The Persistence of RED

Since the passage of House Bill 239, Juvenile Justice Reform, Utah continues to see a consistent decline in court referrals, locked detention, community placement and secure care while seeing an increase in diversion and probation opportunities. The latest report indicates that trends in Utah’s Juvenile Justice system are continuing to move in a direction that aligns with reform goals where there is a decline in some of the most restrictive placements.1 On a national level, a 2021 Annie E. Casey Foundation report highlights many juvenile justice agencies across the nation have reduced youth incarceration 70 percent between 1995 and 2019. Specifically, Utah has reduced its use of Locked Detention by 74.4 percent when comparing rates in 2021 to 2015. Similarly, the rate of Secure Care has dropped 33 percent during the same time period.2 These reductions may be in part due to a lower share of youths being formally processed as a higher share are being diverted.

While the rates of overall incarceration may be down for Utah, racial and ethnic disparities continue to persist at multiple points of contact including Locked Detention and Secure Care. To say Utah is the only state to experience minority overrepresentation in the justice system is a misnomer. The Annie E. Casey Foundation report highlights the problem of racial and ethnic disparities persisting at a national level, particularly for Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander youth at the point of confinement. For Utah, minority youth makes up about 28 percent of the youth population but accounts for 59 percent of Pre-Adjudicatory Locked Detention, 51 percent of Community Placements, and 75 percent of all Secure Care dispositions–the most restrictive placement.3



These racial and ethnic disparities are especially troubling considering the research that reveals the harmful effects from being system-involved such as an increased risk of not finishing high school4, an increased risk of not being able to find employment5, and the impact on one’s physical and emotional well-being.6 Furthermore, minority youth in the juvenile justice system may experience even more pronounced maladaptive consequences due to the cumulative disadvantage they face at earlier stages such as systemic barriers in education, decreased access to community resources and increased experience with racial bias.7 Lastly, a major concern when examining long-term effects of being system-involved is the relationship between youth delinquency and the increased likelihood of future criminal behavior.8

As such, a focus on racial and ethnic disparities should be at the forefront of all research efforts. The below tabs provide key findings and recommendations from recent studies and literature conducted in Utah.

Pathways Study


In 2020, the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice contracted with the Sorenson Impact center to explore the share of juvenile justice-involved youth that reaches the adult criminal justice system in Utah. Given the issue of racial and ethnic disparities being present despite reform changes, examining demographic factors in the study was of high importance. The main findings include:

  • The study found in the Five Year Analysis, youth who identified as Latino/Hispanic, Other/Mixed, and Black/African American were 1.12, 1.34, and 1.66 times more likely to have subsequent adult system contact respectively.

  • In the Ten Year Analysis, youth who identified as Black/African American were 1.72 times more likely to have subsequent adult system contact.



Why Diversion?


Existing research along with the Utah Pathways study highlights the importance of increasing diversion opportunities and examining the underlying factors that influence pathways to community placement and secure care, particularly for minority youth.

Notably, literature on the effectiveness of incarceration through more restrictive means (i.e., community placement and secure care) has not indicated a reduction on recidivism when compared to diversion programming.9 It is noteworthy to mention this literature aligns with Utah specific data such that out-of-home placement costs up to 17 times more than community supervision, but results in similar rates of re-offending with more than 50% are convicted of another crime within two years.10 From a cost-effective and safety standpoint, front-end services that include prevention and diversion opportunities are worthwhile for the state of Utah to continue reinvesting in.


Equity at Diversion


Although increasing diversion opportunities is important, it is just as important to ensure these opportunities are equitably accessed and achieved across all groups. A recent study conducted on Utah’s Non-Judicial Adjustment (NJA) diversion process11 found:

  • Youth who identify as Black/ African American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander were more likely than other youth to face misdemeanors when they receive an NJA.

  • Youth who identify as Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaii/Pacific Islander tend to have the lowest success rates in NJAs

  • As shown in the figure below, Black/African American youth and American Indian/Alaskan Native Youth had the highest rates of recidivism at 18%. Additionally, Latino/Hispanic youth had a recidivism rate of 16% compared to the lowest recidivism rate among White youth at 11.2%.


These findings suggest minority youth are entering into an NJA with more severe offenses and may have less access to resources to successfully fulfill their NJA requirements. Strengthening Utah’s diversion process to engage minority youth and their families will be beneficial in preventing further penetration into the justice system.


Future Research Directions


Altogether, the fact that minority youth are entering NJAs with more severe offenses, failing NJAs at higher rates, and receiving more restrictive dispositions such as community placement and secure care underscores the need to examine the potential drivers of such pathways. Questions to further explore could include:

  • Are minority youths committing more misdemeanor-related offenses or are they being referred to court for misdemeanor-related offenses at a higher rate compared to white youth? This could be due to differences in referral practices or differences in legal representation?

  • What are the primary reasons why minority youths are not completing NJAs? What barriers do they face?

  • What is the makeup of community placement and secure care dispositions by offense severity and other related factors? Is there something in statue or practice that increases a youth’s likelihood to receive a community placement and secure care dispositions?

  • What are the protective factors to strengthen for minority youth once they exit the juvenile justice system to prevent future adult criminal offending? What do the neighborhoods look like from where these youth come from particularly in relation to their socioeconomic condition, access to resources and treatment services?


Endnotes


  1. See here for the latest annual report on the performance metrics of Juvenile Justice Reform↩︎

  2. See here for FY 2021 annual report on Juvenile Justice Reform↩︎

  3. See here for the latest RED report↩︎

  4. Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86, 36–62.↩︎

  5. Lopes, G., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Schmidt, N. M., Vasquez, B. E., & Bernburg, J. G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of formal police intervention on life chances and crime during emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 456–488.↩︎

  6. Dmitrieva, J., Monahan, K. C., Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Arrested development: The effects of incarceration on the development of psychosocial maturity. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1073–1090.↩︎

  7. Peck, J. H., Leiber, M. J., & Brubaker, S. J. (2014). Gender, Race, and Juvenile Court Outcomes: An Examination of Status Offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013489713;Hawkins, D. F., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (2010). Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press↩︎

  8. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991–998.↩︎

  9. Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey, E. (2013). Psychosocial (im)maturity from adolescence to early adulthood: Distinguishing between adolescence-limited and persisting antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1093–1105;Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–88;Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991–998.↩︎

  10. See here for the 2016 Utah Juvenile Justice Working Group Report Findings↩︎

  11. See here for the full NJA Report↩︎