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 JJYS 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

JJYS: This is an acronym for the Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth 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 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 2022

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) 2022.

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

• House of Representatives
  
• Administrative Office of the Courts
• Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services
• Washington County Attorney’s Office
• Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
• Salt Lake County Division of Youth Services
• South Sanpete School District
• Emerging Leader Representative
• Division of Child and Family Services
• Voices for Utah Children
• Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic
• 3rd District Juvenile Court
• Utah State Board of Education
• Layton Youth Court
• Utah Division of Indian Affairs
• Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
• Utah Juvenile Defender Attorneys
• Department of Human Service
• Odyssey House
• Department of Public Safety
• Utah Board of Juvenile Justice
• Wasatch Behavioral Health
• Utah Parent Teacher Association

Data Working Group: This group works to identify and collect performance and outcome measures that pertain to juvenile justice policies.

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

Members of the JJOC may also participate in other groups led by members of the Utah legislature throughout the year. For FY 22, JJOC members collaborated with the School Absenteeism and Truancy Working Group to tackle the issue of school attendance and to brainstorm policy solutions that promote youth well-being and success in education.

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 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 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 slightly increased in FY 2022. 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 12,745 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2022. This represents an increase of 9% from FY 2021. These trends may be influenced by the effects of the continued COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the per capita referral rate⁷ of school age children⁸ to the Juvenile Court was 5.8 per 100 youths in FY 2015, and down to 2.85 per 100 youths in FY 2022 (a 51% 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 2022. The rate of referrals slightly increased in FY 2022, measuring at around 2.85 per 100 youths (but an overall decline of about 51% between FY 2015 and 2022). Even so, it is important to note that COVID-19 may still 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 2020 and 2022. Though the number of referrals varies by district, there is a slight increase in referrals for the majority of these judicial districts, similar to the overall referral rate when comparing FY 2022 to 2021.

Minority Status

Figure 1.3 shows the share of Juvenile Court referrals for youths identified as minority, nonminority, and other.⁹ To place these numbers into context, while minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population,¹⁰ in FY 2022, minority youth made up about 40% of these referrals.

Risk Level

Figure 1.4 shows Juvenile Court referrals by risk level between FY 2020 and 2022. In FY 2022, 75% were assessed as low risk, 15% as moderate risk and 10% as high risk.

Contempts

Figure 1.5 shows the number of contempt cases between FY 2020 and 2022. These cases decreased from 141 in FY 2021 to 82 in FY 2022 (a decrease of 41%).

Order to Show Cause

Figure 1.6 shows the number of Order to Show Cause (OSC) cases between FY 2020 and 2022. 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 543 in FY 2022 (a decrease of about 17% between FY 2021 and 2022).

Referrals by Schools

Figure 1.7 shows the number of referrals from schools to Juvenile Court was 1,282 in FY 2022 compared to 766 in FY 2021. This translates to a rate of 2.87 per 1,000 youths (an increase of about 66% between FY 2021 and 2022). Likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, school-based referrals initially decreased in FY 2020 but may be trending upwards due to more consistency of in-person schooling options.¹¹

Habitual Truancy Referrals by Schools

Figure 1.8 provides the number of referrals to Juvenile Court by schools from FY 2020 to 2022 for habitual truancy. There were only 23 referrals for truancy in FY 2022. It is expected these referrals may continue to fluctuate as schools are operating based on changes with the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, there were 20 juvenile court truancy mediations for FY 2022.

Row

2. Nonjudicial Adjustments

In FY 2022, over 61% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of Non-Judicial Adjustments. This an increase of 3% from FY 2021.

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 2022, (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 nonminority¹² and minority,¹³ 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 2022 after being referred to the Juvenile Court. About 61% of youths entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2022 (an increase of 3% between FY 2021 and 2022).

NJA & Petitions

Figure 2.2 shows the number of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.¹⁴ Both NJAs and petitions see a slight increase in FY 2022 from 2021 which is expected due to the slight increase in overall court referrals.

NJAs Outcomes

Figure 2.3 shows the number of NJAs across Utah for FY 2022 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., 83% successful overall, an increase of 4% when comparing FY 2022 to 2021).

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 58% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with 27% falling between 91-180 days, and 15% over 121 days.¹⁵

Minority Status Overall

Figure 2.5 shows the make-up of youths entering into an NJA by minority status between FY 2020 - 2022. The share of minority youths entering into an NJA increased by a small amount between FY 2021 and 2022.¹⁶ 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 2020 to 2022. 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 (about 84% for FY 2022).

Row

3. Locked Detention

The rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention remained stable in FY 2022. Youths identified as minority account for 53% of this population in FY 2022.

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 rate¹⁷ in detention admissions from FY 2015 to 2022, (2) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day¹⁸ from FY 2015 to 2022, (3) the trend in the average number of youths served each day¹⁹ by individual facilities, and (4) the share of youths²⁰ ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,²¹ minority,²² and unknown.²³

Admissions to Locked Detention

Figure 3.1 shows admissions to Locked Detention from FY 2015 to 2022. The rate of admissions decreased from a rate of 8.7 per 1,000 youths in FY 2015 to a rate of 2.2 per 1,000 youths in FY 2022. This decline equates to about a 74% change in rate in FY 2022 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 2020 to 2022. The average number of youths served each day remained stable from an \(\approx\) 63 in FY 2020 to 62 in FY 2022.

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 2020 to 2022. While there is some variation among individual facilities by year, there is an overall stable trend in the average number of youths served each day from FY 2020 to 2022.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 3.4 shows the distribution of the Locked Detention population by minority status between FY 2020 and 2022. The share of minority youth admitted to Locked Detention remained stable between FY 2021 and FY 2022. It is still important to note minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population while accounting for 53% in the Locked Detention population.

Row

4. Probation

In FY 2022, we see a slight increase in both intake and formal probation orders given the overall slight increase 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 nonminority²⁴ and minority,²⁵ and (4) the number of youths by PSRA risk level.

Overall

Figure 4.1 shows the orders to Formal and Intake Probation from FY 2020 to 2022. The rate of orders for Formal and Intake Probation slightly increased in FY 2022 to 2.76 and 3.09 per 1,000 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 \(\approx\) 21% were under 91 days with an \(\approx\) 42% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 35% between 181-360 days. 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. 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.²⁶

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 minority from FY 2021 to 2022. However, it is important to note that minority youth makes up about 28% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 72%.²⁷

Risk Level

Figure 4.4 shows the percent of Formal and Intake Probation orders by risk level for FY 2022. 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 2022. 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 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 rate²⁸ of orders to Community Placement from FY 2015 to 2022, and (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement for youths identified as nonminority,²⁹ minority,³⁰ and unknown.³¹

Rate of Orders to Community Placement

Figure 5.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement between FY 2015 and 2022. Referrals continued to decline with numbers dropping between FY 2020 and 2022 (at around less than 1 per 1,000 youths in FY 2022).

Minority Status Overall

Figure 5.2 shows the make up of youths placed on Community Placement between FY 2020 and 2022. In FY 2022, nonminority youth made up the largest share at about 55%, followed by minority youths at around 44%. It is important to note that minority youth makes up about 28% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 72%.³²

Row

6. Secure Care

The rate of admissions to Secure Care overall decreased from FY 2015 to 2022. 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 JJYS 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 rate³³ in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2022, (2) the overall trend in the average number of youths served each day³⁴ from FY 2015 to 2022, (3) the trend in the average number of youths served each day³⁵ by individual Secure Care facilities, and (4) the share of youths³⁶ ordered to Locked Detention for youths identified as nonminority,³⁷ minority,³⁸ and unknown.³⁹

Admissions to Secure Care

Figure 6.1 show trends in Secure Care admissions from FY 2015 to 2022. As seen, the rate of admissions for FY 2022 remained stable at a rate of .4 per 1,000 youths (an overall decline of about 33% when comparing FY 2022 to 2015).

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 2020 to 2022. The average number of youths served each day decreased from about 100 in FY 2020 to 77 in FY 2022. This decline equates to \(\approx\) 22% change in the average number of youths served each day in FY 2022 when compared to FY 2020.

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 2020 to FY 2022. While some variation existed among individual facilities by year, there is an overall stable trend in the average number of youths served each day from FY 2020 to 2022.

Minority Status Overall

Figure 6.4 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were ordered to Secure Care for FY 2020 to 2022. While the percentage share remained stable across these years, Youths identified as minority continue to make up a disproportionate large share of Secure Care admissions in FY 2022.⁴⁰ As a reference, minority youth makes up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 72%.⁴¹

Row

7. Reinvestment

Since FY 2018, millions of dollars have been reinvested to front end services such as the JJYS’ Youth Services Model and School Based Outreach.

These early intervention services within the Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Service (JJYS), help 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 is all voluntary. Outcomes for FY 2022 includes:

• 4,343 youths were engaged in early intervention services statewide which includes 2,934 for Youth Services and 1,409 for School Based Outreach
• 1,007 youths completed intervention services
• 98% of those who completed, avoided a new JJYS custody and probation supervision at 180 days follow up

Additionally, JJYS reports that over the last four years, there has been an average risk reduction of almost 21 points for youth in secure care. This is on average, a 17% improvement over the baseline risk score established in FY 2018. This is significant based on the fact that JJYS have more complex youth in care.

And although there has been an increase in the risk and complexity of youth entering JJYS, the one and two year follow up recidivism rate for youth leaving JJYS custody is decreasing overall. More information on specific recidivism rates for JJYS custody youth can be found here.

Row

8. Racial & Ethnic Disparities

While the share of these trends have remained stable for both minority and nonminority youth in FY 2022, there is an overall disproportionate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system when taking into account the makeup of the general youth population.

Reform policies are continuing to move in a direction that aligns with reform goals as seen in the latest performance metrics, however, racial and ethnic minority disparities continue to persist at multiple points of contact. Decades of research has shown that these disparities can be attributed to a plethora of factors, some of which occur before the youth comes into contact with the juvenile justice system. However, it is critical that there needs to be a continued emphasis on examining these trends within the juvenile justice system as well as bolstering efforts in the school and community settings.

We encourage individuals to review the below section of past and current front line efforts from various juvenile justice organizations that are keeping the issue of racial and ethnic disparity at the forefront of their work.

Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee

In FY 2022, the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC) completed two Nonjudicial Adjustments (NJA) studies with the Utah Criminal Justice Center and Economics Evaluation Unit at the University of Utah. Specifically, in the fines, fees, and restitution study, the authors found differences in the success rates of the NJA between minority and nonminority youth. The studies may be found here.

This finding along with this research brief here highlights that although increasing diversion opportunities through a NJA is important, it is just as important to ensure these opportunities are equitably accessed and achieved successfully across all groups. It is also critical that we better understand the environment and context that youths are coming from when they enter the juvenile justice system and to which they return to once they exit the system.

As such, for the upcoming FY 2023 and 2024 years, the JJOC will explore the following research questions:

• How are juvenile offenses (misdemeanor & felony counts or court referrals) spatially distributed across the state of Utah?

• What neighborhood risks are associated with rates of juvenile offenses (per census tract)?

• What neighborhood resources are associated with rates of juvenile offenses (per census tract)?

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) Collaborative 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 2022, the RED Collaborative provided civic engagement sessions to young adults. The sessions and other resources can be found here.

Row

Endnotes