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 that the juvenile committed the act.

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

Contempt of Court: Contempt of court involves a willful violation or refusal to obey 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.

Evidence-based: HB 239 defines 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 adds that evidence-based interventions to address school-based behaviors include programs and practices that have been approved by the State Board of Education. ²

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.³

House Bill 132: House Bill 132, Juvenile Justice Modifications, was passed during Utah’s 2018 General Session. HB 132 was developed to address implementation concerns and language clarification from HB 239.⁴

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

JJS Custody: Community Placement and Secure Care are different types of “JJS 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 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.” ⁵

Nonjudicial Adjustment (NJA): HB 239 defines a nonjudicial adjustment as a closure of the case by the assigned probation officer without judicial determination upon the 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.

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. 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.

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 identify 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 and 12-21 years of age.

Row

Stakeholder Efforts in FY 2021

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) 2021.

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 2021 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 2021.

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 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 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 take time and are in need of 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

Referrals to Utah’s juvenile justice system continued its downward trend in FY 2021. This trend was seen across our state’s judicial districts.

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.⁶ Because research shows that low risk youths are harmed by these practices, a core objective of reform policies 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.

Overall, there were 11,660 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2021. This represents a decline of 26% from FY 2020 and a continuation in the general trend of decreasing referrals. These trends may be influenced by the effects of the continued COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the per capita referral rate⁷ of school age children to the Juvenile Court was 5.8 per 100 youths in FY 2015, and down to 2.6 per 100 youths in FY 2021 (a 55% decrease). The below Figures provide information around Juvenile Court referrals by judicial district, minority status, risk level and the intersection between Juvenile Court and local education agencies.

Overall

Figure 1.1 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court between FY 2015 and 2021. The rate of referrals continued its downward trend in FY 2021, measuring at around 2.61 per 100 youths (a decline of about 55% between FY 2015 and 2021). However, it is important to note that COVID-19 may have had an impact on referrals.

Referrals by Judicial District

Figure 1.2 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court by judicial district between FY 2015 and 2021. Though the number of referrals vary by district, there is an overall decreasing trend in each judicial district between these years.

Minority Status

Figure 1.3 shows the share of Juvenile Court referrals for youths identified as minority, nonminority, and other.⁸ To place these numbers into context, while minority youth make up about 27% of Utah’s overall youth population,⁹ in FY 2021, minority youth made up about 40% of these referrals (an increase of 3% between FY 2020 and 2021).

Risk Level

Figure 1.4 shows Juvenile Court referrals by risk level between FY 2015 and 2021. In FY 2021, 76% were assessed as low risk, 14% as moderate risk and 10% as high risk.

Contempts

Figure 1.5 shows the number of contempt cases between FY 2015 and 2021. These cases slightly increased from 134 in FY 2020 to 141 in FY 2021. However, there is a great reduction when comparing FY 2021 to FY 2015.

Order to Show Cause

Figure 1.6 shows the number of Order to Show Cause (OSC) cases for FY 2020 and 2021. Similarly to a contempt, an OSC is a motion asking the judge to give consequences to a youth because either they didn’t follow through with court orders or they violated a court order. The number of OSC cases was 653 in FY 2021 (a decrease of 21% between FY 2020 and 2021).

Referrals by Schools

Figure 1.7 shows the number of referrals from schools to Juvenile Court was 766 in FY 2021 compared to 1804 in FY 2020. This translates to a rate of 1.72 per 1000 youths (a decrease of about 58% between FY 2020 and 2021). Likely, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school-based referrals decreased. This is due to schools closing in March 2020 and being transitioned to online with variation throughout 2021.¹⁰

Habitual Truancy Referrals by Schools

Figure 1.8 provides the number of referrals to Juvenile Court by schools from FY 2015 to 2021 for habitual truancy. There were only 9 referrals for truancy in FY 2021. It is expected these referrals may continue to fluctuate as schools are operating based on changes with the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, there were 19 juvenile court truancy mediation for FY 2021.

Row

2. Nonjudicial Adjustments

In FY 2021, over 59% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of Non-Judicial Adjustments. This an increase of 3% from FY 2020.

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 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 2021, (2) the breakdown of NJAs and petitions, (3) the breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful, unsuccessful or no outcome, (4) the time on NJA in period, (5) the share of NJAs by youths identified as nonminority,¹¹ and minority,¹² and (6) the number of youths who entered an NJA by PSRA risk level.

Overall

Figure 2.1 shows the percent of youths who entered into an NJA between FY 2015 and 2021 after being referred to the Juvenile Court. About 59% of youths entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2021 (an increase of 3% between FY 2020 and 2021).

NJA & Petitions

Figure 2.2 shows the number of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.¹³ Both NJAs and petitions see a larger decrease in FY 2021 from 2020.

NJAs Outcomes

Figure 2.3 shows the number of NJAs across Utah for FY 2021 while further providing a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful, unsuccessful or no outcome. The vast majority of NJAs were deemed as successful (e.g., 80% successful overall).

Time on NJA in Period

Figure 2.4 shows the percentage breakdown as it relates to the length of time youths spend on an NJA. About 53% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with 29% falling between 91-180 days, and 18% over 121 days.¹⁴

Minority Status Overall

Figure 2.5 shows the make-up of youths entering into an NJA by minority status between FY 2015 to 2021. The share of nonminority youths entering into an NJA increased by a small amount between FY 2020 and 2021.¹⁵ As the figure shows, nonminority youths overall continue to make up the majority of all youths who entered into an NJA.

Risk Level

Figure 2.6 shows the percent of NJAs by risk level from FY 2015 to 2021. In line with the targeted policy goal, the percent of youths being given a risk assessment has continued to increase, with the vast majority of youths entering into an NJA now being classified as low risk to reoffend.

Row

3. Locked Detention

The rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention continued to decline statewide in FY 2021. Youths identified as minority accounts for 53% of this population in FY 2021.

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) the rate¹⁶ in detention admissions from FY 2015 to 2021, (2) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day¹⁷ from FY 2015 to 2021, (3) the trend in the average number of youths served each day¹⁸ by individual facilities, and (4) the share of youths¹⁹ ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,²⁰ minority,²¹ and unknown.²²

Admissions to Locked Detention

Figure 3.1 shows admissions to Locked Detention from FY 2015 to 2021. The rate of admissions decreased from a rate of 8.7 per 1000 youths in FY 2015 to a rate of 2.2 per 1000 youths in FY 2021. This decline equates to about a 74% change in rate in FY 2021 when compared to FY 2015.

Average Youths Served Each Day Overall

Figure 3.2 shows the average number of youths served each day across all detention facilities from FY 2015 to 2021. The average number of youths served each day decreased from an \(\approx\) 161 in FY 2015 to 52 in FY 2021. This decline equates to a 68% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2021 when compared to FY 2015.

Average Youths Served Each Day by Individual Facilities

Figure 3.3 shows the average number of youths served each day by detention facilities from FY 2015 to 2021. 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 2021.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 3.4 shows the distribution of the Locked Detention population by minority status between FY 2015 and 2021. While remaining relatively constant between FY 2015 and 2017, the percentage of minority youth that make up this population started increasing in FY 2018. The share of minority youth admitted to Locked Detention increased to 53% in FY 2021 from 48% in FY 2020 (an increase of about 10%).

Row

4. Probation

In FY 2021, we see fewer youths being placed on Intake and Formal Probation given the continued 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). Alternatively, when a youth is formally petitioned to court and appears before a judge, a possible disposition a youth may receive is Formal Probation where there will be a higher level of supervision by the Juvenile Court (guided by a higher risk level and present with higher needs). 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,²³ and minority,²⁴ and (4) the number of youths by PSRA risk level.

Overall

Figure 4.1 shows the orders to Formal and Intake Probation from FY 2018 to 2021. The rate of orders for Formal and Intake Probation slightly increased in FY 2021 to 2.35 and 2.80 per 1000 youths respectively.

Time on Probation in Period

Figure 4.2 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Formal and Intake Probation. For Formal Probation, an \(\approx\) 19% were on were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 34% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 43% between 181-360 days. An \(\approx\) 27% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 50% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 23% 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.²⁵

Minority Status Overall

Figure 4.3 shows the number of youths identified as nonminority and minority who were ordered to Formal or Intake Probation. The share of Formal and Intake Probation orders decreased for youths identified as nonminority from FY 2020 to 2021. It is important to note that minority youth makes up about 27% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 73%.²⁶

Risk Level

Figure 4.4 shows the percent of Formal and Intake Probation orders by risk level for FY 2021. 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

5. Community Placement

The number of youths ordered to Community Placement continued to decline in FY 2021. 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 rate²⁷ of orders to Community Placement from FY 2015 to 2021, and (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement for youths identified as nonminority,²⁸ minority,²⁹ and unknown.³⁰

Rate of Orders to Community Placement

Figure 5.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2021. Referrals continued to decline with numbers dropping between FY 2020 and 2021 (at around less than 1 per 1000 youths in FY 2021).

Minority Status Overall

Figure 5.2 shows the make up of youths placed on Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2021. In FY 2021, nonminority youth made up the largest share at 56%, followed by minority youths at around 42%. It is important to note that minority youth makes up about 27% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 73%.³¹

Row

6. Secure Care

The rate of admissions to Secure Care decreased from FY 2015 to 2021. 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 Secure Care commitment by the Juvenile Court.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate³² in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2021, (2) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day³³ from FY 2015 to 2021, (3) the trend in the average number of youths served each day³⁴ by individual secure care facilities, and (4) the share of youths³⁵ ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,³⁶ minority,³⁷ and unknown.³⁸

Admissions to Secure Care

Figure 6.1 show trends in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2021. As seen, the rate of admissions has decreased significantly to a rate of .4 per 1000 youths for FY 2021 from 2015 (a decline of about 33%).

Average Youths Served Each Day Overall

Figure 6.2 shows the average number of youths served each day across all Secure Care facilities from FY 2015 to 2021. The average number of youths served each day decreased from 143 in FY 2020 to 74 in FY 2021. This decline equates to \(\approx\) 48% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2021 when compared to FY 2015.

Average Youths Served Each Day by Individual Facilities

Figure 6.3 shows the average number of youths served each day by individual Secure Care facilities from FY 2015 to FY 2021. 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 2021. 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.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 6.4 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were ordered to Secure Care for FY 2015 to 2021. Youths identified as minority continue to make up a disproportionate large share of Secure Care admissions in FY 2021.³⁹ As a reference, minority youth makes up about 27% of Utah’s overall youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 73%.⁴⁰

Row

7. Reinvestment

Preliminary data indicates that reinvestment dollars to front end services such as the Youth Services Model have yielded positive outcomes.

Since FY 2018, millions of dollars have been reinvested to front end services such as the JJS’ Youth Services Model. 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. It is important to note that participation in the Youth Services Model is all voluntary. Figure 7.1 show preliminary outcomes for calendar year 2021:

• about 5000 referrals were made to Youth Services
• more than 1000 moved into an assessment phase
• nearly 1000 youths completed intervention services
• 98% of those who completed, avoided a new JJS custody and probation supervision at 180 days follow up

Review of the data also shows minority youth are completing and avoiding new system custody at a same or better rate than nonminority youth. Additionally, there is a higher percentage share of minority youth moving forward in the Youth Services Model to receive intervention services from the assessment phase when compared to nonminority youth.

Row

8. Racial & Ethnic Disparities

While we see progress in some areas, racial and ethnic disparities continue to persist at each point of contact within the juvenile justice system.

Reform policies have fostered a less punitive environment as seen in the latest performance metrics however disparities among racial and ethnic minority continue to persist. Racial and ethnic disparities can be attributed to many reasons, some of which occur before the youth comes into contact with the juvenile justice system. While continued emphasis is needed to examine policy changes that can contribute to a reduction in disparities, in the below section, we highlight examples of front line efforts from various agencies and organizations.

Utah Board of Juvenile Justice

In FY 2021, The Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ) funded Sheena Yoon from the Economics Evaluation Unit at the University of Utah to explore the potential drivers and the interventions to address disparities. In her report she emphasizes the multiple dimensions in physical, behavioral, and mental health, education, and risks factors for delinquency. Her work also produced policy toolkits for relevant stakeholders. The full report and toolkits may be found here.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities Advisory Committee

The Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Advisory Committee is a branch of the UBJJ that was created to help address racial and ethnic disparities at key points in the youth justice system. In FY 2021, the RED Advisory Committee held discussion groups with the Wasatch Front School Districts Parent/Student community to get their perspective on the topic of School Resource Officers. This brief report may be found here.

Juvenile Justice Services

Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) in FY 2021, hired a Director of Diversity and Inclusion who will work to address racial inequalities with partners in the juvenile system, as well as increasing Black and Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) representation among staff. JJS also hired a Refugee Coordinator to provide services and opportunities between JJS and Refugee Services Office.

Juvenile Court

A Committee on Fairness and Accountability has been established to serve as a core leadership team for the Office of Fairness and Accountability. One purpose of the committee is to provide support and guidance to the Office of Fairness and Accountability, and to provide expertise and guidance to the Judicial Council regarding how to best support the work of the Office of Fairness and Accountability. To learn more about their work please visit here.

Row