DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03502.v1
title: Evaluation of Utah's Early Intervention Mandate: Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and Intermediate Sanctions, 1996-2000
title: Version 1

description: This study was an evaluation of changes initiated by the
 State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early intervention
 comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new intermediate
 sanction called State Supervision. Together, the Sentencing Guidelines
 and State Supervision sanction were designed to bring about a
 reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently reduce the
 number of offenders placed out of the home in the custody of the
 Division of Youth Corrections by 5 percent. Researchers combined
 quantitative measures of sentencing guidelines compliance and
 recidivism rates with qualitative interviews of juvenile justice
 system personnel and youth offenders. Data were gathered on all
 offenders receiving a sentence to probation for the first time from
 January to June during 1996 and 1999, enabling a comparison of
 offenders before and after program implementation (Part 1, Juvenile
 Information System Data). Part 1 data include demographic data, prior
 charges, age at start of probation, detention use, reoffense, and
 commitment to Youth Corrections. Interviews with 168 court and
 corrections personnel were conducted in two interview rounds, from
 June to December 1999, and again from July to September 2000,
 soliciting their views of the sentencing guidelines, state
 supervision, and probation (Parts 2-3, Juvenile Justice System
 Personnel Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). Interviews with 229 youth
 offenders obtained information on their involvement with and views of
 the sentencing guidelines, state supervision, and probation during a
 single interview in either the first or second round (Parts 4-5, Youth
 Offender Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). A random sample of paper case
 files for pre- and post-guideline offenders was selected to analyze
 changes in contact and interventions provided (Part 6, Youth Offender
 Case File Analysis). These files were examined for documentation of
 contact frequency and type with offenders and their families and the
number and types of programs used.
description: This study was an evaluation of changes initiated
 by the State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early
 intervention comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new
 intermediate sanction called State Supervision. Utah's Juvenile
 Sentencing Guidelines were an attempt by a sentencing commission to
 structure juvenile court sentencing flexibly, using advisory,
 offense-based guidelines that covered the continuum of sanctions
 available for juvenile offenders. Policymakers designed a sanction
 intended to create locally-designed, intensive service programs that
 would be largely in-home efforts, with short-term out-of-home
 placements in a community setting when needed. Taken together, the
 Sentencing Guidelines and State Supervision sanction were designed to
 bring about a reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently
 to reduce the number of offenders placed out of the home in the
 custody of the Division of Youth Corrections by 5 percent. The
 objectives of this evaluation were to: (1) assess the ability of a
 state to implement juvenile sentencing guidelines and an intermediate
 sanction designed to intervene earlier in the lives of juvenile
 offenders, (2) assess the effectiveness of this earlier intervention
 program on reducing criminal activity and rates of commitment to Youth
 Corrections, and (3) identify local approaches to the new program that
show promise.
description: Researchers combined quantitative measures of
 sentencing guidelines compliance and recidivism rates with qualitative
 interviews of juvenile justice system personnel and youth
 offenders. Using the Juvenile Information System database, the
 researchers gathered data on demographic characteristics, prior
 charges, age at start of Probation, detention use, reoffense, and
 commitment to Youth Corrections for all offenders receiving a sentence
 to probation for the first time from January to June during 1996 and
 1999, enabling a comparison of offenders before and after program
 implementation (Part 1, Juvenile Information System Data). Interviews
 with 168 court and corrections personnel were conducted in two
 interview rounds, from June to December 1999 and from July to
 September 2000, in their place of employment (Parts 2-3, Juvenile
 Justice Personnel Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). All adults in the first
 round were solicited for the second round in order to allow
 participant feedback on results from the first round. Court and
 corrections personnel interviews were typically one hour long during
 Round 1 and one-half hour long during the second round. Five research
 assistants conducted the interviews, two during the first round and
 three during the second. The 229 offenders were interviewed once in
 either the first or second round (Parts 4-5, Youth Offender
 Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). Interviews with most offenders were held
 at the probation office, detention center, or other placement
 facility. Six offenders were interviewed in their homes. All offenders
 were interviewed alone with the exception of four youths whose
 parent(s) requested to be present during the interview. Offender
 interviews typically lasted between 15 and 25 minutes. Offenders were
 given three hours of work credit for participation. In addition, a
 random sample of paper case files for pre- and post-guideline
 offenders was selected to analyze changes in contact and interventions
 provided (Part 6, Youth Offender Case File Analysis). These files were
 examined for documentation of contact frequency and type with
 offenders and their families and the number and types of programs
used.
description: Variables in Part 1, Juvenile Information System
 Data, include judicial district, rural or urban district, cohort year,
 date probation began, ethnicity (white or minority), sex, age at first
 offense, age at start of probation, total prior offenses, total prior
 offenses by type (felony, misdemeanor, violent, sexual, drug or
 alcohol, person, property, public order, and technical), days to
 reoffense, whether reoffended, days to reoffense by type, committed to
 Department of Youth Corrections (DYC), days to DYC commitment, one
 year prior and one year follow-up offenses (total and by type), days
 on probation, days in detention or observation, and days in DYC
 community placement. In Parts 2-3, Juvenile Justice Personnel
 Interviews Rounds 1 and 2, judges, probation officers, State
 Supervision officers, youth corrections staff, program providers, and
 prosecuting or defending attorneys were asked whether the sentencing
 guidelines were helpful, whether others in the juvenile justice system
 were aware of the sentencing guidelines and their purpose, whether
 youth and their parents were aware of the guidelines and their
 purpose, what areas of the guidelines were confusing or problematic,
 and whether the sanctions recommended by the guidelines were overly
 intrusive, appropriate, or too lenient. In Parts 4-5, Youth Offender
 Interviews Rounds 1 and 2, interviewers asked youth offenders about
 their familiarity with Utah's sentencing guidelines, how long they had
 been on probation, whether they were on probation or State
 Supervision, the frequency and types of contact with their probation
 officers, which after-school/rehabiliation/counseling programs they
 had participated in as part of State Supervision, which programs were
 helpful and why, and what the differences were between probation and
 State Supervision. In Part 6, Youth Offender Case File Analysis,
 variables include probation office where the youth was interviewed,
 whether the youth was on State Supervision or probation, days on
 probation, contact history, family contacts, and programs the youth
was involved in as part of State Supervision.
description: Response Rates: The response rates for juvenile justice system
 personnel were as follows: Judges, chief probation officers, combined
 field/intake officers, and program providers: 100 percent. Field
 probation officers: 93 percent. Intake probation officers: 90
 percent. Youth corrections administrators: 83 percent. Youth
 corrections staff: 75 percent. State supervisions officers: 73
 percent. Trial court executives: 67 percent. Overall, 20 percent of
 adult participants from Round 1 dropped out, 24 had left employment
 with the court, and 8 withdrew from participation, resulting in a
 14-percent attrition rate. The response rate for juvenile offenders
 was 84 percent. The response rate for all interviewees was 86
percent.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Purposive sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was employed
 to create a qualitative sample that adequately reflected the wide
 range of persons involved in the new program and in each geographical
 area. Study participants were chosen as follows: All permanent judges,
 trial court executives, and chief probation officers in the state of
 Utah were solicited to participate due to the centrality of their
 contributions to the new program. All probation officers who
 specialized in provision of State Supervision services and program
 providers were solicited for participation to ensure a complete
 description of State Supervision programs. Forty percent of all
 full-time intake and probation officers in each judicial district and
 assistant regional directors and case managers in each correctional
 region were solicited for participation. These participants were
 chosen at random from a list provided by the chief probation officer
 in each court district and the central administration of the Division
 of Youth Corrections, respectively. Additionally, a list of
 prosecutors and defense attorneys provided by each chief probation
 officer was used to randomly solicit participation from one person in
 each category in each judicial district. Finally, interviews were
 sought from five offenders on each participating field or State
 Supervision probation officer's caseload. These offenders were
 randomly chosen from a list provided by the officer. Participants were
 recruited using the following protocol: The head of each agency sent a
 letter to employees of the agency requesting accommodation of the
 evaluation. Informed consent was obtained from all adult participants
 and parents or guardians of minors. Case files for 10 percent of
 offenders receiving a sentence to probation for the first time in the
 first six months of 1996 (n = 87) and 1999 (n = 110) and 10 percent of
 first-time State Supervision offenders in 1999 (n = 45) were selected.
 Forty-three percent of files were unable to be located, resulting in a
total sample of 122 files.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Juvenile Information System Data
DS2: Juvenile Justice Personnel Interviews, Round 1
DS3: Juvenile Justice Personnel Interviews, Round 2
DS4: Youth Offender Interviews, Round 1
DS5: Youth Offender Interviews, Round 2
DS6: Youth Offender Case File Analysis
description: Youth offenders and juvenile justice system personnel in
the state of Utah from 1996-2000.
description: (1) Due to the high number of youth offender case
 files that could not be found and the low number of files obtained
 that contained sufficient offender and family contact information, the
 researchers did not conduct an analysis of the paper case
 files. Self-reports from offender interviews were substituted. (2) The
 user guide, codebook, and data collection instruments are provided by
 ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
 developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
 reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
 to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.