Like many other states, Utah invests a great deal of resources into its juvenile justice system to address delinquent behavior. The goal of these efforts is to address and correct youth delinquent behavior to prevent further criminal behavior as these youth mature into adults. Despite spending more than $50 million on incarcerating and rehabilitating youth in 2014, reoffense rates remained high.1 Following this finding, Utah underwent a research-based and cross-agency initiative to promote public safety; control the system’s costs, and improve recidivism and other outcomes for youth and their families. The recommendations that came from this initiative formed a package of juvenile reform policies which ultimately passed in 2017 and subsequent years. One of the main premises of juvenile reform was to expand and strengthen effective early intervention and diversion while reserving system resources for those youth who pose the highest risk to public safety. While many initial positive outcomes can be seen with reform there still needs to be a critical focus on the effectiveness of rehabilitation to better long term youth outcomes and to prevent a path of adult criminal behavior.2
The literature on youth recidivism and future adult offending are varied due to inconsistent and differing definitions of recidivism. For example, the Annie E. Casey Foundation in a 2011 report3 summarized available youth recidivism studies and found that between 38 to 58 percent of youth exiting a juvenile correctional facility have subsequent contact with the juvenile or adult system within two years and 45 to 72 percent within three years. Another notable 2015 study conducted in Illinois found that 40 percent of youth who were incarcerated in juvenile detention ended up in prison by the age of 25.4 While the magnitude of these results vary by state, these studies show a strong link between juvenile justice system involvement and an increased likelihood of reaching the adult criminal justice system later in life. This relationship coupled with the cost of juvenile and adult incarceration, further emphasizes the continued need of research in this critical area.
Up to this point, Utah has lacked a mechanism for determining the share of juvenile justice-involved youth that reaches the adult criminal justice system. To address this, the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice in 2020 contracted with the Sorenson Impact Center to examine this area of research. The study’s primary focus was to help stakeholders understand long-term outcomes for youth that exited the juvenile justice system starting in 2010 and following them up to ten years. The primary outcome of interest was to see how often these youths came into contact with the adult justice system, particularly reaching the contact point of adult Corrections, including receiving a prison sentence followed by Parole, or Felony and Class A Probation sentence. The following sections provide the key findings from a five year and ten year analysis.
The first contact with the adult system was most likely to involve a 3rd degree felony or Class A misdemeanor and probation.
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.
The first contact with the adult system was most likely to involve a 3rd degree felony or Class A misdemeanor and probation.
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.
There is a plethora of existing national literature that shows the economic cost of being system involved and the inevitable societal consequences of such imprisonment.5
Specific to Utah, in 2016 a working group came together to examine the cost and processes of Utah’s juvenile justice system. This working group found out-of-home placement beds cost on average roughly $44,000 per youth per year compared to community supervision, $7,500 per youth per year. And this cost increased as length of stays increased.6 Another key finding from this initial data dive was the fact that recidivism rates were similar for youths in less restrictive (e.g., probation) custody and youths in more restrictive (e.g., out of home placements) custody. These findings along with others led to the 2017 juvenile reform package of policies where there was a focus on expanding and strengthening effective early intervention and diversion opportunities.
Similarly on the adult side, a recent Utah specific study comparing the cost of a new diversion program to traditional arrest or citation for adults found no negative impact on public safety and a cost savings of $12,437 (per person) when the jail diversion path was pursued.7 This study highlights the effectiveness of alternatives to traditional criminal justice paths as safe and cost-effective.
The findings from this youth to adult offending study underscores the importance to continue expanding diversion and prevention opportunities.
There should also be consideration of the youths who do end up deeper in the system. Particularly with the finding that involvement in the juvenile justice system through community placement and secure care is a strong predictor of future adult system contact.
Importantly from a cost analysis perspective, increasing diversion opportunities may be cost-effective and safe alternatives to tradition justice paths.
See here for the 2016 Utah Juvenile Justice Working Group Report Findings↩︎
See here for the latest annual report on the performance metrics of Juvenile Justice Reform↩︎
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527944.pdf↩︎
Aizer, Anna, and Joseph J. Doyle. (2015). “Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly-Assigned Judges.” Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 130, No. 2: 759-803↩︎
See here for 2017 key statistics on the economics of incarceration on a national level↩︎
See here for the 2016 Utah Juvenile Justice Working Group Report Findings↩︎