Executive Summary

Executive Summary


Juvenile Justice Reform policy objectives stemmed from a review of local Utah data and national evidence-based research. Changes in policy and practice impacted the front end of the justice system within schools and the general community to the back end of the Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice Services. This 4th annual report provides an update on reform policies that were passed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and subsequent years. Findings take into account the growth in Utah’s youths population.

Similar to prior years, Utah continues to see a consistent decline in court referrals throughout all judicial districts and perseveres in the reinvestment of savings to front end services. However effects of COVID-19 should be taken into consideration while contextualizing the performance metrics of School-based Offenses, Court Referrals, Nonjudicial Adjustments, Locked Detention, Community Placement, Secure Care, and Child Welfare. Highlights from this year’s report are as follow:

  • Referrals to Utah’s juvenile court system continued to decrease in FY 2020. Overall, there were 15,712 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2020. This represents a decline of 9% from FY 2019 and a continuation in the general trend of decreasing referrals.

  • Youths continue to be diverted from the system through the use of Nonjudicial Adjustments. Though the numbers are slightly down similar to petitions, the share of youths entering into an Nonjudicial Adjustment remained around 56%. These findings are consistent among nonminority and minority youths.

  • The use of Locked Detention continued to decrease in FY 2020. Youths admitted to Locked Detention continued its downward trend, with a 64% decrease when compared to FY 2015. This trend was consistent among youths who identified as nonminority and minority.

  • Utah has witnessed for the first time the daily enrollment of youth on home detention being greater than those in locked detention in FY 2020. This daily trend has remained consistent, of times seeing over 50% higher nightly bed count for home detention versus a locked setting.

  • Court supervision through Intake or Formal Probation are guided by a youth’s level of risk and needs. For FY 2020, the rate for Intake and Formal Probation were fairly similar, with both Intake and Formal Probation orders decreasing. The share of Intake and Formal Probation orders increased for youths identified as nonminority.

  • Community Placements have reduced the share of youths being ordered to out of home placements.Youths admitted to Community Placement continued its declining trend in FY 2020, with a 65% decrease when compared to FY 2015. This decline was similar for youths who identified as nonminority and minority.

  • The rate of admissions to Secure Care remained similar between FY 2015 and 2020. Secure Care admissions have hovered between .5 and .6 per 1000 youths in recent years with Minority youths continuing to make up a disproportionate large share of these admissions.

  • Court Ordered Assessments to determine whether in‐home family preservation services were appropriate decreased in FY 2020. Removing youths from their homes for delinquency cases not involving abuse, neglect, or dependency remained at zero in FY 2020 while assessments decreased.

  • Reinvestment into the front-end of the system includes the JJS Youth Services Model. The Youth Services Model is a “no wrong door” approach to early intervention. Through this model, Utah delivers evidence based, individualized youth and family plans with early screening, assessment, plan management, and comprehensive access to services–all driven by the youth and family strengths and needs.

Overall, findings indicate that trends in Utah’s Juvenile Justice system is continuing to move in a direction that aligns with reform goals. For the upcoming FY 2021 year, the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee will focus on evaluating outcomes for youth who participate in certain programming when under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court and JJS.

Row









Oversight and Stakeholder Efforts

Stakeholder Efforts in FY 2020


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 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.

Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee


Data Working Group This group works to identify and collect performance and outcome measures that pertain to juvenile justice policies. The group’s efforts in FY 2020 resulted in the performance measures included in this report.

Detention Risk Assessment Working Group This group is charged with monitoring and refining the Utah Detention Risk Assessment Tool (DRAT) in FY 2020.


Row









Limitations

Limitations


Utah has worked hard to establish and maintain robust and integrated juvenile justice and child welfare 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 hence 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 one program aims to study. One example of such change could include the effects of COVID-19 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 take time and are in need of support and resources before they can reach their full potential.

Row









Nonjudicial Adjustments

Nonjudicial Adjustments


In FY 2020, over 56% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of Non-Judicial Adjustments. This can be compared to an average of 33% pre-reform.

Policy Summary

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

The following section provides an overview of (1) the percent of NJAs entered from FY 2015 to 2020, (2) the breakdown of NJAs and petitions, (3) the number of NJAs by statewide and judicial districts, (4) the time on NJA in period, (5) the share of NJAs by youths identified as nonminority,6 and minority,7 and (6) the number of youths who entered an NJA by PSRA risk level.



Overall


Figure 9 shows the percent of youths who entered into an NJA between FY 2015 and 2020 after being referred to the Juvenile Court. About 56% of youths were entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2020.


NJA & Petitions


Figure 10 shows the number of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.8 Both NJAs and petitions decreased a bit between FY 2019 and 2020.


NJAs by Judicial District

Figure 11 shows the number of NJAs across Utah’s eight judicial districts for FY 2020 while further providing a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful and unsuccessful. Across all districts, the vast majority of NJAs were deemed as successful (e.g., 89% successful overall.)



Time on NJA in Period

Figure 12 shows the percentage breakdown as it relates to the length of time youths spend on an NJA. An \(\approx\) 57% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 29% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 14% over 121 days.9


Minority Status Overall

Figure 13 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority who entered into an NJA for FY 2015 to 2020. The share of NJAs remained similar for nonminority and minority youths between FY 2019 to 2020.10


Risk Level

Figure 14 shows the percent of NJAs by risk level from FY 2015 to 2020. NJAs were largely comprised of youths who were low risk to reoffend in FY 2020.

Row









Locked Detention

Locked Detention


The rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention continued to decline statewide in FY 2020. This trend was consistent among youths who identified as nonminority and minority.

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. The following section provides an overview of (1) Locked Detention facilities across the state, (2) the rate11 in detention admissions from FY 2015 to 2020, (3) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day12 from FY 2015 to 2020, (4) the trend in the average number of youths served each day13 by individual facilities, and (5) the share of youths14 ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,15 minority,16 and unknown.17



Admissions to Locked Detention

Figure 15 shows admissions to Locked Detention from FY 2015 to 2020. The rate of admissions decreased from a rate of 8.7 per 1000 youths in FY 2015 to a rate of 3.1 per 1000 youths in FY 2019. This decline equates to \(\approx\) 64% change in rate in FY 2020 when compared to FY 2015.


Average Youths Served Each Day Overall

Figure 16 shows the average number of youths served each day across all detention facilities from FY 2015 to 2020. The average number of youths served each day decreased from an \(\approx\) 161 in FY 2015 to an \(\approx\) 64 in FY 2020. This decline equates to an \(\approx\) 60% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2020 when compared to FY 2015.


Average Youths Served Each Day by Individual Facilities

Figure 17 shows the average number of youths served each day by detention facilities from FY 2015 to 2020. While there is some variation among individual facilities by year, there is an overall decreasing trend in the average number of youths served each day from FY 2015 to 2020.


Minority Status Overall

Figure 18 shows the percent of youths in care identified as nonminority, minority, and unknown for FY 2015 to 2020. The information in the figure suggests the share of youths in care identified as nonminority and minority slightly shifted in FY 2020.


Row









Probation

Probation


In FY 2020, fewer youths were placed on Intake and Formal Probation given the overall decrease in Court Referrals.

Policy Summary

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

The following section provides an overview on Intake and Formal Probation in these areas (1) the rate youths are ordered to probation, (2) time in period for completion, (3) the number of orders to probation by youths identified as nonminority,18 and minority,19 and (4) the number of youths by PSRA risk level.



Overall


Figure 19 shows the orders to Intake and Formal Probation from FY 2018 to 2020. The rate of orders for Intake and Formal Probation decreased in FY 2020 to 2.48 and 2.23 per 1000 youths respectively. This decrease is expected due to an overall decrease in the number of Court Referrals.


Time on Probation in Period

Figure 20 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Intake and Formal Probation. An \(\approx\) 34% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 43% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 22% between 181-360 days. For Formal Probation, an \(\approx\) 23% were on were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 44% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 32% between 181-360 days. While changes in policy reform provide a 90 day timeframe for Intake Probation and 120-180 days for Formal Probation, the time on probation may vary depending on the individualized probation orders or if there are changes in statutory guidelines. It is also important to note, the small percentage of Intake or Formal Probation falling around the 360 days time period is likely due to data errors in cases not being closed in CARE, the Juvenile Justice System’s database.



Minority Status Overall

Figure 21 shows the number of youths identified as nonminority and minority who were ordered to Formal or Intake Probation. The share of Intake and Formal Probation orders increased for youths identified as nonminority from FY 2019 to 2020.


Risk Level

Figure 22 shows the percent of Formal and Intake Probation orders by risk level for FY 2020. As expected, a larger share of low risk youths accounted for Intake Probation compared to Formal Probation.


Row









Community Placement

Community Placement


The number of youths ordered to Community Placement continued to decline in FY 2020. This downward trend was experienced similarly among youths identified as nonminority and minority.

Policy Summary


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

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate20 of orders to Community Placement from FY 2015 to 2020, and (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement for youths identified as nonminority,21 minority,22 and unknown.23


Rate of Orders to Community Placement


Figure 23 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2020. Referrals continued to decline with numbers dropping between FY 2019 and 2020 (at around 1 per 1000 youths in FY 2020).



Minority Status Overall


Figure 24 shows the make up of youths placed on Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2020. As seen, nonminority youths made up the largest share at 55% in FY 2020, followed by minority youths at around 43%.

Row









Secure Care

Secure Care


The rate of admissions to Secure Care remained similar between FY 2015 and 2020. Some differences were seen in this trend for youths identified as nonminority and minority. The use of Secure Care varied across individual facilities.

Policy Summary


Secure Care is for youths ordered into the custody of JJS by a Juvenile Court Judge with oversight by the Youth Parole Authority. JJS provides services to youths who are ordered to both a Community Placement or Secure Care commitment by the Juvenile Court.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the Secure Care facilities across the state, (2) the rate24 in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2020, (3) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day25 from FY 2015 to 2020, (4) the trend in the average number of youths served each day26 by individual secure care facilities, and (5) the share of youths27 ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,28 minority,29 and unknown.30


Admissions to Secure Care


Figure 25 show trends in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2020. As seen, the rate of admissions remained similar between the selected time period, hovering between .5 and .6 per 1000 youths.


Average Youths Served Each Day Overall


Figure 26 shows the average number of youths served each day across all Secure Care facilities from FY 2015 to 2020. While there is some variation, the average number of youths served each day decreased from 143.3 in FY 2015 to 100 in FY 2020. This decline equates to \(\approx\) 30% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2020 when compared to FY 2015.


Average Youths Served Each Day by Individual Facilities

Figure 27 shows the average number of youths served each day by individual Secure Care facilities from FY 2015 to FY 2020. While some variation existed among individual facilities by year, there is an overall decreasing trend in the average number of youths served each day from FY 2015 to 2020.31


Minority Status Overall


Figure 28 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were ordered to Secure Care for FY 2015 to 2020. Youths identified as minority continue to make up a disproportionate large share of Secure Care admissions.32

Row









Child Welfare

Child Welfare and Juvenile Delinquency


In FY 2020 there were no cases wherein youths were placed directly in DCFS custody before an assessment to determine care was conducted. These Court Order Determination Assessments (CODA) decreased from 135 in FY 2019 to 75 in FY 2020.

Policy Summary


Reform policies restricted direct orders for removal of youths from their home and to DCFS custody in delinquency cases. However, if the juvenile court has reasonable suspicion that abuse, neglect, or dependency is present in a youth’s case, an order to DCFS for an assessment (Court Order Determination Assessment CODA) can be utilized. Based on the results of the assessment, the court can order in-home DCFS family services for youths. It is important to note June 2020 was when CODAs were replaced with a different assessment known as the YAFFA. The following section provides an overview of (1) the number of DCFS Direct Orders and (2) the number of CODAs for FY 2020.


Direct Orders


Figure 29 shows the number of direct court order cases to DCFS with ungovernable, delinquency, status offense as a primary reason from FY 2015 to 2020. The number of direct orders remained at zero in FY 2020.


Court Order Determination Assessment (CODAs)

Figure 30 shows the number of CODAs from FY 2018 to 2020. The number of CODAs decreased from 135 in FY 2019 to 75 in FY 2020.

Row









Reinvestment

Reinvestment


Since FY 2018, millions of dollars have been deployed to front end services. In addition, over $9 million dollars has been placed in the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Restricted Account.

As reliance on the deep-end of the formal court system decreased, there has been an increased focus on providing services on the front-end without court or law enforcement involvement in both urban and rural areas of Utah. The Youth Services Model allows Utah to deliver evidence based practices to youth at risk of entering the justice system. Youth Services helps redirect youth from Locked Detention and other out of home placements so they can safely remain in their homes, schools, and communities. These services include:


  • Assessment and screening
  • Family engagement
  • Skill-building programs
  • School liaisons
  • Mentoring
  • Counseling/therapy
  • Parent education
  • Crisis support services, including residential
  • Employment programs

Row









Moving Forward

A Focus on Racial and Ethnic Disparities


While we see tremendous progress in some areas, we also continue to see racial and ethnic disparities.

JJOC Efforts

There are many reasons that contribute to inequities in our juvenile justice system. The JJOC is currently working on two outcome studies with the intention of keeping the issue of disparity at the forefront. The first study will explore new offense rates for youths who are currently enrolled in Juvenile Court and JJS programming. The purpose of this study is to assess the system’s capability to deter future delinquent behaviors through targeted services. The second study will examine how well Utah’s risk assessments, the PRA/PSRA delineate risk levels overall, by gender, race/ethnicity, age, and programming. It is expected the results and recommendations from these two studies will be available in next year’s FY 2021 Annual Report.

Other Collaborations

In addition to the two outcome studies, the JJOC works collaboratively with researchers at CCJJ, the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ) and the Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Advisory Committee to help address racial and ethnic disparities at key points in the youth justice system. Current data, studies and research briefs may be found on our CCJJ website


Row










  1. Please visit the CCJJ website for the working group findings that led to the policy recommendations for HB 239.↩︎

  2. Kem C Gardner population estimates ages 10 to 17 (https://gardner.utah.edu/demographics/user-data/)↩︎

  3. Translating representation to per capita values is useful as it allows us to take into account the actual number of youths at a particular point of contact, for example, Secure Care relative to their general population count. If there were no disparity across different racial and ethnic groups, then these per capita numbers would be equal across different groups.↩︎

  4. Other included youths whose race and ethnicity were not identified.↩︎

  5. In the previous data pull for performance measures, the data for school referrals was given by incident. Juvenile court would like to proceed using the number of episodes. This allows Juvenile Court to report on the number of total referrals.↩︎

  6. Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎

  7. Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial↩︎

  8. Other includes: prosecutor denied petition, unable to locate, insufficient evidence, and no jurisdiction to proceed.↩︎

  9. While changes in policy reform provide a 90 day timeframe for NJAs, the time on an NJA may fluctuate depending on whether a judge grants an extension to the NJA.↩︎

  10. Unknown data were not available for FY 2015 - 2019.↩︎

  11. The number of youths receiving a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year divided by the estimated number of youths in the associated Calendar Year multiplied by 1000.↩︎

  12. The overall time in days youths were enrolled in a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year.↩︎

  13. The overall time in days youths were enrolled in a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year, divided by 365 days.↩︎

  14. Unduplicated count of youths between 10-17 years old.↩︎

  15. Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎

  16. Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial↩︎

  17. Unknown category includes youths unknown or refused to self-identify.↩︎

  18. Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎

  19. Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial↩︎

  20. The number of youths receiving a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year divided by the estimated number of youths in the associated Calendar Year multiplied by 1000.↩︎

  21. Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎

  22. Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial↩︎

  23. Unknown category includes youths who are unknown or refused to self-identify.↩︎

  24. The number of youths receiving a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year divided by the estimated number of youths in the associated Calendar Year multiplied by 1,000.↩︎

  25. The overall time in days youths were enrolled in a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year.↩︎

  26. The overall time in days youths were enrolled in a specified type of residential service during a Target Fiscal Year, divided by 365 days.↩︎

  27. Unduplicated count of youths between 10-17 years old.↩︎

  28. Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎

  29. Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial↩︎

  30. Other category includes youths unknown or refused to self-identify.↩︎

  31. It should be noted that Farmington Bay Youth Center did not provide secure services in FY 2015 and that Wasatch Youth Center closed Secure Care services in FY 2018.↩︎

  32. Note that the category “unknown” had 0 data point in FY 2020.↩︎