Executive Summary
Background
Utah, like other states, invests a great deal of money into its juvenile justice system to address delinquency and other forms of delinquent behavior in youth with the goal of addressing these issues early on and preventing criminal behavior as these youth mature into adults. These interventions can come both through the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Juvenile Court (i.e., probation, nonjudicial interventions) or the Department of Human Services’ Division of Juvenile Justice and Youth Services (i.e., locked detention, community placement, secure care). But, to this point, there has been no mechanism for determining how many youth who are adjudicated and receive services through the juvenile justice system end up subsequently having contact with the adult criminal justice and corrections systems long-term.
The goal of this study is to begin this process by examining youth exits from the juvenile justice system (termination of jurisdiction orders) starting in 2010, and following these individuals forward in time up to ten years to see how often they come into contact with the adult justice system, particularly at its highest levels (Department of Corrections jurisdiction, including prison admissions, parole, and felony and Class A probation). To do this, we obtained data on youth exits from the Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice and Youth Services on youth exiting the system (initially between 2010-2014), and matched this to data from the Department of Corrections on probation starts and prison admissions and releases between 2010-2021. The resulting analyses which can be found under the ‘menu’ tab at the top off this document, is the first attempt to convey information on long-term outcomes of youth exiting the juvenile system, including likelihood of adult system contact, likelihood of multiple contacts, likelihood of prison admission, time to adult system contact, and various factors that might best predict these outcomes up to ten years post-exit. The hope is that this study becomes sustainable over time, with new years of data from both sides added each year.
Key Findings:
10.9% of youth exiting the juvenile system have subsequent contact with the adult system within five years post-exit, and 19.0% have subsequent contact within ten years post-exit (note that only two of the five cohorts could be tracked for the full ten years).
The first contact with the adult system is most likely to involve a 3rd degree felony or Class A misdemeanor and probation.
In the 5-year analysis, the bulk of first contacts occurred in the first four years; in the 10-year analysis, an additional wave of first contacts appeared to occur in the sixth and seventh years post-exit.
3.5% of youth exiting the juvenile system have a prison admission within five years post-exit, and this increases to 5.3% within ten years; prison admission rates appear to be steadily decreasing across the five exit cohorts (more information on 10-year rates will be forthcoming in future years).
Involvement in the JJS system through secure care and/or community placement was a very strong predictor of subsequent adult corrections system contact post-exit. Other important factors included final risk scores, seriousness of the last juvenile delinquent episode, having a contempt charge, and certain demographic factors (higher age, male, minority race/ethnicity).
Males, juveniles who are older at exit, and those with a prior secure care placement tend to have subsequent contact with the adult corrections system sooner than others.
Can we estimate how many youth exiting the juvenile system end up with contact in the adult corrections system up to five years post-exit? Overall, by exit year, trends?
Yes, this figure shows that out of all the youths who exited the juvenile system in 2010, 13.1% had contact with the adult system compared to 10.2% in 2014. On average, 10.9% of youth exiting the juvenile system have subsequent contact with the adult system within five years post-exit.
Note: The final juvenile disposition years displayed is limited to those that have 5 years of follow-up data available.
For those that have any contact with the adult corrections system, what is the nature of the first contact (i.e., % felony probation, Class A probation, prison; felony vs. misdemeanor offense)?
The graph on the left hand side shows that the majority of the first contact with the adult system resulted in felony probation (58.2%), followed by Class A probation (32.4%), prison sentence (6.2%), and plea in abeyance (3.1%).
The graph on the right hand side shows that third degree felony (48.6%) made up the largest share of offenses, followed by misdemeanor A (31.3%), second degree felony (16.8%), and first degree felony (3.3%).
How long does it generally take from juvenile exit to first adult contact?
This graph shows that the majority of youth have their first contact with the adult system within 3 years post-exit (56.5%), followed by 4 years (23.3%) and 5 years (20.3%).
How many youth exiting the juvenile system have an admission to prison within five years?
This figure shows that out of all the youths who exited the juvenile system in 2010, 4.5% had a prison admission compared to 2.7% in 2014. On average, 3.5% of youth exiting the juvenile system have a prison admission within five years post-exit.
What factors best predict likelihood of adult system contact?
This figure shows that involvement in the JJS system through secure care and/or community placement, final risk scores, and seriousness of the last juvenile delinquent episode was a very strong predictor of subsequent adult system contact post-exit. Other important factors included certain demographic factors such as being older, male, Black/African American, Other/Mixed, and Latino/Hispanic.
Note: Values less than 1 indicate that the factor is linked with a smaller likelihood, and values greater than one indicate a greater likelihood. For instance, a value of one means there is no predicted change in likelihood, a value of 0.5 means there is half the likelihood, and a value of 2 means that the factor indicates that there is twice the likelihood of having adult contact. Bars in grey are non-significant.
For binary values such as gender, flags, and having a contempt incident, the plot values show the difference in likelihood compared to the alternative.
For numerical values such as age at last disposition and number of juvenile incidents, the plot values show the the difference in likelihood for each 1 unit increase in the value.
For the categorical values of race, the plot values show the difference in likelihood relative to a weighted mean of all race categories (a weighted mean accounts for the fact that there are differences in the total number of individuals of each race in our data).
For ordinal values such as highest crime degree and final juvenile risk assessment, the values show the difference in likelihood for each increase in level (i.e. going from low risk to medium risk). Because ordinal values do not necessarily have the same degree of change between levels, quadratic and cubic fits are tested in addition to a linear change. When these are significant it suggests that the change may be more or less between one set of levels than another.
What factors best predict time to first adult system contact?
This figure shows that males, being older at exit, having a higher number of incidents, and those with a prior secure care placement tend to have subsequent contact with the adult corrections system sooner than others.
Note: Negative values indicate that the factor predicts fewer days between leaving the juvenile system and entering the adult system. Bars in grey are non-significant.
For binary values such as gender, flags, and having a contempt incident, the plot values show the difference in days compared to the alternative.
For numerical values such as age at last disposition and number of juvenile incidents, the plot values show the the difference in days for each 1 unit increase in the value.
For the categorical values of race, the plot values show the difference in days relative to a weighted mean of the number of days for all race categories (a weighted mean accounts for the fact that there are differences in the total number of individuals of each race in our data).
For ordinal values such as highest crime degree and final juvenile risk assessment, the values show the difference in days for each increase in level (i.e. going from low risk to medium risk). Because ordinal values do not necessarily have the same degree of change between levels, quadratic and cubic fits are tested in addition to a linear change. When these are significant it suggests that the change may be more or less between one set of levels than another.
Can we estimate how many youth exiting the juvenile system end up with contact in the adult corrections system up to ten years post-exit? Overall, by exit year, trends?
Yes, this figure shows that out of all the youths who exited the juvenile system in 2010, 20.1% had contact with the adult system compared to 18% in 2011. On average, 19% of youth exiting the juvenile system have subsequent contact with the adult system within ten years post-exit.
Note: The final juvenile disposition years displayed is limited to those that have 10 years of follow-up data available.
For those that have any contact with the adult corrections system, what is the nature of the first contact (i.e., % felony probation, Class A probation, prison; felony vs. misdemeanor offense)?
The graph on the left hand side shows that the majority of the first contact with the adult system resulted in felony probation (54.8%), followed by Class A probation (34.2%), prison sentence (6.6%), and plea in abeyance (4.4%).
The graph on the right hand side shows that third degree felony (48%) made up the largest share of offenses, followed by misdemeanor A (32.9%), second degree felony (16.6%), and first degree felony (2.5%).
How long does it generally take from juvenile exit to first adult contact?
This graph shows that the majority of youth have their first contact with the adult system within six years post-exit (68.5%), followed by seven years (10.9%), eight years (9.3%), nine years (6.4%) and ten years (4.8%).
How many youth exiting the juvenile system have an admission to prison within ten years?
This figure shows that out of all the youths who exited the juvenile system in 2010, 5.8% had a prison admission compared to 4.8% in 2011. On average, 5.3% of youth exiting the juvenile system have a prison admission within ten years post-exit.
What factors best predict likelihood of adult system contact?
This figure shows that involvement in the JJS system through secure care and/or community placement and having a contempt charge was a very strong predictor of subsequent adult system contact post-exit. Other important factors included final risk scores, having a number of juvenile incidents, and certain demographic factors such as being older, male, and Black/African American.
Note: Values less than 1 indicate that the factor is linked with a smaller likelihood, and values greater than one indicate a greater likelihood. For instance, a value of one means there is no predicted change in likelihood, a value of 0.5 means there is half the likelihood, and a value of 2 means that the factor indicates that there is twice the likelihood of having adult contact. Bars in grey are non-significant.
For binary values such as gender, flags, and having a contempt incident, the plot values show the difference in likelihood compared to the alternative.
For numerical values such as age at last disposition and number of juvenile incidents, the plot values show the the difference in likelihood for each 1 unit increase in the value.
For the categorical values of race, the plot values show the difference in likelihood relative to a weighted mean of all race categories (a weighted mean accounts for the fact that there are differences in the total number of individuals of each race in our data).
For ordinal values such as highest crime degree and final juvenile risk assessment, the values show the difference in likelihood for each increase in level (i.e. going from low risk to medium risk). Because ordinal values do not necessarily have the same degree of change between levels, quadratic and cubic fits are tested in addition to a linear change. When these are significant it suggests that the change may be more or less between one set of levels than another.
What factors best predict time to first adult system contact?
This figure shows that males, being older at exit, having a higher number of incidents, and those with a prior secure care placement tend to have subsequent contact with the adult corrections system sooner than others.
Note: Negative values indicate that the factor predicts fewer days between leaving the juvenile system and entering the adult system. Bars in grey are non-significant.
For binary values such as gender, flags, and having a contempt incident, the plot values show the difference in days compared to the alternative.
For numerical values such as age at last disposition and number of juvenile incidents, the plot values show the the difference in days for each 1 unit increase in the value.
For the categorical values of race, the plot values show the difference in days relative to a weighted mean of the number of days for all race categories (a weighted mean accounts for the fact that there are differences in the total number of individuals of each race in our data).
For ordinal values such as highest crime degree and final juvenile risk assessment, the values show the difference in days for each increase in level (i.e. going from low risk to medium risk). Because ordinal values do not necessarily have the same degree of change between levels, quadratic and cubic fits are tested in addition to a linear change. When these are significant it suggests that the change may be more or less between one set of levels than another.
Survival analysis models the probability of an event happening over time, in this case staying out of the adult justice system. Rather than looking at cohorts as was shown in the 5- and 10-year analysis, the survival analysis accounts for the fact that some individuals may have had 10 years since they left the juvenile system to have potentially entered the adult system, while other individuals may have had less time and thus less opportunity for the event to occur.
In the period for which we have data (since 2010), individuals who have had less than 10 years since release from the juvenile system and have not entered the adult system (yet) are indicated by vertical lines along the curve showing where their maximum time is, and thus are not further considered in the probabilities beyond that time. These individuals could still enter the adult system within the defined time period, but it won’t be known until data is available from future years.
The y-axis shows the probability of staying out of the adult system at a given number of years since the last disposition in the juvenile system. At time 0, the probability is near 100% because very few or no individuals enter the adult system immediately after leaving the juvenile system. With increasing time past the last disposition in the juvenile system, there are different probabilities depending on various characteristics of the individuals. In this case, for example, it is clear that individuals who were in secure care have a much lower probability of avoiding the adult system as time goes on.
The shaded areas around the curves are 95% confidence intervals.
Discussion & Conclusions
The current study took a first look at long-term recidivism of youth exiting the juvenile system in Utah, and looked at subsequent contacts in the adult system (Utah Department of Corrections’ probation and prison contacts) at both 5- and 10-year follow-up horizons. We followed five cohorts of youth exiting the juvenile system between 2010-2014, with data obtained from the Juvenile Court (Utah Administrative Office of the Courts) and Juvenile Justice and Youth Services (Utah Department of Human Services), and matched these exiting youth to data obtained from the Utah Department of Corrections between 2010-2020 (see Methodology for more detail). Thus, it was possible to analyze the outcomes for 2010-2011 exits up to 10 years and all cohorts (2010-2014) up to 5 years. The outcomes analyzed included general contact with the adult system, nature of first contact, time to first contact, admission to prison, and predictive models of general contact and time to first contact.
In general, 11.2% of youth exiting the juvenile system had subsequent contact with the adult corrections system within five years post-exit across the five exit cohorts. The early cohorts had slightly higher rates of subsequent contact (13.6% for 2010, 12.1% for 2011) compared to the later cohorts (around 10% for 2012-2014). The first adult contact within five years was most likely to involve a 3rd degree felony offense (48.6%) and felony probation (58.3%), followed by a Class A misdemeanor (31.2%) and Class A probation (32.4%). Only 6.2% of first contacts with the adult system involved a prison admission. The highest percentage of first contacts with the adult system occurred in the third and fourth years post-exit (23.3% and 23.2% respectively, or 46.5% of total first contacts). Overall, 3.4% of juveniles had a prison admission within the first five years post-exit, though we found a steady decreasing trend across the five exit cohorts (from 4.5% of the 2010 cohort to 2.5% of the 2014 cohort).
For the two cohorts that were followed ten years post exit, 19.2% of youth exiting the juvenile system had subsequent contact with the adult corrections system (20.9% of the 2010 cohort; 17.8% of the 2011 cohort). The nature of the first contact and time to first contact were similar to the 5-year analysis, though there appears to be an additional bump in first contacts in the seventh year post-exit. Extending the analysis to ten years post-exit also increases the rate of prison admissions to 5.3% of juveniles exiting the system in 2010 and 2011 (5.8% of the 2010 cohort; 4.9% of the 2011 cohort).
The predictive models for general recidivism into the adult system and time to first adult system contact were very similar for both the 5-year and 10-year horizon analyses. The most important factors predicting recidivism into the adult corrections system included having a secure care placement through JJS as a juvenile, higher final risk assessment scores, higher crime degree in last juvenile episode, having a community placement through JJS as a juvenile, having a contempt charge (this was a more important factor in the 10-year analysis), and certain demographic factors (higher age at exit, male, and minority race/ethnicity, particularly Black/African American). For time to first contact, the most important factors predicting shorter time to first contact were having a secure care placement through JJS as a juvenile, male, and age at last disposition.
In summary, the most important findings of this initial analysis of juvenile outcomes into the adult corrections system included:
11.2% of youth exiting the juvenile system have subsequent contact with the adult system within five years post-exit, and 19.2% have subsequent contact within ten years post-exit (note that only two of the five cohorts could be tracked for the full ten years).
The first contact with the adult system is most likely to involve a 3rd degree felony or Class A misdemeanor and probation.
In the 5-year analysis, the bulk of first contacts occurred in the first four years; in the 10-year analysis, an additional wave of first contacts appeared to occur in the seventh and eighth years post-exit.
3.4% of youth exiting the juvenile system have a prison admission within five years post-exit, and this increases to 5.3% within ten years; prison admission rates appear to be steadily decreasing across the five exit cohorts (more information on 10-year rates will be forthcoming in future years).
Involvement in the JJS system through secure care and/or community placement was a very strong predictor of subsequent adult corrections system contact post-exit. Other important factors included final risk scores, seriousness of the last juvenile crime episode, having a contempt charge, and certain demographic factors (higher age, male, minority race/ethnicity).
Males, juveniles who are older at exit, and those with a prior secure care placement tend to have subsequent contact with the adult corrections system sooner than others.
In conclusion, this initial analysis of youth exits from the juvenile system and subsequent contact with the adult corrections system has provided some very useful information for both the juvenile and adult corrections systems. In the future, we hope to continue to update this analysis by adding additional years of exit cohorts and follow up time into the adult system, as well as providing additional functionality and interactivity to the output and figures provided.
Methodology
Data Sources
The data supporting these insights is comprised of matched records from juvenile and adult corrections systems.
Juvenile justice data includes records for individuals who had a disposition order date between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2014. Data included:
Fully identified demographics with name, date of birth, race, ethnicity, and gender.
Case dispositions including dates of the incident, filing, adjudication, and disposition order, as well as information on the offense degree, category, and description.
Risk scores and probation periods.
The juvenile data was filtered to remove expunged cases (they could not be matched to adult cases as the name is removed), child welfare cases, traffic violations, and adult cases, and cases where the age at disposition was greater than 18. Probation data was filtered to probation start dates between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2014. Risk assessments were likewise filtered to include only assessments during that period.
The resulting juvenile data contains 20,713 rows with 16,530 distinct case numbers. 2,469 case numbers have 2 entries, and 721 have 3 or more.
Adult justice data includes:
Prison admissions between Jan 1, 2010 and September 30, 2021 with fully identified records of name, date of birth, gender, and race, and details about the crime including the crime degree.
Supervision starts between Jan 1, 2010 and September 30, 2021 fully identified by name, date of birth, gender, and race, and details about the crime including the crime degree and type of supervision.
Matching
Juvenile and adult data were matched using an iterative process. Date of birth (DOB) was assumed to be correctly entered in both juvenile and adult bases, and thus was always required to be an exact match before considering other information to match on. In each step the matched records were extracted in order to reduce the remaining potential matches as the steps became increasingly harder to automate:
Exact matches on DOB, last name, first initial, and gender.
Any hyphenated and multi-word last names were cut to only include the first part, as it was clear that these were entered differently in different databases or by different individuals. Matches were made on these (including single-word last names), DOB, and gender.
Matches on DOB, first name initial, last name initial, and gender were visually inspected. There were relatively few (<40) that matched, indicating that the previous steps caught most of the matches. Any matches that had last names with only slightly different spellings were considered a match.
Matches were linked with a table of the keys for each table: the juvenile case number and adult offender id. This table was used for all subsequent analyses in order to allow the data to be de-identified. 24,735 unique individuals were able to be linked between juvenile and adult data. Of these, 2,686 were in the available juvenile data. Thus 16.25% of the juvenile data had matches in adult data.
Analysis Windows
Because there are only 10 years after a juvenile disposition order to allow for the possibility of adult involvement for disposition dates in 2010 and 2011, the 10 years window only included individuals with their final disposition date occurring in these two years. Individuals with final disposition dates after 2011 have less opportunity (time) to potentially enter the adult system, and thus would skew the results.
In order to include all juvenile data with final disposition dates from 2010 to 2014 a 5 year window was applied such that only adult records that occurred within 5 years of the individual’s final juvenile disposition data were included. Adult involvement outside that window was ignored in order to prevent individuals with earlier juvenile disposition dates from skewing the data due to their increasing opportunity to have adult system involvement.
Acknowledgements
The Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) would like to thank the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts (Juvenile Court) and the Utah Department of Human Services (Juvenile Justice and Youth Services) for providing juvenile data for this project, the Utah Department of Corrections for providing data on adult corrections system contacts for matching, and the Sorenson Impact Center at the University of Utah for their assistance in matching, analyzing, and visualizing the data. This project, including the contract between CCJJ and the Sorenson Impact Center, was funded in part through grants awarded to CCJJ by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) through their State Justice Statistics (SJS) program (Grant Award #2017-BJ-CX-K017 and 2018-86-CX-K026).