.1 shows the majority of firearm offenses, 86% were petitioned to court, 7% entered into an NJA, 2%s were denied by a prosecutor. Additionally 4% were directly filed in District Court.

Lastly, there were 18 firearm episodes where a minor was found in possession of a firearm while school was in session or during a school-sponsored activity,

Firearm Offenses by Age of Youth

Figure 12.2 shows that over half of youths referred to court for an alleged firearm offense were 17 (n=71) and 16 years of age(n=70), followed by 15 (n=41), and 14 years of age (n=39). Additionally, for 13 years of age (n=16), 12 years of age (n=6), 11 years of age (n=1), and 9 years of age (n=2).

Firearm Offenses by Youth’s ZIP Code

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. It is important to note many ZIP codes were missing as this is a new variable implemented in the Juvenile Court’s CARE Data System. You may scroll through the table by placing your mouse within the table box.

Type of Firearm Offenses

The table below shows the top 5 types of firearm-related offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in CY 2024. There were 8 episodes for homicide.

statuteidshortdescription	n
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY	38
Poss Weapon Certain Firearms	26
Aggravated Assault	22
Poss of Firearm-CAT II Restr.	22
Theft/Receiving Firearm	18

Firearm Offenses and Outcomes

Figure 12.3 shows the following dispositional orders for firearm cases in CY 2024:

• 49 Intake Probation Orders
• 83 Formal Probation Orders
• 45 Community Placements Disposition
• 11 Episodes were Dismissed

Minority Status Overall

Figure 12.4 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were referred to court for an alleged firearm-related offense.

Row

13. Recidivism

The Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee recently approved recidivism definitions in an effort to standardize and create consistency in recidivism analysis

Standardized Definition

General Recidivism: Individuals who are returned to an equal or more restrictive level of supervision within a given period of time for an episode occurring after the most recent juvenile disposition.

NJA Recidivism: Individuals who receive a new NJA or disposition for an episode occurring after the most recent NJA within a given period of time of a prior NJA.

Probation recidivism: Individuals who are placed or continued on an equal or more strict level of probation after an episode occurring after the most recent juvenile disposition within a given period of time (youth placed on intake probation after having been on formal probation and youth receiving NJAs after placement on probation would not count).

Community placement recidivism: Individuals who are placed or continued with JJYS for community based placement after an episode occurring after the most recent juvenile disposition within a given period of time (youth placed on probation or who get NJAs after community based placement would not count).

Secure care recidivism: Individuals who are placed in secure care or continued in secure care for an episode occurring after the most recent juvenile disposition within a given period of time (youth placed in community based placement, on probation, or who get NJAs after a secure care placement would not count).

Follow-Up Periods: 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, or 36 months.

Intervention Time Frame: During an intervention.

Risk reduction: An ability to measure changes in dynamic risk.

Future Analysis is forthcoming.