03/10/2021 - Meeting Materials Racial Equity in Policing Commission Agenda
1
3/9/2021 4:13 PM
Racial Equity in Policing Commission
Salt Lake City Utah
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
5:00 p.m.
This meeting is a discussion among Commissioners and select presenters. The public is welcome. Items
scheduled may be moved or discussed during a different portion of the meeting based on circumstances or
availability of speakers.
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Core Commission determination that conducting
the meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be
present at the anchor location. The Commission Meeting will not have a physical location and all attendees
will connect remotely.
Members of the public may provide public comment by joining through Zoom (registration in advance
required): https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_oYcpSBrESj2R2liBlV7VBw or by calling 1-800-934-
9182 at the time of the meeting.
You may follow along with the meeting on the SLC REP Live Commission Meeting YouTube Channel. To
engage in the listening process, please visit www.slcrepcommission.com.
1. Welcome and Public Meeting Guidelines
Confirm the determination of the Core Commissioners to meet electronically because meeting at
a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be
present at the anchor location.
2. Public Comment (limited to 15 minutes)
● Attendees may be provided one or two minutes of time, determined by the number of
attendees and the time available determined by the Commission. Please observe the time
limit stated at the beginning of the public comment period so everyone may have a
chance to speak.
● Per the public meeting guidelines, keep comments free of discriminatory language
referring to a person or group based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color,
descent, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or other gender identity factor. Items
or comments that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants or that may cause
safety concerns are not allowed.
3. City Update
Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff, will provide an update on the outcome of the legislative
session and how specific legislation will impact the City.
4. Community-Centered Policing
The Commission may discuss the definition and goals of community-centered policing.
Meeting Materials: Resources for the Community Policing Discussion
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Agenda
2
3/9/2021 4:13 PM
5. PEACE Pact for Community Centered Policing
The Commission may continue discussion regarding a potential recommendation for Salt Lake
City in relation to the African American Mayors Association PEACE Pact for Community
Centered Policing. Website
6. Follow up Discussion: Listening Session & Focus Groups
The Commission will hold a follow-up discussion from the January 27, 2021 discussion on the
focus group conversations being scheduled and review the analytics from the January 28, 2021
Listening Session. The content shared is a work in progress with the Commission.
Meeting Materials: Responses to Multiple Choice Questions in Graph Format, Theme & FAQ
Review
7. Follow-up Discussion: Best Practices
Commission members working on the Literature Review may share best practices researched.
8. Standing Items
● Subcommittee Reports
o Training Subcommittee
o Policies & Practice Subcommittee
o School Safety Subcommittee
▪ Recommendations forthcoming; Supporting material provided: Striving
for Equity and the Agreement between Salt Lake City School District &
Salt Lake City Corporation.
o Youth Subcommittee
● Commission items of business
o Resignation of Commission member; Core Commission Member change; and
discussion of replacement Commission Member
o Other including Scheduling Items
▪ Discussion of the City Council with City Human Resources & the Police
Department, including police recruitment, hiring and promotions is scheduled
for the March 23 Work Session.
▪ Opportunity to attend the City Council Work Session on behalf of the
Commission (5-10 minutes overview of the work in progress); optional for 3-4
commissioners per meeting generally between 2 pm and 5 pm.
• March 16, 23
• April 6, 13, 20
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Agenda
3
3/9/2021 4:13 PM
9. TENTATIVE Closed Session
The Commission will consider a motion to enter into a Closed Session. A closed meeting
described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
c. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
d. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah
Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the
Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 4:30 pm on March 9, 2021 the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby
certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under
Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or
the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda. People with disabilities may
make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and
other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a
request, please contact City staff at REPCommission@slcgov.com or 801-535-7644, or relay service 711.
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Discussion – March 10, 2021
Resources for the Community Policing Definition Discussion
Listed in no particular order
1. Report on 21st Century Policing (from the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services of the Department of Justice)
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support
the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively
address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime,
social disorder, and fear of crime.
2. Everbridge.com: a critical incident management company
Community Policing is generally defined as a law enforcement philosophy that allows
officers to continuously operate in the same area in order to create a stronger bond with
the citizens living and working in that area.
3. Community Policing Consortium
The Community Policing Consortium defines community policing as “a collaborative
effort between the police and the community that identifies problems of crime and
disorder and involves all elements of the community in the search for solutions to these
problems.”1
Community policing is based on the premise that police alone cannot control crime and
disorder and promote residents’ quality of life. In community policing—in contrast to
traditional policing—the public’s involvement is viewed as a “co-producer” of community
safety and wellness. Community policing also expands the role of police beyond crime
fighting to maintaining order and promoting improved living conditions for residents.
(The Consortium is composed of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP), the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), the National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF),
and the Police Foundation)
4. Discover Policing, which is under the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP)
https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/what-is-community-policing/
Community policing encourages interactive partnerships between law enforcement
agencies, their officers, and the people they serve. By developing connections within the
community, police are better informed and empowered to solve public safety problems.
5. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, which is under the US
Dept of Justice provides a pdf file document:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf
Theme Proposed FAQ Text
Treatment of citizens with
disabilities, special needs, mental
illness
How does SLCPD train its officers to handle
situations where a person cannot
communicate easily?
Better de-escalation, especially
with students/young adults
(including changes to SRO
program)
What training do officers receive on de-
escalation and how might SLCPD improve
that training and performance?
General non-lethal and/or non-
physical interaction with citizens
What training do officers receive on how to
avoid lethal/physical interactions with the
public?
Racial profiling, disparate
treatment during stops (harsher
treatment given to communities of
color)
How does SLCPD work to ensure that
officers do not engage in "racial profiling,"
where people of a particular race are
stopped for reasons they don't understand?
Better screening of potential
officers (looking for extremism,
penchant for violence, etc.)
How does SLCPD evaluate potential recruits
for red flag behaviors, such as support for or
involvement in extremist groups, history of
violent behavior, etc.?
Better resources and options for
SLCPD to address
homelessness, gang activity
What kinds of resources is SLCPD seeking
to improve its performance for Salt Lake
City?
Cultural sensitivity when dealing
with communities of color
How does SLCPD train personnel in
understanding different cultural norms and
how to interact with people from different
backgrounds?
Sensitive handling of individuals
in distress (praise for SLCPD)
What kinds of best practices does SLCPD
use in dealing with members of the public in
some form of distress, such as mental
illness?
Praise and concerns about
citizens academy, depictions of
communities of color
How are decisions made about Citizens
Academy curriculum with an eye towards
racial equity/eliminating stereotypes?
Disparate responses to calls for
police assistance (specifically on
West side)
How is SLCPD addressing concerns raised
in the western part of the city, particularly
concerns raised by communities of color?
Call for better working
relationships with the refugee
community
What measures has SLCPD taken to build
and/or strengthen relationships with refugee
populations?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Training Priorities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Stronger outreach Better pay, benefits More welcoming
culture
Other
Officer Recruitment Priorities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Great Okay Bad No interaction
How were interactions with SLCPD?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Ethnicity/Race
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Neighborhood
EQUITY
IN UTAH’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
2020 DISPARITIES UPDATE
STRIVING FOR
This report was authored by Ciriac Alvarez Valle and Anna Thomas,
policy analysts at Voices for Utah Children.
Report design and layout by Ephraim Kum,
community engagement intern at the Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs.
Released by Voices for Utah Children
with support from the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice
and the Utah Division of Multicultural Affairs
July 2020
Many thanks to the following individuals for their cooperation, support,
inspiration and contributions:
Betty Sawyer
Brett Peterson
Jackie Chamberlain
Jenny Hor
Kayley Richards
Laneta Fitisemanu
Neira Siaperas
Nubia Peña
Dr. Tiffany Manuel
Dr. Van Nguyen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION.
2 Introduction
5 Section Endnotes
SECTION 2: REVISITING OUR 2017 RECOMMENDATIONS.
6 Revisiting Recommendations
13 Section Endnotes
SECTION 3: DATA UPDATES.
15 Fig. 1: Referrals to Juvenile Court 2015-19
16 Fig. 2: Petitions to Juvenile Court 2015-19
16 Fig. 3: Admissions to Locked Detention 2015-19
17 Fig. 4: Non-Judicial Adjustments 2015-19
17 Fig. 5: Youth Arrests 2014-18
18 Fig. 6: Youth Arrests by Race and Ethnicity 2014-18
19 Fig. 7: Youth Population vs. New Intakes to System (2019)
20 Fig. 8: Change from 2015 to 2019: Youth Population vs. New Intakes
21 Fig. 9: Intakes to System vs. NJAs amd Petitions to Court (2019)
23 Fig. 10: Change from 2015 to 2019: Intakes vs. NJAs, Petitions
24 Fig. 11: Intakes to System vs. Probation (2019)
25 Fig. 12: Change from 2015 to 2019: Intakes vs. Probation
26 Fig. 13: Intakes to System vs. Community Placement, Detention, Secure Care (2019)
28 Fig. 14: Change from 2015 to 2019: Intakes vs. Community Placement, Detention, Secure Care
29 Fig. 15: All Referrals, Interventions and Dispositions (2019)
30 Fig. 16: Change from 2015 to 2019: All Referrals, Interventions and Dispositions
32 Section Endnotes
SECTION 4: 2020 RECOMMENDATIONS.
33 What Policymakers Can Do to Advance Equity
39 What Community & Family Advocates Can Do to Advance Equity
45 Section Endnotes
SECTION 5: APPENDIX
i Table 5.1: Aggregated Annual Totals, 2015-2019
ii Table 5.2: Youth Arrests Disaggregated by Race/Ethnicity, 2014-2018
iii Table 5.3: School-Aged Youth Population, 2014-2019
iv Table 5.4: Juvenile Justice System Points of Contact, Disaggregated by Race, 2019
1
1. INTRODUCTION
When it comes to our juvenile justice system,
Utah has much to be proud of.
Ours has long been a low-incarcerating
state, compared to others.1 In recent years,
significant system reforms have resulted in
a smaller population of children who spend
significant time in the formal justice system.
More children who engage in misconduct
are diverted from the juvenile court system
and are able to access supportive services
without attracting a criminal record. Fewer
children are removed from their homes and
communities to be placed in “secure settings,”
a disposition that is now reserved for only
those children who pose the highest risk for
re-offense.2
This is very good news for Utah children
and their families.
As part of the state’s analysis of its juvenile
justice system in 2016, with technical support
from the Pew Public Safety Performance
Project, state leaders discovered that
traditional approaches to juvenile justice
were yielding poor results. Youth who were
incarcerated in detention centers and secure
care facilities3 were released with a higher
risk to reoffend. The longer youth spent under
court jurisdiction, the more likely they were
to fail to address and end their negative
behaviors.
Sweeping legislation in 2017 – HB239,
“Juvenile Justice Amendments,” sponsored by
Rep. Lowry Snow (R-Saint George) and Todd
Weiler (R-Woods Cross) – dramatically re-
envisioned the broken system uncovered by
the 2016 system analysis.
While it is still early to assess the overall
success of HB239 at accomplishing these
specific aims, short-term progress is
undeniable.
Utah’s system is now smaller, more youth-
centered and focused on providing services
in non-secure settings. Cost savings have
already been realized by a dramatic reduction
in youth incarceration. These savings have
been captured and directed toward earlier,
non-court interventions for families, schools
and communities.
Utah’s juvenile justice system, beginning
with court referral, is better coordinated, with
increased cooperation and communication
between different state agencies.
GOALS OF HB239
• Promote public safety;
• Limit system costs;
• Reduce recidivism; and
• Improve outcomes for youth,
families and communities
INTRODUCTION2
Youth who become involved in the juvenile
justice system have better access to legal
assistance, allowing them to more easily
access their constitutional rights.
When measured in terms of effectiveness,
efficiency and legal criteria, Utah’s system is
definitely moving in the direction of success.
Other states and national entities have taken
notice. Representative Lowry Snow has been
invited to numerous national and regional
gatherings to talk about the political and
administrative success of the legislation, as
well as its subsequent adjustments.
The Coalition for Juvenile Justice made a
panel of representatives from Utah – including
not only Rep. Snow, but also Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) Executive
Director Kim Cordova, past president of the
Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ) Pam
Vickrey, and UBJJ Youth Member and Youth
Leader Nindy Le – a centerpiece of its 2019
national conference in Washington, D.C. The
Pew Charitable Trusts invited juvenile justice
advocates to a regional conference of the
National Conference of State Legislatures
to discuss successful bipartisan coalition
building in support of juvenile justice reform.
For all these reasons and more, Utah can be
proud of its progress in improving the justice
system for children in our state. We can enjoy
a shared feeling of appreciation, inspiration
and motivation, as we continue to make
Utah’s system a model for the rest of the
country.
We have so much working in our favor: a
dynamic and research-driven Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice; state agency
leaders who are flexible and committed to
positive outcomes for kids; an effective and
well-coordinated trouble-shooting reform
oversight entity in the form of the Juvenile
Justice Oversight Commission; a political
commitment to effectiveness and evidence-
based approaches; and a cultural amenability
to rehabilitation and empathy.
With all of these positive factors in play,
our state is perfectly positioned to pursue
success in other reform categories, toward
the realization of a model system.
One critical policy analysis and assessment
criterium is equity. In this area, Utah has
room for improvement.
Equity means fairness and impartiality – both
important values espoused in our schools,
court system and communities. “Unlike
equality, which suggests that everyone is
treated the same or gets the same share,
equity focuses on equal outcomes and
requires that everyone gets what they need in
order to experience well-being.”4
An equitable juvenile justice system would
be evidenced by, among other metrics, a
population of justice-involved youth that is
proportional to the overall youth population
in Utah. Success by equity-related metrics
would mean that children from traditionally
marginalized racial and ethnic groups
would receive dispositions comparable to
INTRODUCTION 3
those received by white children, when the
misconduct is similarly comparable.
Currently, we have fallen short of this
important goal, which has been championed
not only by community advocacy
organizations like ours, but by the committed
state leaders who have achieved our reform
successes so far. With so much progress
made toward satisfying other important
criteria, now is the time to focus on equity, for
maximum system effectiveness.
A system that is seen and felt to be
inequitable by the youth who become
involved in it – and by extension their families
and communities – cannot realize full
success. Research shows that when young
people sense inequity in the juvenile justice
system, they are less likely to be successful
in turning away from misconduct and toward
more positive community engagement.5
They are more likely to engage in anti-
social activities and resist intervention by
mainstream authorities in the courts and in
law enforcement.6
A system that can show its participants and
its communities that it is equitable, is one
that can better engage those participants and
communities.
It is more likely that young people will take
accountability and acknowledge fault,
when fairness and respect are modeled by
the very system that is demanding it from
them.7
By thoughtfully examining where racial
and ethnic disparities still exist in Utah’s
juvenile justice system, and addressing those
disparities with bold and positive action, we
can achieve success on the critical metric of
equity. Utah’s reform to this point has pushed
us to the top of the pack, nationally, in terms
of efficiency, effectiveness, political and
administrative success.
When, on top of all that, we can proudly
say that our juvenile justice system is
demonstrably equitable in its treatment of all
children, Utah can boast that it truly has the
best-run juvenile justice system in the nation.
INTRODUCTION4
SECTION 1 ENDNOTES
1 - As reported by the Sentencing Project,
based on data from the U.S. Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017).
Accessed at https://www.sentencingproject.
org/the-facts/#map?dataset-option=JCR
2 - Pew Charitable Trust Brief, “Utah’s
2017 Juvenile Justice Reform Shows Early
Promise,” (2019). Specifically, page 2, figure
1, “Re-forms Expected to Cut Out-of-Home
Youth Population 47%,” and page 16, figure
8, “Diversion of Juveniles From Formal Court
Proceedings Rose After HB239.” Accessed at
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/issue-briefs/2019/05/utahs-2017-
juvenile-justice-reform-shows-early-promise.
3 - Detention centers are the equivalent of jail
for children; secure care facilities are more
comparable to prison. In the former, children
are detained for shorter periods and may be
held either for sanction or to await judicial
hearings. In the latter, children are held for
longer periods, often as part of a formal
disposition, and for more serious misconduct.
4 - From The Little Book of Restorative Justice
in Education: Fostering Responsibility, Health,
and Hope in Schools (page 46), by Katherine
Evans and Dorothy Vaandering, (2016).
5, 6, 7 - From “Chapter 7: Accountability and
Fairness,” in Reforming Juvenile Justice: A
Developmental Approach, edited by Richard J.
Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers
and Julie A. Schuck (2013).
INTRODUCTION 5
2. REVISITING OUR 2017RECOMMENDATIONS
When Voices for Utah Children and its
partners published its original report on racial
disparities in Utah’s juvenile justice system
in 2017,1 we made five recommendations to
address these disparities (see box this page).
We are pleased to report that progress
has been made by state policymakers and
public administrators on most of these
recommendations, with various levels of
success achieved.
1. PASS LEGISLATION BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE WORKING GROUP (HB239)
HB239, “Juvenile Justice Amendments,”
sponsored by Rep. Lowry Snow (R-Saint
George) and Sen. Todd Weiler (R-Woods
Cross), passed with overwhelming support
during the 2017 general session of the Utah
legislature. The successful version of the bill
included policy changes directed at almost
every key finding of the Juvenile Justice
Working Group (JJWG) appointed by Governor
Gary Herbert in 2016. Some of those findings
were:
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Pass, and implement with
fidelity, the legislation
(HB239) based on the robust
recommendations of the
Juvenile Justice Working
Group.
2. Adopt a comprehensive,
youth-centric vision for Utah’s
juvenile justice system.
3. End unnecessary referrals of
youth from schools into the
juvenile justice system.
4. End the practice of tracking
youth in undisclosed, non-
transparent law enforcement
databases.
5. Empower and invigorate
Utah’s Disproportionate
Minority Contact (DMC)
Subcommittee.
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS6
Utah youth were spending too long in
the system, with little improvement with
regards to their risk to reoffend;
the system, overall, lacked a set
of common standards to guide
dispositions;2 and
there were far too many low-risk youth,
convicted only of low-level status
offenses, being held in secure care.4
Several of the policy changes delivered via
HB239 offered potential for improving the
racial and ethnic disparities noted in our
February 2017 report.
For example, the legislation directed
agencies to engaged in trainings regarding
youth development, cultural competency
and implicit bias. Multiple legislative changes
focused on creating more structure and
guidance for decision-making processes by
judges, probations officers and community
placement agencies; such improvements
could be expected to help mitigate implicit
bias in disposition and other decisions.
The bold changes contained in HB239 put
Utah’s juvenile justice reform efforts in the
national spotlight, as mentioned previously.
Passing HB239 was perhaps the most critical
recommendation made in our 2017 report.
We commend state policymakers and elected
officials for their support of the many system
improvements driven by that legislation,
and for their commitment to seeking better
outcomes for our state’s system-involved
youth.
Also admirable is our state’s ongoing
commitment to implementation of
HB239. The establishment of a Juvenile
Justice Oversight Committee, focused on
collaboration and problem-solving, ensured
that communication between agencies
and stakeholders would continue beyond
passage of the legislation.
Critical system actors – for example, private
providers of recovery services for youth
– were able to bring their implementation
concerns to the JJOC and participate in
trouble-shooting conversations. JJOC
members worked together to tour the state,
holding community meetings where the
legislation and its implementation could be
discussed, questions could be answered, and
concerns could be voiced.
As of January 2020, the JJOC continues to
meet quarterly, forming and then dissolving
working groups as implementation issues
arise and are resolved.
2. ADOPT A YOUTH-CENTRIC VISION FOR UTAH’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
In 2017, we recommended that Utah move
away from a punishment-oriented system
that overly focuses on the question, “What
is wrong with this kid?” We see greater
potential in a problem-solving system that
first asks, “What is going on with this kid?”
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS 7
There is much encouraging evidence that
Utah is indeed making this philosophical
transition throughout its juvenile justice
system.
For example:
The Utah Department of Juvenile
Justice Services (JJS) has moved
toward a “Youth Services” model
that focuses more heavily on offering
pre-adjudication interventions through
community partners, including schools
and law enforcement.5 This allows youth
and their families to access much-
needed support services without court
involvement (and the possibility of a
juvenile record).
The Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC) has reorganized
program and service delivery to meet
the needs of youth and their families
prior to, and in lieu of, court involvement.
Early in the reform discussion,
caseworkers and others working with
youth expressed concern that diverting
youth from court would keep them from
accessing certain necessary support
services (such as substance use
disorder treatment). In response, AOC,
JJS and other system actors revamped
existing processes to connect early
intervention services directly to schools
and community partners.
The Utah Board of Juvenile Justice
(UBJJ) has organized a series of
“Juvenile Expungement Clinics”
throughout the state, employing a
youth-centric approach that brings all
the relevant system actors into one
space for the convenience of formerly-
system-involved youth. Fees can also be
waived. By the end of 2019, successful
clinics had been held in Weber, Salt
Lake, Cache, Utah and Washington
Counties. Uintah County, among others,
will host Juvenile Expungement Clinics
in 2020.
Additionally, UBJJ leadership has
indicated that the Board’s strategic
plan for 2021-2023 will center the
experiences of system-involved youth,
their families and their peers who may
be at risk for becoming system-involved.
To that end, board members will meet
in communities around the state during
2020, and visit with youth currently
in JJS custody or participating in
community-based diversion programs.
During the 2020 legislative session,
the Utah Sentencing Commission, in
partnership with the Utah Juvenile
Defender Association, supported
legislation to further streamline
juvenile record expungements
for youth involved in Utah’s system.
Tthe legislation allows automatic
expungement of any non-judicial
adjustment (handled by the court but
not adjudicated by a judge), and any
type of juvenile offense, charge or arrest
will be eligible for expungement.
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS8
We are encouraged by the enthusiasm shown
by the JJOC, and its numerous member
stakeholders, for moving toward more youth-
centric orientation in our juvenile justice
system. We are excited at the prospects
for continued cross-agency and cross-
community collaboration to extend these
successes further.
For example, the JJOC could play an
important role in ensuring greater support for
our public schools, where youth’s struggles
and resulting misconduct are often first
manifested. Additionally, our many law
enforcement agencies statewide could use
support in the form of training, technical
assistance and trouble-shooting related to
youth misconduct both within schools and in
the broader community.
Schools and law enforcement agencies,
perhaps more so than Juvenile Justice
Services and the juvenile courts, experience
complex pressures and expectations and
require the explicit support of their fellow
juvenile justice stakeholders.
3. END UNNECESSARY REFERRALS OF YOUTH FROM SCHOOLS INTO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
We made this recommendation in 2017
in the face of a growing body of research
suggesting that racial and ethnic disparities
in the juvenile justice system begin in the
school setting, with such disparities seen
in school-based responses to student
misconduct.6 The passage of HB239
offered great promise in this area, but
implementation has been complicated and
challenging.
Many Utah youth who become system-
involved are initially referred to court by an
educator, administrator or School Resource
Officer (SRO), in response to misconduct in
an educational setting. Even well-meaning
referrals (for example, to assist youth
in accessing counseling or maintaining
sobriety) have the potential to snowball into
long and ultimately unsuccessful stints under
court jurisdiction. Data collected by the
JJWG demonstrated that court interventions
generally were ineffective (sometimes even
damaging) when used to deal with youth
engaged in low-level offenses.
Accordingly, HB239 directed schools to no
longer refer youth to juvenile court or to law
enforcement for status offenses, infractions
and Class C misdemeanors committed at
school. Schools would be expected to deal
with this misconduct instead only through
administrative processes and school-based
responses.
Most of HB239’s mandates were directed
at state agencies with established central
oversight. For example, Juvenile Justice
Services are all administered through one
division within Utah’s Department of Human
Resources. Similarly, all juvenile courts –
including juvenile judges and youth probation
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS 9
officers – fall under the direction of the
Administrative Office of the Courts.
Utah’s education system is much larger,
by comparison, and also less centrally
controlled. In the fall of 2017, as several
aspects of HB239 went into effect, there
were 652,348 youth enrolled in Utah public
schools.7 Of those, about 408,807 were
between the ages of 10 and 17, typically
considered to be old enough to become
potentially system-involved.8
By comparison, during approximately the
same time period, there were only about
6,804 referrals to court (with nearly half of
those diverted before formal adjudication).
Even if every court referral was for a different
youth (no repeat visitors), that means the
juvenile justice system interacted with, at
most, about 1.7% of the children, ages 10 to
17, that our schools dealt with on a day-to-day
basis during the same time period.
In addition, each school district (there are
41 in Utah) is under the direction of its
own superintendent, who then answers to
a locally-elected board. Districts are also
accountable to the state office of education,
which has its own superintendent, who
answers to a completely different school
board, also elected by voters, representing
the entire state. Utah’s many dozens of public
charter schools, each with their own board,
add yet another layer of complexity.
This helps us understand why, despite the
inclusion of Utah State Board of Education
(USBE) staff representatives on the JJWG
in 2016, many school administrators and
educators reported feeling somewhat
“blindsided” by the policy change regarding
school-based referrals. Some school districts
had come to rely on court referrals as part
of their tiered responses to school-based
misconduct. Exacerbating the districts’
difficulties in adjusting to this new policy
directive, was the fact that no substantive
alternatives (or funding for the exploration
of such alternatives) were suggested by the
legislative language.
In 2018, in response to schools’ struggles
to adjust to the new policy, Rep. Lowry
Snow introduced HB132, “Juvenile Justice
Modifications.”9 This legislation provided
more specific guidance for schools regarding
non-court interventions for low-level
misconduct, and granted a two-year reprieve
for implementation of HB239’s school-
based referral policy change. It also clarified
allowable interventions by SROs, when
misconduct occurs on school property, and
allowed schools to use alternative funding
sources in the development of school-based
responses to truancy.
It is unclear whether, prior to the successful
passage of HB132, all schools were in
compliance with the new school-based
referral policy. It is a monumental effort for
USBE staff to collect and make sense of
discipline data from all districts and charter
schools; this effort is currently underway, but
as yet unrealized. Also unclear is whether the
alternative discipline processes implemented
in school districts, in lieu of traditional
referrals to court and to law enforcement, are
more effective than previous court-initiated
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS10
interventions. In fact, there are no publicly-
available reports that describe what each
district is doing in response to low-level
offenses, if that misconduct was previously
referred to the court system.
Despite these many challenges, data show
that referrals from schools to the juvenile
court system are down. This is good news,
but it is only part of the story. Schools need
meaningful technical assistance, substantial
targeted investment and – perhaps most
importantly – plenty of time in order to
accomplish the cultural changes necessary
to ensure that youth engaged in misconduct
are getting help and support for the issues
driving their behaviors.
To see statewide improvement in this
area, we need a statewide commitment to
reforming and improving school discipline
practices, which must include sufficient
funding by the state to enable schools to
absorb these new challenges.
4. END THE PRACTICE OF TRACKING YOUTH IN NON-TRANSPARENT DATABASES
This recommendation was inspired by
community stakeholder concerns that
governmental responses to gang activity
in Utah have contributed to negative
stereotypes of young people of color,
regardless of actual gang affiliation or
individual criminal activity. Labeling young
people as “gang-involved,” based on family
connections or physical appearance, can
contribute to inappropriate and unnecessarily
harsh system contact for these youth,
even when they engage in the same age-
appropriate misconduct as their peers.
Aside from limited legal action in specific
areas of the state,10 resulting in changes
within some law enforcement agencies, we
are not aware of systemic efforts, in general,
to transform current gang intervention
approaches in Utah, or, specifically, to end
the use of “gang databases.”
Because these gang databases are not
transparent to the public, it is not possible
to say how many are in use in Utah as of
this report. We do know, however, that they
continue to exist and are used regularly by
law enforcement agencies in Utah. Gang
databases have been mentioned by law
enforcement personnel at recent iterations
of both the Metro Gang Conference and the
Northern Utah Gang Conference.
Violence perpetrated by, and also within,
gangs is a real threat to some Utah youth,
and hence deserves an appropriate response
from community leaders, elected officials and
law enforcement. We strongly recommend
that appropriate responses will always
be most heavy on prevention, with less
reliance on late-stage interventions that
carry unforeseen negative consequences
(such as when youth of color, labeled
as “gang involved,” are seen as less
deserving of compassionate intervention).
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS 11
There are opportunities for juvenile
justice policymakers to partner with law
enforcement agencies and their gang units to
cultivate a more community-centric, trauma-
informed approach to gang interdiction.
We look forward to seeing more concerted
collaboration in this area.
5. EMPOWER AND INVIGORATE UTAH’S DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT (DMC)SUBCOMMITTEE.
Utah is fortunate to have an official body
dedicated to addressing racial and ethnic
disparities in our juvenile justice system. The
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
subcommittee - recently renamed the Racial
and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Subcommittee
- collects and publishes annual data on
these disparities (used as the basis for this
report), and also assists in the oversight of
statewide DMC/RED-related projects. This
recommendation was rooted in our belief that
this entity could play a greater role in actively
reducing the racial and ethnic disparities
reflected in this report. With several
successes under its belt, the DMC/RED
Subcommittee could be an even stronger
advocate for equity in Utah’s juvenile justice
system.
The DMC/RED Subcommittee’s efficacy
in addressing racial and ethnic disparities,
particularly in the context of juvenile justice
reform implementation, has been stymied
somewhat by staff turnover. As of the
beginning of June 2020, the DMC/RED
Subcommittee had been without a staff
coordinator six months. In the time since
Utah’s juvenile justice system analysis was
conducted in 2016, three different individuals
have held the position of DMC/RED
coordinator.
Good and important work has been
undertaken by the DMC/RED Subcommittee
in past years. It is capable of even more. The
DMC/RED has the strong support of the Utah
Board of Juvenile Justice, within the office
of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice, and includes among its members
several engaged community leaders and
public servants. It is well positioned to lead
state-level efforts to reduce racial and ethnic
disparities in our juvenile justice system.
Currently, though, much of the potential of
Utah’s DMC/RED Subcommittee remains
unrealized.
We believe that the DMC/RED still has
the potential, with careful attention and
deliberate action, to grow into a gathering
place for collaboration and leadership in
reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the
juvenile justice system. Increasing the pay
and status of the DMC/RED coordinator
position, for example, would be one way
for the state to signal a strong commitment
to making progress toward the equitable
treatment of all youth within Utah’s juvenile
justice system.
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS12
SECTION 2 ENDNOTES
1 - “Racial Disparities in Utah’s Juvenile Justice
System,” (2017). Accessed at https://www.
utahchildren.org/images/pdfs-doc/2017/
RacialDisparitiesUtahJuvenileJustice.pdf.
2 -“Disposition” is the term used in Utah’s
juvenile justice system to indicate what would
be called a “sentence” in the adult criminal
justice system.
3 - “Status offense” refers to misconduct,
engaged in by a person under the age of
18, that would not be considered a criminal
or civil violation if it were committed by a
legal adult. For example, chronic truancy
from school, running away from home, and
violating curfew are all status offenses.
4 - “Secure care” in the juvenile justice
system is the equivalent of prison in the adult
criminal justice system. Secure care is used
for youth who have been ordered by a judge
to spend a relatively longer time in state
custody. “Detention” also involves youth being
held in locked facilities, but, by contrast, can
be used before a younger person receives a
disposition from a judge. Detention is used
when a relatively shorter time is spent in state
custody, and is the equivalent of jail in the
adult criminal justice system.
5 - Brett Peterson, Director of the Utah
Division of Juvenile Justice Services, publicly
presented on the agency’s new approach
many times during 2019; specifically, this
model was shared during a Juvenile Justice
Oversight Committee (JJOC) meeting in July
2019, and again in October 2019.
6 - For Utah-based research, see From
Fingerpaint to Fingerprints: The School-
to-Prison Pipeline in Utah, produced
by the University of Utah S.J. Quinney
College of Law’s Public Policy Clinic
(2014), accessed at https://app.box.com/
s/7ylyziug6ims8ahuwa06; and Misbehavior
of Misdemeanor? A Report on Utah’s School
to Prison Pipeline, produced by Voices for
Utah Children and the University of Utah S.J.
Quinney College of Law’s Public Policy Clinic
(2017), accessed at https://www.utahchildren.
org/images/pdfs-doc/2017/Misbehavior_or_
Misdemeanor_-_Report_on_Utahs_School_
to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf
7 - Utah State Board of Education, “Fingertip
Facts,”(School Year 2017-2018). Accessed at
https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/5e1d0ce7-
c96e-435c-915c-12c92f80bae7.
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS 13
8 - The definition of youth, by age, who are “at
risk” for system involvement in Utah is about
to change. As of July 1, 2020, youth in Utah
under the age of 12, with some exceptions
for very serious misconduct, will no longer
be referred to juvenile court as a recourse
for antisocial behavior. Rather, they will be
served first through non-court Youth Services
programming. This new state law (HB262)
was passed during the 2020 General Session
of the Utah State Legislature, and signed
into law by Governor Gary Herbert. The full
language of HB262 is available at https://
le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0262.html.
9 -Full language of HB132 is available at
https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/
HB0132.html.
10 - Specifically, Winston v. Salt Lake City
Police Department (2016), in which the ACLU
of Utah brought a lawsuit
on behalf of three high school students who
were detained and interrogated as part of a
schoolwide “gang operation” conducted by
a joint agency gang task force in Salt Lake
County (case information accessed at https://
acluutah.org/legal-work/resolved-cases/
item/332-winston-v-salt-lake-city-police-
department-2013); and the ACLU of Utah’s
multi-action efforts on behalf of plaintiffs
targeted by “gang injunctions” enacted
against hundreds of individuals in Ogden
City and Weber County (case information
accessed at https://acluutah.org/legal-work/
resolved-cases/item/887-post-conviction-
remedies-act-cases and https://acluutah.org/
legal-work/resolved-cases/item/333-weber-
co-v-ogden-trece).
2017 RECOMMENDATIONS14
3. JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM RACIAL & ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN 2019
Since reform of Utah’s juvenile justice system
began in earnest several years ago, the
state has experienced a sizeable decrease in
the number of youth who become officially
involved with the system. Even before HB239
was enacted in 2017, there has been a steady
decrease in overall referrals of young people
to the juvenile justice system (Fig. 1), and this
trend - which is generally mirrored across the
United States1 - has continued in recent years.
This is good news for public safety in Utah,
and also bodes well in terms of positive
outcomes for young people who may become
engaged in age- and developmentally-
appropriate antisocial experimentation.
Similarly, petitions of youth to juvenile court
for misconduct were on the wane prior to
systemic reform efforts. Between 2017 and
2018, though, the drop was comparatively
precipitous (Fig. 2).
From 2015 and 2016 (the year in which the
statewide juvenile justice system analysis was
conducted), petitions to court dropped from
18,166 to 16,477, a decrease of about 9.3%.
By comparison, between 2017 (when HB239
was passed into law) and 2018, petitions
to court dropped from 12,464 to 6,790 - an
impressive decrease of nearly 46%. The
reason that this is good news for Utah
youth, is that research (both generally, and
specifically in Utah) shows that system-
involvement produces dubious outcomes,
particularly for youth who are at low and
moderate risk for future reoffense.2
Utah appears to be successful in its efforts
to hold youth accountable for misconduct,
and to deal with any underlying issues that
may contribute to that misconduct, without
formal court involvement.
FIGURE 1.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 15
FIGURE 3.
Not quite so dramatic, but still meaningful,
have been the decreases in cases resulting
in secure care placements and in the number
of admissions to locked detention. Again,
the 2016 system analysis revealed that these
expensive and often counterproductive
interventions were being overused with youth
who were assessed to pose only a low or
moderate risk of reoffending.3
The introduction of a verified Detention Risk
Assessment Tool (often called the “DRAT”)
has helped to substantially accelerate
the downward trend seen since 2015 in
admissions to locked detention (Fig. 3).
Between 2015 and 2016, admissions fell
from 6,471 to 6,191, a decrease of about 4.3%;
by comparison, once statutory reforms
began to take effect between 2017 and
2018, admissions fell from 5,567 to 4,516 - a
reduction of nearly 19%.
Another key element of Utah’s juvenile
justice reform has been to increase youth
access to interventions and accountability
measures through “non-judicial adjustments,”
an alternative to formal system involvement
overseen by a juvenile court judge. HB239
mandated that most youth who are referred to
court for low-level and first-time misconduct
be offered a non-judicial adjustment in lieu of
a formal petition to court.
The data show that this effort has been
successful; as formal court petitions
have fallen (Fig 2), the use of non-judicial
adjustments (NJA) to facilitate interventions
and accountability measures has risen
dramatically (Fig. 4). The use of NJAs actually
decreased by approximately 16.7% between
2015 and 2016, right before reform efforts
began in earnest. Their use increased by
nearly the same margin between 2016 and
2017, and then jumped more dramatically - by
approximately 35% - between 2017 and 2018.
The essential thrust of this report is that while
Utah has been successful in shrinking the size
of its juvenile justice system, while expanding
opportunities for prevention and early
FIGURE 2.
DISPARITIES IN 201916
intervention that offer better outcomes for
youth and their families (as well as increased
return-on-investment for taxpayers), we have
yet to realize similar success with regards to
equity and fairness in that system.
The data consistently show that while fewer
Utah youth are arrested, petitioned to juvenile
court, placed in state custody in locked
facilities and removed from their families in
an attempt to ameliorate antisocial behavior,
we still see significant racial and ethnic
disparities within the system overall. Children
of color are still more likely to be arrested,
petitioned to court and given more serious
punishments as their white peers. At some
points of the system, these disparities have
actually worsened since we reported on them
in our 2017 report.
While the overall size of the juvenile justice
system in Utah is shrinking, we are still
seeing far too many children of color,
relative to their representation in our state,
enmeshed in that system.
Figures 5 and 6 provide a dramatic example
of this reality. Between 2014 and 2018,
overall juvenile arrests in Utah fell from
18,166 to 13,413, a drop of 26.2% (Fig. 5).
When we take into account that the overall
school-aged youth population in Utah grew
during that time from 612,140 in 2014 to
659,008 in 2018, that decrease is even more
impressive.4 In 2014, the rate of juvenile
arrest was approximately 35 arrests per 1,000
youth; by comparison, in 2018, the rate was
approximately 26 arrests per 1,000 youth.
As stated previously, this reduction in overall
youth contact with the front end of the
juvenile justice system is good news. That
reduction, however, has not been equitable,
as it has been achieved primarily through a
reduction in white youths’ contact with law
enforcement. White youths’ proportion of
overall arrests dropped from 70% in 2014 to
56% in 2018 (Fig. 6).
FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 5.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 17
FIGURE 6.
Accordingly, non-white youths’ proportion of
overall arrests increased from 30% in 2014 to
44% in 2018. The overall proportions of white
and non-white youth in Utah’s population
have not changed that dramatically, not even
close.
To better illustrate this point, Figure 6
includes the youth population figures for
Utah from 2017, disaggregated by race. As
we move from 2014 to 2018, the data show a
stark increase in racial disparities relative to
the overall youth population. Even as juvenile
arrests are decreasing, racial disparities in
juvenile arrests are increasing.
Note: American Indian/Alaskan Native is the
governmental research term used for this
particular racial/ethnic group; in our report,
we use “Native/indigenous” interchangeably
with the more institutional description.
In 2019, Utah’s general school-aged youth
population was approximately 74.2% white
and 25.8% non-white.5 Specifically, Latino/
Hispanic children comprise 17.3% of the
overall school-aged youth population;
multiracial children, 2.8%; Asian children,
1.7%; Pacific Islander children, 1.6%; Black
children, 1.4; and Native/Indigenous children,
1.0% (Fig. 7). This represents very little change
in demographics since our initial report,
56.0
5.3
19.6
14.4%
1.4
3.3
74.7
4.1%1.11.7
17.0
1.4
1.72.9
21.0
4.5
70.0
DISPARITIES IN 201918
which used 2015 data (when white children
comprised 75% of the youth population, and
non-white children 25%).
The racial/ethnic makeup of the youth who
were referred to the juvenile justice system
in 2019, however, was dramatically different
from the overall youth population in that same
year. White children made up only 57.7% of all
“new intakes” to the system, and non-white
children made up 42.3% of that same group
(Fig. 7).
White children made up nearly three-
quarters (3/4) of the general school-aged
population in Utah, but less than three-
fifths (3/5) of all new intakes to the system.
Latino/Hispanic children represented
25.6% of new intakes to the system,
compared to their 17.3% of the general
school-aged population. This is a dramatic
overrepresentation for Latino/Hispanic
children (nearly 50% more than what would
be expected in an equitable system), but
the disparities were even worse for Native/
Indigenous children, and especially bad for
Black children.
Native/Indigenous children represented twice
as large a proportion of new intakes as of
the general school-aged youth population
(2.1% vs. 1.0%). Black children, who made
up only 1.4% of Utah’s general school-aged
youth population, represented 5.0% of all
FIGURE 7.
2.8%1.01.61.7
17.3
1.4
74.2
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
DISPARITIES IN 2019 19
new system intakes (more than three times
what we would expect to see in an equitable
system). Pacific Islander children and children
of “unknown” race/ethnicity were both
overrepresented among new intakes, as
well. Multiracial children were very slightly
underrepresented (2.7% of new intakes vs
2.8% of the general population), while Asian
youth were underrepresented to a greater
degree even than white children (1.2% of new
intakes vs 1.7% of the general population).
Figure 8 illustrates the differences in racial
disparities between 2015 and 2019. Again,
while the composition of the general school-
aged youth population changed very little
over the course of those four years, we saw a
dramatic change in the composition of new
intakes to the juvenile system. White children
were underrepresented among new intakes
in 2015 (67% of new intakes vs 75% of the
general population), but the disparity was
even greater in 2019 (58% of new intakes vs
74% of the general population.
Accordingly, non-white children’s proportion
of the new intake population grew from 2015
to 2019. Unfortunately, the 2015 data made
available by the Juvenile Justice Working
Group and reproduced in our 2017 report, did
not disaggregate beyond the following for
categories: white, Latino/Hispanic, Black and
“other non-white.”
Our 2017 report noted community
stakeholders’ objections to the lumping
FIGURE 8.
7%
23
3
67
2.8%1.01.61.7
17.3
1.4
74.2
7%
17
1
75
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
DISPARITIES IN 201920
together of Native/Indigenous, Asian, Pacific
Islander, and mixed race children, and we
were able to obtain more finely disaggregated
data for 2019.
Even with the limitations these differences
create for a 2015-to-2019 comparison, there
are important observations to be made.
Non-white children comprise an even greater
proportion of new intakes in 2019 (42.3%,
as compared to 33% in 2015), even as the
overall number of new intakes to the system
decreased (22,323 to 17,354).
The disparate representation of Latino/
Hispanic children has worsened (from 23%
of new intakes in 2015 to 25.6% in 2019),
and the negative change has been even
more dramatic for Black children (3% of new
intakes in 2015 to 5% in 2019).
The 2019 data reveal that white children
are not only less likely to be referred to
the juvenile justice system, but that, once
referred, they are more likely to be offered
alternatives to official court involvement.
As mentioned previously, NJAs are used
increasingly as part of Utah’s reformed
system, to give youth more opportunity
to make amends and take accountability
without going before a juvenile court
FIGURE 9.
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
3.1%2.81.91.91.1
24.3
3.8
61.1
3.8%2.52.33.41.5
24.3
6.9
51.8
DISPARITIES IN 2019 21
judge and developing a record of serious
system involvement. Of course, government
prosecutors still are able to petition children
to appear before the court to answer for
their alleged misconduct before a judge;
a court petition is a more serious system
“entanglement” than an NJA.
While state statute directs that an NJA be
offered in several specific circumstances
(generally reflecting first-time and low-level
misconduct), there is still a fair amount of
prosecutorial discretion involved in decisions
to submit a formal court petition in response
to alleged youth offenses.
Figure 9 shows that while white children
made up only 57.7% of new intakes to the
system in 2019, they accounted for 61.1% of
all NJAs (the “less serious” route offered to
youth accused of misconduct). At the same
time, they represented just over one-half of all
petitions to court (the “more serious” route).
White children make up nearly three-fourths
(3/4) of the general school-aged population,
less than three-fifths (3/5) of referrals to
court, and barely over one-half (1/2) of all
petitions to court.
Conversely, non-white children were less
likely to be offered an NJA, and more likely
to receive a formal court petition for their
misconduct. Black, Latino/Hispanic and
Native/Indigenous children, in particular,
were much more likely to be petitioned to
court.
Already dramatically overrepresented
among new intakes at 5%, Black children
made up 6.9% of all court petitions (again,
as compared to their only 1.4% portion of
the general school-aged youth population).
Latino/Hispanic children made up 25.6% of
new intakes to the system, but only 24.3% of
NJAs and up to 27.7% of court petitions.
Similarly, Pacific Islander children were less
likely to receive an NJA (1.9% of NJAs vs 2.4%
of new intakes) and quite a bit more likely
to receive court petitions (3.4% of petitions).
Native/Indigenous children were also less
likely to receive an NJA (2.1% of new intakes
but only 1.9% of NJAs), and only slightly
more likely to be petitioned to court (2.3% of
petitions).
Multiracial children and children of unknown
ethnicity appear in relative proportionality
among both NJAs and court petitions. In this
area of the system, Asian children do not
appear to follow a similar trendline to that of
white children, but more closely resemble
other children of color. While they represent
1.2% of all new intakes to the system, they
make up 1.1% of NJAs and 1.5% of petitions to
court.
Data from 2015 (Fig. 10, next page) showed
a similar pattern: white children were more
likely to be offered NJAs, and less likely to be
petitioned to court, when compared to their
proportion of new system intakes; children
of color were less likely to be offered NJAs,
and more likely to be petitioned to court, in
proportion to their representation among
new system intakes. However, the pattern has
become more pronounced in the 2019 figures.
It appears that reform efforts to provide
more “early off-ramps” away from system
involvement for youth charged with
DISPARITIES IN 201922
FIGURE 10.
misconduct, have produced such “off-
ramps” with less frequency for children of
color.
Once a young person receives an official
petition to court, they will appear before a
juvenile court judge, who will hand down
an “adjudication” - the term used in juvenile
court for what we would call a “sentence” in
adult criminal court.
Typically, a “probation” disposition is
considered less invasive and less “punishing”
than an adjudication that results in the young
person being ordered to leave their home for
some sort of custodial placement.
Such a placement could be a community-
based program (such as a substance abuse
treatment facility or a therapeutic program for
youth who commit sexually-based offenses),
a locked detention program (for shorter stays,
with increased access to community-based
activities such as work and family visits), or
a secure care facility (for longer stays, with
much more limited out-of-facility access).
For these reasons, we consider “probation”
to be the least harsh of adjudications for
petitioned youth, followed by community
placement, then locked detention and finally
secure care.
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
3.1%2.81.91.91.1
24.3
3.8
61.1
3.8%2.52.33.41.5
24.3
6.9
51.8
7%
23
3
67
4%
25
3
67
5%
32
5
58
FIGURE 10.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 23
Data from 2019 (Fig. 11) show that as we
follow this path deeper into the system, white
children comprise a smaller and smaller
proportion of the population, while children of
color comprise a larger and larger proportion.
White youth represented barely over half of all
probation dispositions (50.3%), nearly equal
to the representation of non-white youth
(49.7%).
Conversely, the overrepresentation of
Latino/Hispanic (29.2%), Black (7.3%),
Native/Indigenous (2.4%), and multiracial
children (3.6%) became more pronounced.
Asian and Pacific Islander youth didn’t
see the same increase in disparities at this
stage when compared to new intakes, but
Pacific Islanders were still overrepresented
compared to the general youth school-aged
population.
At this point in the system, Black youth
make up 7.3% of all probation dispositions
- five times the size of their proportion of
the general school-aged youth population
(1.4%).
Figure 12 (next page) illustrates the
differences in racial disparities between 2015
and 2019 among probation dispositions.
FIGURE 11.
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
1.1%3.62.41.22.4
25.6
7.3
50.3
DISPARITIES IN 201924
FIGURE 12.
Again, we see similar patterns in both sets of
data, with disparities worsening for most non-
white groups of youth over the course of the
four years.
As mentioned previously, youth who do not
receive a probation disposition (another type
of “early off-ramp” diverting youth from more
serious system engagement), typically will
receive one of three more serious, out-of-
home dispositions: community placement,
locked detention or secure care.
Figure 14 illustrates the racial and ethnic
breakdown across these three juvenile court
dispositions. Locked detention admissions
also include young people who may be
placed in a detention setting before they
receive a formal disposition from a juvenile
court judge (such as those children awaiting
an initial court hearing or awaiting a formal
adjudication).
Overall, when compared to the population
of new intakes to the system, the population
of youth in community placement,
locked detention and secure care is
disproportionately non-white. This indicates
that as youth become more deeply involved
in the system, children of color become more
and more overrepresented. White children
are more likely to move out of the system,
while non-white children are more likely to
experience “more serious” dispositions.
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
7%
23
3
67
1.1%3.62.41.22.4
25.6
7.3
50.3
6%
30
7
56
DISPARITIES IN 2019 25
White children represented nearly 54% the
population of young people in community
placement settings, which was less than their
proportion of both new intakes (57.7%) and
the general population (74.2%), but more than
their occurrence in locked detention settings
(49.1%). White children are dramatically
underrepresented in secure care settings, at
approximately 39% of that population. White
children are in the majority with regard to the
community placement population (a “less
serious” adjudication), but in the minority of
both the secure care and locked detention
settings (“more serious” adjudications).
White children make up nearly three-
fourths (3/4) of the general school-aged
youth population, but less than half (1/2) of
the population in locked detention and less
than two-fifths (2/5) of the population in
secure care.
Latino/Hispanic children were a larger
proportion of the secure care (38.8%) and
locked detention (32.5%) than they were of
the community placement population (30.7%).
The proportion of Latino/Hispanic children
in locked detention was nearly double that
in the general population (32.5% vs 17.3%);
FIGURE 13.
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
1.3%2.82.31.30.2
30.7
7.5
53.9
1.4%1.93.02.40.8
32.5
8.9
49.1
0.7%3.92.62.60.7
38.8
11.8
38.8
DISPARITIES IN 201926
their proportion in secure care was more than
double that in the general population (38.8%
vs 17.3%).
Note that the number of Latino/Hispanic
children in secure care was equal to that
of white children, though white children
outnumbered Latino/Hispanic children in
the general school-aged youth population
by a factor of more than four to one.
Native/Indigenous children and multiracial
children were represented among community
placement dispositions (2.4% and 2.8%,
respectively) at rates similar or slightly
elevated when compared to those among
new intakes to the system (2.1% and 2.7%,
respectively), while both Asian and Pacific
Islander children were both underrepresented
in the community placement population when
compared to new intakes (0.2% vs 1.2% for
Asian youth and 1.3% vs 2.4% for Pacific
Islander youth).
The proportion of every group of non-white
children (with the exception of multiracial
children and those of “unknown” race/
ethnicity) was larger among the locked
detention and secure care populations,
than among the community placement
populations. Native/Indigenous youth,
in particular, were represented by stark
disparities in this regard. Native/Indigenous
children made up just 1.0% of the general
school-aged youth population, but over 2%
of new system intakes; comparatively, these
children made up 3% of locked detention
admissions, and nearly the same proportion of
secure care admissions (2.6%).
Native/Indigenous youth are present in
locked detention settings at three times
the rate we would expect from an equitable
representation. They were proportionately
more likely to be in locked detention or
secure care settings, than in community
placement settings.
The sample size of youth in community
placement settings was n=469. This is good
news, overall, with regards to the size of
Utah’s juvenile justice system. Only 469 youth
in the state of Utah in 2019 were ordered
to participate in an out-of-home juvenile
justice program (such as substance use
disorder programs), out of more than half a
million school-aged youth statewide. Even
more impressively, the sample size of youth
in secure care settings was n=152. 6, 7 This
indicates that the system is fairly efficient at
administering interventions that don’t require
a young person to be removed from their
home, school and community to receive help
and to create accountability.
The sample size of locked detention
admissions for this disaggregated data was
n=1491.8 Again, this is good news, overall.
Admissions to locked detention have dropped
by more than 50% since 2015, largely due
to changes in admissions criteria (via the
DRAT). However, this validated assessment
nonetheless takes into account “static”
or “stable” factors that can be influenced
substantially by systemic and institutional
racism (for example, the consideration of past
offenses as “gang-related,” or the total number
of previous interactions with the system).
This is one of several potential reasons that
DISPARITIES IN 2019 27
disparities in locked detention admissions
continue to be pronounced and troubling.
Particularly troubling is the disparate
representation of Black youth involved in
the juvenile justice system. Black children
were, among all children, most starkly
overrepresented in all three dispositions
when compared to both their proportion of
new system intakes (5.0%) and of the general
school-aged youth population (1.4%).
Black children make up 7.5% of all community
placement dispositions, similar to the 7.3% of
all probation dispositions that they represent.
However, Black children make up 8.9% of
locked detention admissions (more than
six times their proportion in the general
population), and 11.8% of all secure care
placements (nearly eight-and-a-half times
their proportion in the general population).
Utah’s juvenile justice system is producing
even less equitable outcomes for Black
children in 2019 than in 2015 in this regard.
Figure 14 compares the new intakes,
community placements, locked detention
admissions and secure care dispositions from
2015 to those in 2019. As previously noted,
all these overall numbers are down. Figure
FIGURE 14.
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
7%
23
3
67
1.3%2.82.31.30.2
30.7
7.5
53.9
1.4%1.93.02.40.8
32.5
8.9
49.1
0.7%3.92.62.60.7
38.8
11.8
38.8
8%
36
6
50
6%
32
5
57
4%
47
2
46
DISPARITIES IN 201928
15 makes clear, though, that the disparities
between white and non-white children
substantially worsened in many regards over
those four years.
It is true that Latino/Hispanic children
represented a smaller proportion of the
secure care population in 2019 (38.8%) than
in 2015 (47%). However, their population in
secure care was still approximately equal to
that of white children (46% in 2015 and 38.8%
in 2019), despite Latino/Hispanic children
being outnumbered by white children in the
general population by a factor of more than
four to one.
Black children were substantially more
inequitably represented in the populations
of community placements, locked detention
and secure care in 2019 and 2015. This also
was largely true for the category of “Other
Non-White” children (as labeled in the 2015
data), which we describe in our 2019 data as
children who are Native/Indigenous, Asian,
Pacific Islander, multiracial and of “unknown”
race/ethnicity.
In 2015, “Other Non-White” youth represented
8% of all community placements; in 2019, the
comparable population of children who are
Native/Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander,
FIGURE 15.
2.8%1.01.61.7
17.3
1.4
74.2
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
3.1%2.81.91.91.1
24.3
3.8
61.1
3.8%2.52.33.41.5
24.3
6.9
51.8
1.1%3.62.41.22.4
25.6
7.3
50.3
1.3%2.82.31.30.2
30.7
7.5
53.9
1.4%1.93.02.40.8
32.5
8.9
49.1
0.7%3.92.62.60.7
38.8
11.8
38.8
DISPARITIES IN 2019 29
FIGURE 16.
2.8%1.01.61.7
17.3
1.4
74.2
3.3%2.72.12.41.2
25.6
5.0
57.7
3.1%2.81.91.91.1
24.3
3.8
61.1
3.8%2.52.33.41.5
24.3
6.9
51.8
1.1%3.62.41.22.4
25.6
7.3
50.3
1.3%2.82.31.30.2
30.7
7.5
53.9
1.4%1.93.02.40.8
32.5
8.9
49.1
0.7%3.92.62.60.7
38.8
11.8
38.8
7%
23
3
67
7%
17
1
75
4%
25
3
67
5%
32
5
58
6%
30
7
56
8%
36
6
50
6%
32
5
57
4%
47
2
46
DISPARITIES IN 201930
multiracial and of “unknown” race/ethnicity
remained about the same (7.9% community
placements). However, the disparities
dramatically worsened within the locked
detention admissions population for these
combined racial/ethnic groups (6% in 2015
vs 9.5% in 2019), as well as within the secure
care population (4% in 2015 vs 10.5% in 2019).
Figure 15 captures the 2019 data shared in
previous figures, oriented side-by-side, to
better explicate the fact that children of color
generally were more likely to be captured into
the juvenile justice system and, once there,
were more likely to attract harsh dispositions
that result in increased system monitoring
(through NJAs and probations) and/or
removal from their homes and communities.
We can clearly observe that children of color
were disproportionately represented among
new intakes to the system, when compared
to the general school-aged youth population.
This overrepresentation was maintained at
every level of intervention and disposition,
once youth enter into the system via referral.
The disparities were either slightly smaller
or similar among the populations offered
“early off-ramp” interventions, including NJAs
and probation dispositions. The disparities
were typically either similar or worse among
populations given more “serious dispositions”
that result in removal from home and
communities.
Figure 16 compares this side-by-side
representation of 2019 system data to system
data collected in 2015 (and reported by us in
2017). The overall trend of children of color
being overrepresented in referrals to the
system, and among the harsher dispositions
meted out by the system, persist - with a few
notable differences.
For example, in 2019, the pattern of white
children comprising a larger proportion
of “less serious” treatments is even more
pronounced. In 2015, we saw a larger
proportion of white children in locked
detention (57%) than in community
placements (50%); in 2019, a slightly larger
proportion of white children were found
among community placements (nearly
54%, an increase of 4%), and significantly
smaller proportion among locked detention
admissions (slightly more than 49%, a
decrease of 8%).
When comparing the 2015 and 2019 in this
way, it becomes increasingly clear that white
children comprise a smaller and smaller
portion of our shrinking juvenile justice
system in Utah. Conversely, reform appears to
be providing less positive impact for youth of
color.
A lack of explicit focus on equity in the
reform process resulted in little progress
with regards to racial/ethnic disparities;
rather, these disparities have been allowed
to worsen even as the system has been
working to improve.
DISPARITIES IN 2019 31
SECTION 3 ENDNOTES
1 - See data collected and reported by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (2019), accessed at https://www.
ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp.
2, 3 -From “Utah Juvenile Justice Working
Group Final Report” (2016), accessed at
https://justice.utah.gov/Documents/CCJJ/
Justice%20Policy/Research/Final%20Report/
Utah%20JJ%20Final%20Report.pdf.
4 - From Utah State Board of Education
(USBE) Enrollment statistics, SY2014 to
SY2018; see Appendix 5.3 for all underlying
population figures.
5 - All data in Figs. 1-4 and Figs. 6-15 reflect
numbers over the course of a federal
fiscal year (October 1 of one year through
September 30 of the next year). The data in
Figs. 5 and 6 reflect numbers over the course
of a calendar year (January 1 to December 31
in the same year).
6 - This sample size is not insignificant, but
is small enough to warrant some caution
when assessing the relative disparities among
children of various races and ethnicities
in secure care. However, particularly for
Black and Latino children, the number of
incarcerated young people is substantial
enough to not swing widely with minor
changes in placement. For example, if there
were 15 Black children in secure care rather
than 18, their proportion of the secure care
population would be 9.9%, rather than 11.8%;
the former still represents a stark disparity.
7 - In contrast to data reported from other
inflection points in the juvenile justice system,
the number of youth in secure care in Utah
has not changed dramatically between 2015
and 2019. Utah has been, and continues
to be, a relatively low-incarcerating state,
with regards to both juvenile and adult
populations.
8 - There are slight differences in the locked
admission counts reported in this section;
this is the result of differences between how,
and at what times, various agencies and
entities report. As the margin of difference
is only 2.1%, we have left this discrepancy
unadjusted.
DISPARITIES IN 201932
4. 2020 RECOMMENDATIONS
Utah’s juvenile justice system could be setting
an example for the rest of the nation. To
realize that dream, Utah needs to make the
elimination of racial and ethnicdisparities a
priority. To do so, the state should use the
strong and effective entities already in place.
Leaders and administrators need to model
the collaborative, restorative practices that
we continue to recommend to our schools:
bring impacted stakeholders to the table to
build trusting relationships, then troubleshoot
from a place of respect and understanding.
We can and should improve on aspects of
implementation of our original juvenile justice
reform. Juvenile justice reform proponents
can do a better job of reaching out to, and
supporting, our on-the-ground implementers:
specifically, law enforcement and educators.
Racial disparities are the result of hundreds
of years of systemic racism that has become
entrenched in our policies and practices,
despite our best intentions. We may be coming
close, in Utah, to the limit of what success
“awareness” alone can inspire. Progress in
this area will require deliberate focus and
intentional action. If we want to see change,
we need to not only correct problems with
implementation, but also take bold action to
position equitable treatment as a core value
and critical measure of success.
Fortunately, Utah has the solid organizational
structures, public and community agencies,
collaborative partnerships and grassroots
leaders to make such action possible. Our
hope is that the following recommendations
will build upon currently existing foundations
of success to allow our state to achieve a
juvenile justice system that is not only efficient,
effective, fiscally-responsible and research-
based but equitable as well. Such a system
would be not only the envy of other states
across our nation, but an incredible legacy to
leave to future generations of Utah children.
FOR THE JUVENILE JUSTICE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Form an Equity Working Group
to focus on system disparities in
petitions, dispositions, parole and
duration of court jurisdictions.
4.1 WHAT POLICYMAKERS CAN DO TO ADVANCE EQUITY
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 33
The JJOC has been meeting and working
since HB239 passed in 2017. Strong working
relationships, trust among committee
participants, and a ceaseless commitment
to continuous improvement are part of the
established culture of this group.
Various working groups have tackled a
number of intricate and complicated policy
implementation challenges, successfully and
efficiently. Where HB239 directed the state
to scale fees and restitution appropriately
to the means of system-involved youth
and their families, the Restitution Working
Group met regularly until the particulars
of such a program could be defined and
passed along to court staff and judges. The
training requirements broadly outlined in the
legislation were translated, by the Training
Working Group, into an agency- and topic-
defined schedule that can be annually
updated.
We recommend that the JJOC follow this
largely successful approach to tackle at least
some of the clear disparities noted in this
report. We strongly urge that a JJOC Equity
Working Group be both bold and creative
in its pursuit of solutions. The Working
Group should be prepared for challenging
discussions and innovative accountability
methods.
Additionally, the Board of Juvenile Justice
(UBJJ) and its Racial-Ethnic Disparities (RED)
Subcommittee are in excellent position to
gather information directly from system-
involved youth about how they feel their
race and ethnicity may be connected to their
system outcomes.
Generally, holding regular focus and
discussion groups with youth in detention and
secure care settings, as well as in community
placements such as substance use disorder
programs, would provide valuable insight into
what sorts of interventions make a difference
for youth who are engaged in misconduct.
Focus groups with system-involved youth
played an important role in the system
analysis undertaken in 2016, and at least one
discussion group was held in 2019 with youth
participating in a substance use recovery
facility in Salt Lake City. These efforts can and
should be expanded in the next several years,
to help inform on-going efforts to improve
system interventions overall.
But UBJJ and the RED Subcommittee can also
be courageous about engaging young people
directly on topics of implicit bias, perceived
discrimination, cultural competency within
the system, and interest in culturally-relevant
interventions. We recommend that UBJJ
FOR THE UTAH BOARD OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND THERACIAL & ETHNIC DISPARITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Center youth voices through
deliberate engagement to gain
deeper insight into how bias and
discrimination push Utah youth into
the juvenile justice system.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS34
and the RED visit various youth detention
and receiving centers across the state to
talk frankly with young people about their
experiences with race and racism within
Utah’s juvenile justice system (including
school-based interactions and community-
based interactions with law enforcement).
UBJJ and the RED Subcommittee have
historically shared RED data in a fairly one-
directional conversation, releasing annual
statistics through the UBJJ website and
minimizing broader public discussion. As
we’ve mentioned previously in this report,
“awareness” alone can only go so far.
In fact, the repeated sharing of data on
discrimination, absent action and power-
sharing, often can be defeating and even
retraumatizing, especially for communities of
color.
It is possible, in the future, to actually
mobilize the DMC/RED data in a way
that is not merely informational, but
also empowering. In addition to sharing
quantitative data that affirms the lived
experience of many Utah families of color,
UBJJ and the RED Subcommittee can
work with community partnerships to hold
discussions about youth and parent rights, as
well as troubleshooting for families who are
struggling with system involvement.
In recent years, government agencies -
including those that comprise Utah’s juvenile
justice system - have become focused on
the use of “evidence-based practices” to
ensure that public monies are being used in
effective and responsible ways. This approach
partners well with an emphasis on the use of
quantitative data to justify the continuation of
particular policies, programs and practices.
However, the bar for what can be considered,
officially, “evidence-based” is quite high. In
addition, many smaller, grassroots efforts
and programs lack the resources or cultural
inclination to prioritize the collection of
quantitative data to justify their existence.
Hence, an inclusive philosophy has emerged
that includes an embrace of both evidence-
based practices and “practice-based
evidence.” The idea of “practice-based
evidence” (PBE) is particularly popular in
the fields of medicine and public health,
where cultural competency and respect
for community traditions can make an
enormous difference in the efficacy of various
interventions.
The inclusion of this additional approach
allows for the use of a broader spectrum of
interventions that, rather than structured
Partner with community groups
to empower parents and other
advocates for youth to speak up
and advocate for equity.
Pursue innovative grant-making
approaches that support
communities creating and
providing their own culturally-
appropriate interventions to youth
of color.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 35
around statistical efficacy for a majority
population, are designed for, and trusted by,
traditionally marginalized communities.
“PBEs are embedded in the culture, are
accepted as effective by local communities,
and supporting healing of youth and families
from a cultural framework. . . These practices
do not have a research base as we define
research today; but they do have an evidence
base developed from multiple trials of
experimenting with what works best.”1
The UBJJ and RED Subcommittee can and
should consider providing delinquency
prevention resources to programs and
intervention efforts that include those that are
built for high-risk youth of different cultural
backgrounds, as well as those that use a
faith-based approach to build pro-social
community connections among struggling
youth.
In recent years, some positive changes
have emerged in Utah’s approach to dealing
with potential gang activity within different
communities. For example, the popular
Northern Utah Gang Conference has begun
to include presenters with lived experience
with gang involvement, and helpful reflections
on what can create motivation for change
among young people associated with gang-
related misconduct.2 Similarly, Salt Lake
City’s re-envisioned “Choose Gang Free”
approach focuses resources on providing
positive interventions for youth who may be
considering or at risk for gang involvement,
with a stated mission to “promote
change through opportunity, education,
and collaboration, and restore hope by
empowering youth and families to choose a
gang free lifestyle.”3
These changes stand out in a landscape of
“gang interdiction” efforts that have included
not only the high-school-based “gang
sweeps” and “gang injunctions” mentioned
previously in this report, but also aggressive
prosecutions that have sown mistrust and
resentment in some of Utah’s deep-rooted
communities of color along the Wasatch
Front.4
Despite historical differences, there exists
plenty of common ground between law
enforcement, community leaders and juvenile
justice reformers, on which more productive
gang-intervention efforts can be built. This
common ground includes: a desire for safe
and peaceful neighborhoods, an interest in
supporting positive and pro-social life choices
by young people, and an agreement that gang
involvement produces no enduring positive
outcomes for either community members or
gang members.
Outreach and collaboration with
the law enforcement community
to transition “gang interdiction”
efforts away from punitive
prosecutions and toward early
interventions that acknowledge the
potential and humanity of young
people at risk for gang involvement.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS36
The UBJJ and RED Subcommittee both
include members of law enforcement
who believe in juvenile justice reform,
as well as community leaders willing to
build relationships with law enforcement
leaders. These policy-building spaces offer
promise for the collaborative development of
interventions that challenge the traditional
approaches to gang interdiction (which often
threaten to enforce rather than challenge
long-standing stereotypes about the relative
danger posed by misconduct engaged in
by youth of different racial backgrounds),
while creating innovative and effective ways
of strengthening communities through
increased social and economic opportunity.
There are a number of issues that have
surfaced in recent years that exist in the
jurisdictional overlap between public schools,
local law enforcement agencies and state-
level juvenile justice reform representatives
involved in UBJJ, JJOC and DMC/RED.
Disagreements over implementation
of HB239 at the community level, and
conversations about school safety in light
of several high-profile school shootings,
have revealed a need for a new policy
problem-solving space. Representatives
of law enforcement, school districts and
community advocacy groups need regular
opportunities to discuss potential policies and
implementation challenges regarding school
discipline, court referrals, community-based
youth misconduct, school safety and threat
assessment proposals, and more.
Rather than approach these issues from a
desire to avoid harm (for youth, their families,
and the community at large), those involved
in the lives of youth need a space where they
can come together to create a vision for youth
opportunity and success – and then work
backwards from that vision to determine how
each stakeholder can contribute to helping
all youth toward a path of success and
happiness.
In order to create this vision and begin to put
it into action, juvenile justice stakeholders,
education stakeholders and public safety
stakeholders need to be at the same table.
Historically, the JJOC has been laser-focused
on implementation of the reforms in HB239.
By contrast, UBJJ has focused on providing
funds to support various programs that
comport with more general “delinquency
prevention” goals, in accordance with its
federal mandates under the Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention Act. The JJOC is
comprised largely of public servants working
for state and local agencies involved in
FOR THE UTAH BOARD OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ANDTHE JUVENILE JUSTICE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Combine the task-oriented and
problem-solving Juvenile Justice
Oversight Committee with the more
inclusive and expansive Utah Board
of Juvenile Justice.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 37
various stages of the juvenile justice system
(approximately 80% of JJOC participants
are public servants). UBJJ, on the other
hand, is required to have no more than 50%
participation by agency representatives, with
the other (at least) 50% of members coming
from community-based and private sector
affiliations. In addition, by law, at least 25% of
UBJJ members must be youth board members
who have had personal experience with the
juvenile justice system.
Both UBJJ and JJOC boast positive working
relationships between members, with
a fair amount of interpersonal trust and
assumption of good intentions. In fact, several
members of UBJJ serve also on the JJOC. We
recommend slowly merging these two entities
together, with a clear mission to provide a
constructive space for cross-community,
intergovernmental collaboration toward
building a youth-centric, evidence-based
and data-driven juvenile justice system that
provides equity and positive outcomes for all
youth.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS38
4. 2020 RECOMMENDATIONS
BUILD.
Build and maintain trusted
relationships with youth.
Family and community advocates can play a
vital role in increasing the protective factors
that help young people avoid misconduct and
misbehavior that threaten their own wellbeing.
The foundation of positive outcomes for young
people are strong relationships. Caring adults
can begin to build positive connections with
the youth around them; they can make, and
honor, commitments to be there for these
youth, even in small ways.
Being a positive and trusted connection for
youth, means being available to those youth
when they face troubles. A loving adult is
someone who does not give up on youth
when they engage in misconduct and act out
in frustration, but maintains their relationship
and stays with them throughout those difficult
times, while also creating boundaries that
show self-respect and self-awareness.
“Staying with” a young person can mean
remaining accessible to them throughout
a juvenile justice process or throughout an
entire school year. Simply being a consistent
and constant presence in their life is an
important way to help a young person move
forward in life and learn from their mistakes.
Don’t be afraid to share your own stories of
struggle and triumph with the young people
in your life. By sharing your experiences, you
can give young people the courage to open
up about the troubles in their own lives, even
if they choose to open up to someone besides
you.
It is important for young people to know that
they are not alone in facing tough times, and
that other people (like you!) make mistakes, as
well. It can be through your positive example
that youth begin to learn that the difficult
experiences they face can also be, with a
little support and reflection, opportunities for
growth and personal discovery. By being open
about your own mistakes, you can show that
it is possible to move forward after even very
serious missteps.
4.2 WHAT COMMUNITY & FAMILY ADVOCATES CAN DO TO ADVANCE EQUITY
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 39
Remember that when you make yourself
available to young people in a supportive
relationship, as the adult, you are responsible
for doing your best to keep that relationship
consistent and meaningful. Be available
without expecting appreciation or recognition;
just be there for your young people.
COMMIT.
Commit to supporting young
people if or when they encounter
the juvenile justice system.
Thankfully, not every young person will
formally encounter the juvenile justice system;
many youthful misconduct attracts only family
or community consequences. However, it is
important for you to be prepared to support
the young people you care about when they
make mistakes or get in trouble, especially
when that occurs in a formal setting, such as
at school or in a courthouse. Advocates like
you can commit to supporting your young
person before, during, and after official
processes that engage some aspect of the
juvenile justice system.
Simply knowing some basic information
about administrative and legal processes
can be a huge help to young people and
their families.
For example, any young person who has to
appear in juvenile court to answer formal
charges has the right to an attorney, who
is supposed to help them understand the
process and to explain the different options
available to them.
You don’t have to be an attorney in order to
help a young person who is called to court;
you can simply remind them that having an
attorney to represent them is their right. If
they can’t afford to pay a private attorney, they
will be assigned a public juvenile defense
attorney. Their defense attorney is meant to
play an important role in negotiating with the
prosecuting attorney, and in making sure a
juvenile defendant feels heard in court.
Similarly, if your young person doesn’t feel
that they are getting the support they need
to be successful at school, you can help them
ask for the assistance they have a right to
receive, by law. Public school students who
have learning disabilities and need special
accommodations are supposed to receive
them. You can accompany your young
person in meeting with a principal, teacher
or counselor, and support them in requesting
a special plan that better supports their
learning (such as an Individualized Education
Plan, or IEP, or a “504 Plan”).5
As a family or community advocate, you
can learn more about basic juvenile justice
proceedings - including disciplinary
processes that take place at the school
level, well before a court referral is made
- by participating in a “Know Your Rights
Workshop” offered by a local advocacy or civil
rights organization.
You can also review helpful videos and
how-to guides available at the Utah Courts
website. You don’t need to be an expert,
and it’s best not to try! However, it can be
very useful to a confused and scared young
person, to have the support of a concerned
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS40
adult with even a little understanding of
formal government processes, and the
willingness to navigate those processes
alongside them.
Once a young person has finished their
involvement with the juvenile justice system,
family and community advocates can support
youth by helping them “expunge” their
juvenile record, if and when they are eligible
to do so. “Expungement” is the term for when
the juvenile court orders that the criminal
record of a young person’s involvement with
the court, as well as related records of state,
county and local government agencies, be
sealed.
Contrary to popular belief, juvenile records
are not “automatically” sealed.6
Action must be taken by a young person,
once their disposition is completed, to seal
their own record through the expungement
process. It is important to remember that
sealing a record only means that the public
cannot view or copy the expunged record by
contacting a government agency.
Expungement doesn’t erase history,
of course; news accounts of an arrest,
conviction or incident in which a young
person was involved, will not be affected by
an expungement.7 Once an expungement is
granted by a juvenile court judge, however,
a young person can truthfully answer “NO” if
they are questioned as to whether they have
been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor
(such as on a job application, or when they
are applying for a college program).
CONSIDER.
Consider how Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACES) and trauma
affect children, rather than
criminalizing behavior that may be
the result of childhood trauma.
When we engage in supporting the youth
around us, we need to consider each young
person as an individual, with a unique life
story that potentially includes very difficult
past and present circumstances.
When a young person you care about acts
out, hurts others, or engages in frustrating
misconduct, it is important to ask, “What
might be going on with you, that you are
doing this?” rather than demand to know,
“What is wrong with you, that you would do
this?”
Using an individualized, youth-centric
approach to intervening with young people
means that we consider, specifically, how
childhood trauma or Adverse Childhood
Experiences (commonly referred to as
“ACES”) may be driving the behaviors of
those young people - often without their
awareness or understanding. In addition
to sometimes contributing to problematic
misbehavior, negative childhood experiences
are strongly linked to negative effects on
health, wellbeing and opportunity.8
We have learned a great deal about the
substantial impact that can be caused by
childhood experiences. We now understand
that intense, frightening and destabilizing
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 41
experiences in childhood can cause both
immediate and long-term harm to the young
people we care about. For example, being
exposed to violence in childhood can increase
the risk of an individual being a victim or a
perpetrator of violence in the future. Exposure
to violence also increases the risk of injury,
substance abuse, slowed brain development,
and risk of low educational attainment,
among other consequences.9
Recognizing that ACES and traumatic
experiences - both those that have happened
in the past and those that are occurring in
the present - can help family and community
advocates understand that the vast majority
of young people get into trouble because they
are suffering, and not because they are just
“bad kids.”
A young person who is picking fights at
school, may be struggling due to domestic
violence incidents occurring in the home they
have to return to at the end of the school day.
A young person who acts out sexually, may be
confused and upset about abuse they have
experienced or are experiencing in a different
setting altogether.
As a supportive adult, always remember
to ask, “What’s going on with this child,
that may be causing them to act out in this
way?”
Acknowledging the role of trauma helps us
look for underlying causes and potential
solutions, instead of simply leaping to the
conclusion that punishment is needed.
CREATE.
Create positive and culturally-
inclusive school cultures.
Parents, guardians, family members, and
other supportive adults can work with
teachers, counselors, social workers,
principals and other school staff to develop
positive school culture within the schools
their youth attend. A positive school
culture exists when members of the school
community - including students, staff and the
surrounding community - feel connected to
and respected by one another. When students
feel seen, welcome, appreciated, understood
and safe, we say that a school has a positive
culture.
Positive school culture can be built in many
ways, and will be unique to each different
school community, depending on its unique
strengths and challenges. Two very important
ways to build positive school culture -
particularly with regards to increasing equity -
are: supporting the development of culturally-
relevant pedagogy within classrooms, and
incorporating restorative justice principles.
Culturally-relevant pedagogy honors and
includes the experiences of students of color,
and intentionally celebrates the contributions
of people from diverse backgrounds.
CULTURALLY-RELEVANTPEDAGOGY
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS42
Research shows that students who see
themselves reflected in their educational
curricula, and whose educational
experience includes celebrations of unique
elements of their own heritage, are more
likely to succeed in school. 10
Creating and building culturally-relevant
pedagogy takes time, but an easy way to
start is by supporting teachers and schools
in building their libraries with books written
by authors of color, and books that have
protagonists or main characters who are
people of color (specifically, who look like the
students of color who attend that particular
school or classroom).
By allowing students to share personal
experiences and cultural knowledge through
their reading and learning, they are better
able to understand the world around them
and how they fit into it. Their experiences,
as youth of color, are acknowledged and
recognized as valuable in their own individual
education.
Culturally-relevant practices can also be
incorporated into the formal educational
experience, allowing students and their
families to connect both within and across
cultures. By adding school wide opportunities
that allow for the celebration of students’
different cultures, languages and ethnic
traditions, school communities can build
increasingly inclusive campuses.
In addition to practices and programs, school
policies should also reflect an appreciation
and understanding of students’ unique
cultural and linguistic needs. For example,
translation services can be made easily and
seamlessly accessible, so that students
and their families can fully participate in
school activities. Certainly, students should
be encouraged and allowed to speak their
native languages not just at school, but in the
classroom, as well.
Schoolwide restorative justice practices
can also be critical to building positive
school culture. Restorative justice is often
misunderstood to mean, in the educational
context, an alternative method of discipline
when students do something perceived as
wrong. However, restorative justice is much
more than that.
When applied to the school community
as an overarching philosophy, restorative
justice can become a foundation for
everyday interactions between students,
staff and the larger communities.
Restorative justice, as a philosophy, can
look like simple activities that strengthen
relationships and build trust; for example, a
daily practice of check-ins between teacher
and students, or a conscientious effort by all
adults in a school community to make eye
contact, and connect on a personal level, with
the students regularly in their care.
Some restorative justice schools assign a
“trusted adult” to every child in the school, to
RESTORATIVE JUSTICEPRACTICES
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 43
ensure no child goes unseen. Others regularly
practice discussion circles that give every
child an opportunity to participate, while
others listen respectfully, in the tradition of
many indegenous peoples.
Of course, restorative justice principles can
work very effectively to address misconduct
within the school community, as well, with
an emphasis on accountability and mutual
respect. Discipline approaches that are
rooted in restorative justice principles allow
youth to grow and learn from their mistakes,
while cultivating understanding for how their
behavior can impact others.
A restorative justice approach to addressing
misconduct asks questions like, “What
happened? What harm was caused? What
needs to happen to repair the harm, and
to repair the relationships injured by
the misconduct?” Rather than stressing
punishment and wrongness, these practices
create opportunities for students and other
school community members to work toward
feeling safe and successful together.
You can encourage the use of such
practices in your young person’s school by
recommending professional development
opportunities for individual teachers (many
are available through the Utah State Board
of Education, as well as through community-
based organizations such as the Restorative
Justice Collaborative of Utah).
You can also volunteer to help model
practices - such as restorative circles -
during student activities and programs. Most
importantly, as a supportive and caring adult,
you can model key principles of restorative
justice in your interactions with young people,
and with other members of your community.
Restorative justice is rooted in the values of
respect, dignity and mutual concern. 11
By nurturing healthy relationships, creating
just and equitable learning environments,
and repairing harm and transforming conflict
when necessary, you are helping to institute
restorative justice principles in the spheres
you share with young people.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS44
SECTION 4 ENDNOTES
1 - From “Evidence-Based Practices &
Practice-Based Evidence: What are they?
How do we know if we have one?” by Dr.
Dolores Bigfoot, PhD, and Dr. Jami Bartis,
PhD, (2010). Full article published in the
National Indian Health Board Edition of the
Healthy Indian Country Initiative Promising
Prevention Practices Resource Guide,
accessed at https://www.ncuih.org/krc/D_
bigfoot_EBP_PBE.
2 -See agenda for 2019 Northern Utah Gang
Conference, including “MS-13 How to Get
Out of a Gang” presentation by Mr. Gerardo
Lopez of Homies Unidos and “Gangs &
Sex Trafficking” presentation by Ms. Allison
Franklin of the National Criminal Justice
Training Center. Presenter bios accessed at
https://ogdencity.com/1595/Northern-Utah-
Gang-Conference.
3 - Information about Salt Lake City’s Choose
Gang Free efforts accessed at https://www.
choosegangfree.com.
4 - For example: the 2010-14 Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
prosecutions of several alleged members of
the Tongan Crip Gang, which ended with the
courtroom shooting death of Siale Maveni
Angilau of Salt Lake City; and the 2018-
2019 prosecutions of accused members of
“GlenMob,” a professed rap group and alleged
narcotics distribution ring, apparently based
in various communities on the West side
of Salt Lake County. Information accessed
from various media sources, agency press
releases, and gang conference workshop
descriptions.
5 - For more information about educational
plans for students with diagnosed disabilities,
you can contact either the Disability Law
Center (which offers online resources related
to education at http://disabilitylawcenter.
org/education/) or the Utah State Board of
Education (which has a department dedicated
to Special Education Services, or SES, with
general information available at https://www.
schools.utah.gov/specialeducation).
6 - As described in Utah code, accessed
at https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78A/
Chapter6/78A-6-S1105.html.
7 - From “Expunging Juvenile Records,” an
online guide provided by the Utah Courts,
accessed at https://www.utcourts.gov/
howto/expunge/juvenile.html.
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS 45
8 - Definition from the World Health
Organization; example available at https://
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/
violence/activities/adverse_childhood_
experiences/en/.
9 - From the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, accessed at https://
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
childabuseandneglect/aces/fastfact.html.
10 - For resources on the positive impacts of
culturally-relevant pedagogy, we recommend
“How to Practice Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy,” by Bárbara Escudero (2019),
accessed at https://www.teachforamerica.
org/stories/how-to-engage-culturally-
relevant-pedagogy.
11 - From the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, accessed at https://
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
childabuseandneglect/aces/fastfact.html.
12 - From The Little Book of Restorative
Justice in Education: Fostering Responsibility,
Healing and Hope in Schools, by Katherine
Evans and Dorothy Vaandering (2016).
2020 RECOMMENDATIONS46
i
5. APPENDICES
5.1 AGGREGATE ANNUAL TOTALS, 2015-2019
* Year refers to state fiscal year, which begins on July 1 of the preceding year and ends on June 30 of
the stated year (FY2019 runs from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019).
** Annual Referral to Court figures taken from Figure 3, under Perfomance Metrics: System Trends, in
the online 2019 HB239 Annual Report; data compiled and presented by Dr. Van Nguyen, Co-Director
of the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice (UBJJ)/Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (JJOC), in the office
of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Full report accessible at https://justice.utah.gov/
Juvenile/HB239/Annual%20Reports/FY_2019_HB_239_Annual_Report.html.
*** Annual Non-Judicial Adjustment and Petition to Court figures taken from Figure 10, under
Performance Metrics: Non-Judicial Adjustments, in the online 2019 HB239 Annual Report.
**** Annual Admissions to Locked Detention figures taken from Figure 16, under Performance
Metrics: Locked Detention, in the online 2019 HB239 Annual Report; clarification of underlying data
sought from Dr. Van Nguyen, author of 2019 HB239 Annual Report.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Referrals to
Court 22,323 19,925 19,552 18,331 17,354
Non-Judicial
Adjustments 7,161 6,142 7,223 10,125 9,672
Petitions to
Court 14,049 12,057 10,151 6,215 5,851
Admissions
to Locked
Detention
3,494 3,114 2,592 1,893 1,523
ii
5.2 YOUTH ARRESTS DISAGGREGATED BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2015-2019
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
White /
Caucasian 12,719 11,258 9,454 8,265 13,413
Black / African-
American 816 768 721 664 706
Latinx /
Hispanic 3,813 3,610 2,881 2,853 2,626
Asian-
American,
Native
Hawaiian, other
Pacific Islander
510 467 352 364 440
American Indian
or Alaska Native
/ Indigenous or
Native
308 297 259 221 189
Other, Mixed
Race 0 0 1,214 1,382 1,937
Total Arrests 18,166 16,402 14,881 13,749 13,413
* Year refers to calendar year (January 1 to December 31 of the same year).
** Disaggregated arrest figures for 2014 and 2015 obtained from public annual reports of
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Subcommittee of UBJJ; data submitted by law enforcement
agencies throughout Utah. Full reports available at https://justice.utah.gov/Juvenile/ubjj_dmc.html,
under DMC Data sidebar (DMC Summaries 2014 and 2015).
*** Disaggregated arrest figures for 2016, 2017 and 2018 were obtained upon request from UBJJ/
JJOC Co-Director Kayley Richards, as reported by the Bureau of Criminal Identification in the Utah
Department of Public Safety.
iii
5.3 GENERAL SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH POPULATION, 2015-2019
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
White /
Caucasian 468,378 471,853 633,526 644,061 651,864 488,844
Black /
African-
American
7,908 8,256 8,670 9,061 9,258 9,225
Latinx /
Hispanic 97,388 101,390 104,457 108,074 110,931 113,945
Asian
American 10,277 10,355 10,517 10,776 10,907 11,062
Pacific
Islander 9,131 9,310 9,857 10,015 10,250 10,441
American
Indian /
Native-
Indigenous
6,876 6,938 7,009 6,978 6,752 6,749
Multiple or
mixed race 12,182 13,698 14,930 16,057 17,513 18,742
Total K-12
Enrollment 612,140 621,800 633,526 644,061 651,864 659,008
* Year refers to school year, from August of the preceeding year through June of the state year
(SY2014 runs from August of 2013 through June of 2014).
** Disaggregated K-12 enrollment figures taken from Utah State Board of Education Fall Enrollment
Data available at https://www.schools.utah.gov/data/reports?mid=1424&tid=4.
iv
5.4 JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM POINTS OF CONTACT, DISAGGREGATED BY RACE, 2019
INTAKES NJA PETITION PROBATION COMMUNITY
PLACEMENTS
LOCKED
DETENTION
ADMISSIONS
SECURE
CARE
White /
Caucasian 8,360 5,641 2,719 2,568 253 732 59
Black /
African-
American
717 355 362 371 35 132 18
Latinx /
Hispanic 3,701 2,244 1,457 574 144 485 59
Asian
American 178 99 79 69 1 12 1
Pacific
Islander 352 172 180 103 6 36 4
American
Indian /
Native-
Indigenous
299 177 122 122 11 45 4
Multiple or
mixed race 390 260 130 322 13 28 6
Unknown 484 282 202 58 6 21 1
Total 14,481 9,230 5,251 4,187 469 1,491 152
* Year refers to state fiscal year, which begins on July 1 of the preceding year and ends on June 30 of
the stated year (FY2019 runs from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019).
** Intake, NJA, Petition and Probation figures are received from the Administrative Office of the
Courts, with assistance from Dr. Van Nguyen, UBJJ/JJOC Co-Director.
*** Community Placement, Locked Detention and Secure Care figures are received directly from the
Division of Juvenile Justice Services.
Voices for Utah Children
747 E. South Temple, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
(801) 364-1182
www.utahchildren.org
JULY 2020