HB 239, General Session 2017
Policy changes focused on preventing deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system for lower level youths, protecting the community by focusing system resources on youths who pose the highest risk to public safety, and improving outcomes through reinvestment and increased system accountability.
HB 404, General Session 2019
Adopting the tenants of HB 239 allowed the state of Utah to accrue a pool of funds from system savings. The crux of HB 404 was to direct reinvestment of these funds to help support youth before they have contact with the juvenile justice system.
HB 304, General Session 2023
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.
This seventh annual report provides an update on juvenile justice reform policies that were passed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and subsequent years. Highlights from this year’s report are as follow:
Referrals to Utah’s juvenile court system increased in FY 2023. Overall, there were 14,204 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2023. This represents an increase of 11.4% from FY 2022 but an overall decline of 33% when compared to FY 2017.
Youths continue to be diverted from the system through the use of Nonjudicial Adjustments. Despite the increase in court referrals, the share of youths entering into an Nonjudicial Adjustment increased to almost 64% and the share of success rates increased to 94% in FY 2023. The share of minority youths entering into an Nonjudicial Adjustment has also increased.
Court supervision through Intake or Formal Probation is guided by a youth’s risk and needs. For FY 2023, the rate for Intake and Formal Probation decreased.1 The share of Formal and Intake Probation orders increased for youths identified as minority. However, additional data points would need to be evaluated to meaningfully understand the significance of this, as it does not factor in the level of referred offenses.
There has been a change in the way admissions to Locked Detention, Community Placement orders, and admissions to Secure Care are counted and reflected in this latest report. For FY 2023, the rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention was 4.85 per 1,000 youths. The rate of Community Placement orders was .35 per 1,000 youths and the rate of admissions to Secure Care was .19 per 1,000 youths.
Since FY 2018, millions of dollars have been reinvested to front end services such as the JJYS’ Youth Services Model and School Based Outreach. For FY 2023 there were 1,698 youths who completed JJYS’ Youth Services statewide. At 90 days after completion, 98.5% of these youth avoided Probation or JJYS/DCFS custody. Further, there were School Based Outreach in rural Utah to 77 different schools.
This year’s findings indicate that while there is an increase in Court Referrals in FY 2023, there is also an increasing rate of diversion opportunities. And with that, an upward trend in successful completion of Nonjudicial Adjustment Agreements. Further, Utah continues to see a low rate of Community Placement and Secure Care admissions. For more detailed information, see the “Performance Metrics” tab on the top menu bar, and see “HB 304” for the new required data reporting elements.
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.
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.
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. 2
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.3
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.4
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.”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.
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) 2023.
Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee: The JJOC is comprised of various stakeholders from the following organizations:
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).
HB 304 Implementation Working Groups: Several working groups were created to assist in the implementation of HB 304.
Gun Interventions: A new working group was created to address the issue of firearm-related offenses.
Miscellaneous: Members of the JJOC may also participate in other groups led by members of the Utah legislature throughout the year. For FY 2023, several JJOC members are a part of the School Security Task force.6
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 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.
Referrals to Utah’s juvenile justice system slightly increased in FY 2023.
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.7 Because 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,8 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 14,204 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2023. This represents an increase of 11.4% from FY 2022. Furthermore, the per capita referral rate9 of school age children10 to the Juvenile Court was 4.99 per 100 youths in FY 2017, and down to 3.34 per 100 youths in FY 2023 (a 33% decrease).
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.
Overall
Figure 1.1 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court between FY 2017 and 2023. The rate of referrals increased in FY 2023, measuring at around 3.34 per 100 youths. We can see a decreasing trend in the rate of referrals between FY 2017 and FY 2021 with an increase starting in FY 2021 to this most current year. However, the FY 2023 rate remains below pre-pandemic levels.
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 FY 2023.
Minority Status
Figure 1.3 shows the share of Juvenile Court referrals for youths identified as minority, nonminority, and unknown.11 To place these numbers into context, while minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population,12 in FY 2023, minority youth made up about 41% of these referrals.
Risk Level
Figure 1.4 shows Juvenile Court referrals by risk level between FY 2020 and 2022. In FY 2023, 74% were assessed as low risk, 15% as moderate risk and 11% as high risk.
Petitions by Judicial District
Figure 1.5 shows the number of Petition cases by Judicial Districts for FY 2023.
Petition and Dismissals by Judicial District
Figure 1.6 shows the number of Petition cases that were dismissed by Judicial Districts for FY 2023.
Number of Adjudications by Judicial District
Figure 1.7 shows the number of adjudications by Judicial Districts for FY 2023.
Contempts
Figure 1.8 shows the number of Contempt filings by Judicial Districts for FY 2023.
Order to Show Cause
Figure 1.9 shows the number of Order to Show Cause (OSC) by Judicial Districts for FY 2023.
Information Filed
Information Filed means a case may be directly filed in an adult district court. In FY 2023, there were 10 distinct youths for whom information was filed for their case to be transferred to the District Court. Of those cases, 2 youths were placed in Secure Care and the remaining 8 are awaiting a decision.
In FY 2023, close to 64% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of Non-Judicial Adjustments. This is an increase of 5% from FY 2022.
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.
The following section provides an overview of (1) the share of NJAs entered and Petitions from FY 2017 to 2023, (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.
Overall
Figure 2.1 shows the share of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.15 between FY 2017 and 2023. About 64% of youths entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2023 (an increase of 5% between from FY 2022).
NJAs by Judicial District
Figure 2.2 shows the number of NJAs by Judicial District for FY 2023.
NJAs Outcomes
Figure 2.3 provides a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful or unsuccessful between FY 2020 and 2023. The vast majority of NJAs, 94% were deemed as successful for FY 2023.
NJA Outcomes by Judicial District
Figure 2.4 shows NJA Outcomes by Judicial District for FY 2023.
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 65% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with 24% falling between 91-180 days, and 11% over 121 days.16
Minority Status Overall
Figure 2.6 shows the share of youths entering into an NJA by minority status between FY 2020 - 2023. The share of minority youths entering into an NJA increased between FY 2020 and 2023.17 As the figure shows, nonminority youths continue to make up the majority of all youths who entered into an NJA. For context, nonminority youths make up 72% of the population18, and 60% of the youth who entered into a nonjudicial agreement. This data does not factor in the level of offense.
Risk Level
Figure 2.7 shows the percent of NJAs by risk level from FY 2020 to 2023. 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 82% for FY 2023).
In FY 2023, we see a change in the rate of Probation as there has been changes in the data system report.
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 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 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 nonminority19 and minority,20 and (5) the number of youths by PSRA risk level.
Overall
Figure 3.1 shows the orders to Formal and Intake Probation from FY 2020 to 2023. It is important to note for FY 2023 the rate per 1,000 youth for Probation orders is lower than previous years due to an improvement 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/referral and is going on probation, but the youth was adjudicated on only 3 episodes, we should only be counting the 3, not 5. The rate of orders for Formal and Intake Probation in FY 2023 is 1.88 and 1.41 per 1,000 youths respectively.
Probation Orders by Judicial District
Figure 3.2 shows the number of Probation Orders by Judicial District for FY 2023.
Time on Probation in Period
Figure 3.3 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Formal and Intake Probation for FY 2023. For Formal Probation, an \(\approx\) 30% were under 91 days with an \(\approx\) 43% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 23% between 181-360 days. An \(\approx\) 36% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 46% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 17% 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.21
Minority Status Overall
Figure 3.4 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 slightly increased for youths identified as minority from FY 2022 to 2023. 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 about 28% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 72%.22
Risk Level
Figure 3.5 shows the percent of Formal and Intake Probation orders by risk level for FY 2023. 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.
The rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention was 4.85 per 1,000 youths for FY 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. The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate23 in detention admissions for FY 2023, (2) the number of Locked Detention episodes by Judicial District, and (3) the share of Locked Detention episodes by youths identified as nonminority24 and minority.25
Admissions to Locked Detention
Figure 4.1 shows the rate Locked Detention episodes for FY 2023 was 4.85 per 1,000 youths. The rate for previous years are not included here as we have implemented a new method in counting the number of Locked Detention admissions by episode.
Locked Detention Episodes by Judicial District
Figure 4.2 shows the number of Locked Detention episodes by Judicial District for FY 2023.
Minority Status Overall
Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of the Locked Detention episodes by minority status for FY 2023. Minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population26 while accounting for 51% in the Locked Detention population.
The rate of Community Placement orders was less than 1 per 1,000 youths in FY 2023.
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 rate27 of orders to Community Placement for FY 2023, (2) the number of youths ordered to Community Placement by Judicial District, and (3) the share of Community Placement orders by youths identified as nonminority28 and minority.29
Rate of Orders to Community Placement
Figure 5.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement for FY 2023 was .35 per 1,000 youths. The rate for previous years are not included here as we have implemented a new method in counting the number of Community Placement orders by episode.
Community Placement Orders by Judicial District
Figure 5.2 shows the number of Community Placement episodes by Judicial District for FY 2023.
Minority Status Overall
Figure 5.3 shows the distribution of the Community Placement episodes by minority status for FY 2023. Minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population30 while accounting for 43.62% in Community Placement episodes.
The rate of admissions to Secure Care was less than 1 per 1,000 youths for FY 2023.
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 rate31 in Secure Care admissions for FY 2023, (2) the number of Secure Care episodes by Judicial District, and (3) the share of Secure Care episodes by youths identified as nonminority32 and minority.33
Rate of Orders to Secure Care
Figure 6.1 shows the rate of Secure Care orders for FY 2023 was .19 per 1,000 youths. The rate for previous years are not included here as we have implemented a new method in counting the number of Secure Care orders by episode.
Secure Care Episodes by Judicial District
Figure 6.2 shows the number of Secure Care Episodes by Judicial District for FY 2023.
Minority Status Overall
Figure 6.3 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority for Secure Care episodes for FY 2023. Minority youth makes up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population34 while accounting for 57.32% of Secure Care episodes.
School-Based Referrals to the Juvenile Court are alleged offenses that occurred in the school setting.
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.35 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, (3) the share of youths identified as nonminority36 and minority,37 and (4) the number of habitual truancy referrals for FY 2023.
Referrals by Schools
Figure 8.1 shows the number of referrals from schools to Juvenile Court was 1,417 in FY 2023 compared to 1,282 in FY 2022. This translates to a rate of 3.33 per 1,000 youths (a slight increase of about 9% between FY 2022 and 2023).
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 FY 2023.
| Offense | n |
|---|---|
| ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY/SUB RISK | 306 |
| MARIJUANA POSSESSION OR USE | 275 |
| CRIMINAL TRESPASS SCHOOL PROP. | 133 |
| POSSESSION DRUG PARAPHERNALIA | 78 |
| THEFT <$500 | 49 |
Minority Status
Figure 8.2 shows the share of School-based 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,38 in FY 2023, minority youth made up about 55% of these referrals.
Truancy Referrals by Schools
Figure 8.3 provides the number of referrals to Juvenile Court by schools from FY 2020 to 2023 for truancy. In FY 2023 there were 25 referrals for truancy. Additionally, truancy mediation was accepted by 22 youths.
While racial and ethnic minority disparities is seen at multiple points of contact, we do see an increase in the share of Non-judicial Adjustments for minority youth in FY 2023.
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.
Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
In FY 2023, our graduate research intern, Sheena Yoon recently completed a Geospatial Study Proposal where she describes: “The challenge of juvenile justice lies at the intersection of public safety, racial and ethnic inequality, and public health where improving the outcomes and lives of the juvenile justice-involved population and their communities must occur with the full understanding of what underlies the risks and maladaptive outcomes that have led to their system involvement in the first place.” Her proposal offers methodology resources for jurisdictions who are aiming to conduct geospatial analysis of their unique population and community. You can find her proposal here.
Further, utilizing the methodologies described in her proposal, Sheena Yoon conducted a study on the largest county in Utah. You can find that study here. We are currently working on expanding that study statewide so we can identify spatial clusters of inequities to help stakeholders reinvest resources into those areas with the goal of reducing that identified disparity.
Utah Board of Juvenile Justice The Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ) serves as the designated State Advisory Group for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA, 34 U.S.C. § 11101) through the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. UBJJ establishes and maintains a comprehensive plan for Utah’s compliance with the four core protections of the JJDPA, thus making Utah eligible for federal grants. UBJJ along with the Racial and Ethnic Disparities Collaborative collect information on racial and ethnic disparities at various points of contact in the juvenile justice system. Information on grants, data and reports can be found here.
Racial and Ethnic Disparities Collaborative
The Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Collaborative is a branch of UBJJ that was created to help address racial and ethnic disparities at key points in the youth justice system. In FY 2023, the RED Collaborative provided civic engagement sessions to young adults. The sessions and other resources can be found here. Further, the latest FY 22 RED Data Presentation highlights decreasing trends in racial and ethnic disparities. You can find the latest report here.
Firearm-related Offenses is a newly added section to this annual report.
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.39
As such it is important to note, the data relating to firearm-related offenses is still an ongoing process, as data collection methods and analysis continues to be refined. Updates for FY 2023 will be updated accordingly.
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 nonminority40 and minority,41
Overall Firearm Offenses
In FY 2023, there were a total of 51 firearm-related offenses episodes with 2 episodes being flagged as a restricted person. Figure 9.1 shows the majority of firearm offenses were petitioned to court (n=37).
Firearm Offenses by Age of Youth
Figure 9.2 shows that over half of youths referred to court for an alleged firearm offense were 17 (n=15) and 16 years of age(n=13), followed by 15 (n=10), and 14 years of age (n=10).
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 with a couple in the Logan and St.George area. 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.
| youthzip | n |
|---|---|
| 84118 | 6 |
| 84074 | 4 |
| 84335 | 4 |
| 84660 | 4 |
| 84111 | 3 |
| 84120 | 3 |
| 84070 | 2 |
| 84780 | 2 |
| 84043 | 1 |
| 84058 | 1 |
| 84071 | 1 |
| 84078 | 1 |
| 84081 | 1 |
| 84084 | 1 |
| 84088 | 1 |
| 84321 | 1 |
| 84403 | 1 |
| 84404 | 1 |
| 84601 | 1 |
| 84624 | 1 |
| 84663 | 1 |
| 84770 | 1 |
| 84790 | 1 |
Type of Firearm Offenses
The table below shows the top 5 types of firearm-related offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in FY 2023.
| Offense | n |
|---|---|
| Theft Firearm | 11 |
| Discharge OF A Firearm-Injury | 6 |
| Poss of Firearm-CAT II Restr. | 6 |
| AGG. ASSAULT WITH WEAPON/FORCE | 5 |
| DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS IN CITY | 4 |
Firearm Offenses and Outcomes
Figure 9.3 shows there were 51 firearm-related episodes referred during FY 2023. Thirty-seven of those firearm-related episodes have been petitioned to court. Fifteen petitioned cases have been adjudicated and nine of those cases have proceeded to disposition with the following dispositional orders:
Minority Status Overall
Figure 9.4 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were referred to court for an alleged firearm-related offense.
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 to CCJJ data collected on school disciplinary and law enforcement action.42
You can find their full report here.
Data collection practices were able to be refined during FY 2023, for enhanced accuracy.↩︎
Please see § 53G-8-211 of HB 132 for details.↩︎
Quote from the JJYS website.↩︎
Please visit the JJOC website for the working group findings that led to the policy recommendations for HB 239.↩︎
Annie Casey, ” Transforming Juvenile Probation, Page 9↩︎
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.↩︎
Utah State Board of Education 10-17 year olds↩︎
Unknown included youths whose race and ethnicity were not identified.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎
Other includes: prosecutor denied petition, unable to locate, insufficient evidence, and no jurisdiction to proceed.↩︎
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.↩︎
There were 242 unknowns for FY 2023.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎
The small percentage of 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.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education.↩︎
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.↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education↩︎
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.↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education↩︎
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.↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎
School Year 2023 data from the Utah State Board of Education↩︎
Youths identified as White, non-Hispanic.↩︎
Youths identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, or Multiracial.↩︎