Definitions & Acronyms

Adjudication: The court process that determines if a juvenile committed the act they were charged for. Adjudicated is analogous to the criminal justice system’s term “convicted” and indicates that the court had sufficient evidence to find that the referred allegations are true.

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

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

Delinquency: An act committed by a juvenile for which an adult could be prosecuted in a criminal court, but when committed by a juvenile is within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. Delinquent acts include person, property, drug, and public order offenses.

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

Evidence-based: HB 239 defined evidence-based as “…a program or practice that has had multiple randomized control studies or a meta-analysis demonstrating that the program or practice is effective for a specific population or has been rated as effective by a standardized program evaluation tool.” HB 132 added that evidence-based interventions to address school-based behaviors include programs and practices that have been approved by the State Board of Education. 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.

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

Petition: Formally charged (petitioned) delinquency cases are those that appear on a court calendar in response to the filing of a petition, complaint, or other legal instrument requesting the court to adjudicate a youth as a delinquent or status offender, or to waive jurisdiction and transfer a youth to criminal court. Petitioning occurs when a juvenile court intake officer, prosecutor, or other official determines that a case should be handled formally.

Probation: Utah has two levels of court ordered probation: Intake Probation and Formal Probation. 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 2024

The Utah Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC) meets on a quarterly basis while the working groups meet as needed, depending on the targeted project or subject area. Described below are the working groups for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024.

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

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

The following groups were a continuation from FY 2023 or have started in FY 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous: Members of the JJOC may also participate in other groups led by members of the Utah legislature throughout the year. For FY 2024, several JJOC members are a part of the School Security Task force.⁶

Row

Limitations

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

Row

1. System Trends

Referrals to Utah’s juvenile justice system decreased in FY 2024.

Historically, a large share of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court pertained to relatively minor levels of delinquency and even misbehaviors that do not rise to the level of delinquency.⁷ Because local and national research shows that the most effective strategy for youth who are determined to be at lower-risk to reoffend is to minimize involvement with the Juvenile Court,⁸ a core objective of policies that passed in 2017 was to ensure that our juvenile justice system reserve its resources for youths charged with severe delinquent behavior and those who are at high risk of experiencing sustained delinquency without system intervention.

Overall, there were 13,376 referrals to the Juvenile Court in FY 2024, which represents a per capita referral rate of 3.0 per 100 youths and a 6% decrease from FY 2023. Furthermore, the per capita referral rate⁹ of school age children¹⁰ to the Juvenile Court was 4.65 per 100 youths in FY 2017, and down to 3.0 per 100 youths in FY 2024. which represents an overall decline of 35%.

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

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Overall

Figure 1.1 shows the rate of referrals to Utah’s Juvenile Court between FY 2017 and 2024. The rate of referrals decreased in FY 2024, measuring at around 3.0 per 100 youths.

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 2024. Every Judicial District experienced a decrease in referral rate when compared to FY 2023, with the exception of the Eighth Judicial District (slight increase from 1.28 per 1000 youths in FY 2023 to 1.32 per 1000 youths in FY 2024).

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 2024, minority youth made up about 41.55% of these referrals.

Risk Level

Figure 1.4 shows Juvenile Court referrals by risk level between FY 2020 and 2024. In FY 2024, 72% were assessed as low risk, 17% 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 2024.

Petition and Dismissals by Judicial District

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

Number of Adjudications by Judicial District

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

Contempts

Figure 1.8 shows the number of Orders of Contempt by Judicial Districts for FY 2024. Overall, the number of Contempt filings in Juvenile Court is low (51 cases) in FY 2014, and a decrease from FY 2023 (62 cases).

Order to Show Cause

An Order to Show Cause (OSC) is a short-hand reference to a Motion for an Order to Show Cause, which is a motion asking the judge to give consequences to a youth by entering an Order of Contempt because the youth did not follow through with court orders or they violated a court order. Figure 1.9 shows the number OSCs by Judicial Districts for FY 2024. Overall, the number of OSCs slightly increased to 651 cases in FY 2024 from 641 cases in FY 2023.

Information Filed

Information Filed means a case may be directly filed in an adult district court. In FY 2024, there were 9 distinct youths for whom information was filed for their case to be transferred to the District Court. This is a slight decrease from 10 distinct youths that were reported in FY 2023 where their case was transferred to the District Court.

Row

2. Nonjudicial Adjustments

In FY 2024, close to 63% of youths were diverted from the formal Juvenile Court process through the use of Non-Judicial Adjustments.

Policy Summary

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

The following section provides an overview of (1) the share of NJAs entered and Petitions from FY 2017 to 2024, (2) the share of NJAs by Judicial District, (3) the breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful or unsuccessful, (4) NJAs outcome by Judicial District (5) the time on NJA in period, (5) the share of NJAs by youths identified as nonminority¹³ and minority,¹⁴ and (6) the share of youths who entered an NJA by PSRA risk level.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Overall

Figure 2.1 shows the share of initial intake decisions that resulted in an NJA, petition, or a category known as other.¹⁵ between FY 2017 and 2024. About 63% of youths entered into an NJA agreement in FY 2024.

NJAs by Judicial District

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

NJAs Outcomes

Figure 2.3 provides a breakdown of NJAs categorized as successful or unsuccessful between FY 2020 and 2024. The vast majority of NJAs, 94% were deemed as successful for FY 2024.

NJA Outcomes by Judicial District

Figure 2.4 shows NJA Outcomes by Judicial District for FY 2024. Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Judicial Districts experienced a decrease in NJAs where there was an unsuccessful outcome when compared to 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 63% of the total NJAs were under 90 days with 27% falling between 91-180 days, and 10% over 121 days.¹⁶

Minority Status Overall

Figure 2.6a shows the share of youths entering into an NJA by minority status between FY 2020 - 2024. The share of minority youths entering into an NJA increased between FY 2020 and 2024.¹⁷

Figure 2.6b shows the share of youths for whom a petition was filed by minority status in FY 2024. These data does not factor in the level of offense.

As the figure shows, nonminority youths make up the majority of youths who entered into an NJA and for whom a petition was filed. For context, nonminority youths make up 72% of the population¹⁸, 58% of the youth who entered into a nonjudicial agreement and 54% of the youth for whom a petition was filed.

Risk Level

Figure 2.7 shows the percent of NJAs by risk level from FY 2020 to 2024. 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 81.4% for FY 2024).

Row

3. Probation

For FY 2024, the rate for Intake Probation increased while the rate for Formal Probation decreased.

Policy Summary

Reform policies reinforced that standards of supervision should be individualized and guided by a youth’s risk and needs levels. This first contact between a referred youth and the Probation Officer takes place at the Preliminary Inquiry where the assessments are conducted and the NJA is offered (if applicable). Alternatively, when a youth is formally petitioned to court and appears before a judge, a youth may be placed on Formal Probation, which statute defines as court monitoring that includes field supervision, or Intake Probation, court monitoring that does not include field supervision. HB 239 also focused on setting presumptive time limits to assure that cases do not linger in the system (e.g. for fines only) after the youths complete the majority of their court obligations.

The following section provides an overview on Intake and Formal Probation in these areas (1) the rate youths are ordered to Probation, (2) the number of Probation orders by Judicial District, (3) time in period for completion, (4) the number of orders to Probation by youths identified as nonminority¹⁹ and minority,²⁰ and (5) the number of youths by PSRA risk level.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Overall

Figure 3.1 shows the orders to Formal and Intake Probation from FY 2020 to 2024. It is important to note for FY 2024 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/referrals and is going on probation, but the youth was adjudicated on only three episodes, we should only be counting the three, not five. For FY 2024, the rate for Intake Probation increased to 1.45 per 1000 youths while the rate for Formal Probation decreased to 1.60 per 1000 youths when compared to FY 2023.

Probation Orders by Judicial District

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

Time on Probation in Period

Figure 3.3 shows the breakdown in percentages for the time spent on Formal and Intake Probation for FY 2024. For Formal Probation, an \(\approx\) 22% were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 48% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 30% between 181-360 days. An \(\approx\) 41% of the total Intake Probation were under 90 days with an \(\approx\) 46% falling between 91-180 days, and an \(\approx\) 13% between 181-360 days. While changes in policy reform provide a 90 day time frame for Intake Probation and 120-180 days for Formal Probation, the time on probation may vary depending on the individualized probation orders or if there are changes in statutory guidelines.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 Intake Probation slightly increased for youths identified as minority from FY 2023 to 2024. While this data does not factor in the level of offense leading to youths being ordered to probation, it is important to note that minority youth makes up approximately 28% of Utah’s youth population while nonminority youth accounts for 72%.²²

Risk Level

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

Row

4. Locked Detention

The rate of youths admitted to Locked Detention was 4.85 per 1,000 youths for FY 2024.

Policy Summary

The trend in admissions to Locked Detention should be guided by the utilization of the detention admission guidelines along with the results of the detention risk assessment tool. In Utah, Locked Detention provides locked confinement (typically short-term) for delinquent youth awaiting adjudication or placement or who have received a disposition from a Juvenile Court judge to be held in a secure facility for a period of time.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate²³ in detention admissions for FY 2024, (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

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

Admissions to Locked Detention

Figure 4.1 shows the rate Locked Detention episodes for FY 2024 was 4.65 per 1,000 youths, a decreased from 4.85 per 1,000 youths in FY 2023.

Locked Detention Episodes by Judicial District

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

Minority Status Overall

Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of the Locked Detention episodes by minority status remained similar for FY 2024 when compared to FY 2023. Minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population²⁶ while accounting for 51% in the Locked Detention population.

Row

5. Community Placement

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

Policy Summary

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

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate²⁷ of orders to Community Placement for FY 2024, (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

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based here means one or more commitments of a particular type (Community Placement) that were ordered by the Court on the same date.

Rate of Orders to Community Placement

Figure 5.1 shows the rate that youths were ordered to Community Placement for FY 2024 was similar to FY 2023 at .35 per 1,000 youths.

Community Placement Orders by Judicial District

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

Minority Status Overall

Figure 5.3 shows the distribution of the Community Placement episodes by minority status for FY 2024. Minority youth make up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population³⁰ while accounting for 41.89% in Community Placement episodes (a slight decrease from 43.62% in FY 2023).

Row

6. Secure Care

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

Policy Summary

Secure Care is for youths ordered into the custody of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services by a Juvenile Court Judge with oversight by the Youth Parole Authority. JJYS provides services to youths who are ordered Secure Care commitment by the Juvenile Court.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the rate³¹ in Secure Care admissions for FY 2024, (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

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based here means one or more commitments of a particular type (Secure Care) that were ordered by the Court on the same date.

Rate of Orders to Secure Care

Figure 6.1 shows the rate of Secure Care orders for FY 2024 slightly increased to .21 per 1,000 youths from .19 per 1,000 youths in FY 2023.

Secure Care Episodes by Judicial District

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

Minority Status Overall

Figure 6.3 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority for Secure Care episodes for FY 2024. Minority youth makes up about 28% of Utah’s overall youth population³⁴ while accounting for 63.64% of Secure Care episodes (an increase from 57.32% in FY 2023).

Row

7. Racial & Ethnic Disparities

While racial and ethnic minority disparities are seen at multiple points of contact, we do see an increase in the share of Non-judicial Adjustments for minority youth in FY 2024.

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. The study results will be available Spring 2025.

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. The latest FY 2023 RED Data Presentation highlights decreasing trends in racial and ethnic disparities. You can find the latest report here.

Row

8. School-Based Offenses

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 2024.

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Referrals by Schools

Figure 8.1 shows the number of referrals from schools to Juvenile Court slightly increased to 1,485 episodes in FY 2024 from 1,417 episodes in FY 2024. This translates to a rate of 3.33 per 1,000 youths.

Type of School-based Offenses

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

Offense	n
ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY/SUB RISK	327
MARIJUANA POSSESSION OR USE	323
CRIMINAL TRESPASS SCHOOL PROP.	116
POSSESSION DRUG PARAPHERNALIA	67
Theft Value < $500	62

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 2024, minority youth made up about 55% of these referrals.

Truancy Referrals by Schools

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

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

Row

9. School Disciplinary and Law Enforcement Action

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

Policy Summary

House Bill 304, Juvenile Justice Revisions, was passed during Utah’s 2023 General Session. House Bill 304 requires the Utah State Board of Education to submit data collected on school disciplinary and law enforcement action to CCJJ.³⁹

To access the School Disciplinary and Law Enforcement Action Report on the Data and Statistics Report website, the report is located under “Utah State Board of Education Superintendent’s Annual Report (SAR)” on the “Schools” tab which you can find here.

Row

10. Reintegration Plans

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

Policy Summary

During the 2023 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 304.⁴⁰ This bill initiated new requirements regarding reintegration plans, and the method for reentry of students who have allegedly committed or committed specific offenses back into the educational setting.

In the 2024 legislative session, HB 84⁴¹, HB 362⁴², HB 418⁴³, and SB 246⁴⁴ introduced new guidance and standards.

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

Row

11. Serious Offenses

HB 362 passed in the 2024 General Session changed the type of offenses that will trigger a notification to Schools from the Juvenile Court, Juvenile Justice and Youth Services, and Law Enforcement.

Policy Summary

During the 2024 legislative session, Utah passed House Bill (HB) 362⁴⁵. This bill changed the type of offenses that will trigger a notification to Schools from the Juvenile Court, Juvenile Justice and Youth Services, and Law Enforcement. Specifically Section 80-6-103 states if a minor is taken into temporary custody for a serious offense defined as a violent felony (Section 76-3-203.5), theft of a firearm offense (Section 76-6-4), or a weapons offense (Section 76-10-5), a notification shall be sent to the minor’s school. These offenses could have occurred or allegedly occurred outside of the school setting.

The following section provides an overview of (1) the overall number of locked detention admissions for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode, (2) the overall number of court referrals for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode, (3) type of serious offenses, (4) and the disposition outcomes.

Serious Offense Locked Detention Admission Episodes

Figure 11.1 shows the overall episode-based count of locked detention admissions for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode by fiscal year. Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based here means consecutive assignments at a Detention facility that were separated by 24 or fewer hours. In FY 2024, the number of locked detention admissions for serious offenses was 547 episodes.

Serious Offense Locked Detention Admissions Rate

Figure 11.2 shows the per capita rate of locked detention admissions for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode by fiscal year. Episode-based here means consecutive assignments at a Detention facility that were separated by 24 or fewer hours. In FY 2024, the rate of locked detention admissions for serious offenses was 1.22 per 1,000 youths.

Serious Offense Court Referral Episodes

Figure 11.3 shows the overall number of court referrals for serious offenses, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode by fiscal year. Episode-based counts here may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge. In FY 2024, the number of court referral episodes for serious offenses was 1,517 compared to 1,583 episodes in FY 2018.

Serious Offense Court Referral Rate

Figure 11.4 shows the per capita rate per 1,000 youths of serious offenses referred to court, where the serious offense was the most severe charge within an episode by fiscal year. Episode-based counts here may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge. In FY 2024, the rate of court referrals for serious offenses was 3.40 per 1,000 youths compared to 3.69 per 1,000 youths in FY 2018.

Serious Offense Type Trend

Figure 11.5 shows the changes in the top 10 serious offense types for FY 2018 - 2024. The changes in trend can be seen by placing your mouse over the individual year at the top of the figure or by clicking the play button.

Further, a closer look at the types of serious offenses by grouping individual offense types by the major categories of Aggravated Assault⁴⁶, Firearm-related, Homicide-related, and Sex-related, we see that Sex-related offenses have decreased in FY 2024 when compared to FY 2018 while Aggravated Assault and Firearm-related offenses have increased.

Lastly, when looking at specifically homicide-related offenses, we saw eight episodes in FY 2024 compared to five episodes in FY 2018.

Serious Offenses and Intake Decision

In FY 2024, there were a total of 1,517 serious offenses court referral episodes. Figure 11.6 shows the majority of serious offenses, 1,228 episodes were petitioned to court, 100 episodes entered into a NJA, 143 episodes were denied by a prosecutor. Additionally there were 28 episodes categorized as “insufficient facts to justify”, and six episodes categorized as “request for action.”

It is important to note there were nine serious offenses episodes that were directly filed in District Court.

Serious Offenses and Outcomes

Figure 11.7 shows the following dispositional orders for the 1,228 serious offense episodes that were petitioned in FY 2024:

• 151 Intake Probation Orders
• 188 Formal Probation Orders
• 81 Community Placement Disposition
• 56 Secure Care Dispositions
• 253 Episodes were Dismissed

Minority Status Overall

Figure 11.8 shows the percent of youths identified as nonminority and minority that were referred to court for an alleged serious offense.

Row

12. Firearm-related Offenses

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.⁴⁷

While efforts are being made to accurately identify firearm-related offenses, caution is advised in the interpretation of trends based on this data. The juvenile court is now identifying offenses for which the statute includes “firearm” in the elements or title of the offense as a firearm-related offense. Additionally, offenses including Murder, Aggravated Murder, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Burglary, and Aggravated Robbery were specifically reviewed for FY24 to determine whether or not the offense involved a firearm.

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 nonminority⁴⁸ and minority,⁴⁹

Data for this section is displayed by episodes. Episode-based counts may include duplicate youths. One episode may include multiple incidents that occurred on the same incident date. If a minor was to have several incidents that occurred on the same incident date, an episode-based count will show the most severe charge.

Firearm-related Offense Episodes and Intake Decision

In FY 2024, there were a total of 210 firearm-related offenses episodes with 61 episodes being flagged as a restricted person. Figure 12.1 shows the majority of firearm offenses, 186 episodes were petitioned to court, 8 episodes entered into an NJA, eight episodes were denied by a prosecutor. Additionally there were three episodes categorized as “insufficient facts to justify”, and one episode categorized as “request for action.”

It is important to note there were eight firearm-related offenses episodes that were directly filed in District Court that is not included in the rest of the analysis for this section.

Firearm Offenses by Age of Youth

Figure 12.2 shows that over half of youths referred to court for an alleged firearm offense were 17 (n=59) and 16 years of age(n=67), followed by 15 (n=38), and 14 years of age (n=29). Additionally, there for 13 years of age (n=11), 12 years of age (n=3), 11 years of age (n=1).

Firearm Offenses by Youth’s ZIP Code

The map and table below shows a breakdown of alleged firearm-related offenses by the youth’s ZIP code. The map indicates the majority of youth lives along the Wasatch front. It is important to note many ZIP codes were missing as this is a new variable implemented in the Juvenile Court’s CARE Data System. You may scroll through the table by placing your mouse within the table box.

Type of Firearm Offenses

The table below shows the top 5 types of firearm-related offenses that were referred to the Juvenile Court in FY 2024. Additionally, out of the 210 firearm-related offenses, 44 of those firearm-related episodes were for the following offenses: Aggravated murder (n=1 episode), Murder (n=4 episodes), Aggravated Assault (n=15 episodes), Aggravated Assault with Bodily Injury (n=1 episode), Aggravated Robbery (n=21 episodes), and Robbery (n=2 episodes).

statuteidshortdescription	n
Poss of Firearm-CAT II Restr.	25
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY	21
Theft Firearm	21
Poss Firearm Restricted Cat I	16
Aggravated Assault	15

Firearm Offenses and Outcomes

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

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

Minority Status Overall

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

Row

Endnotes