Utah regulators have revoked the operating license of Provo Canyon School’s Springville campus, ordering the residential youth treatment facility to stop accepting new students and end all services by Aug. 6 after an investigation documented repeated health and safety violations.

The Utah Department of Health and Human Services issued the revocation on July 6 through its Division of Licensing and Background Checks. The notice said the department acted because the provider failed to deliver required health and safety services and had demonstrated “chronic, ongoing noncompliance” with state rules, statutes and licensing requirements.

The order marks a significant escalation from the conditional licensing and corrective measures Utah previously imposed on the campus. State records cited by local news organizations show that regulators had identified problems dating to January 2025, including an incident report that allegedly omitted important information about assaults involving residents and employees. Regulators said the missing details minimized the seriousness of the event and initially led the department to believe that a broader investigation was unnecessary.

That same month, the state cited the Springville campus after a staff member allegedly struck a client during a restraint. The facility’s license was placed on conditional status in February 2025, and the conditional period was later extended after officials found that the program had failed to protect a client from physical mistreatment by an employee.

The July revocation notice listed a much wider set of findings. Regulators said the facility failed to report some critical incidents within the required period, did not increase staffing ratios when necessary, and lacked enough personnel to safely supervise the needs and behavioral dynamics of its residents. The state also cited failures to protect clients from harm, potential violence, discrimination and neglect.

Other findings involved unnecessary restraint and aggressive physical contact with a client, failures to follow written safety practices, and shortcomings in employee screening. The department said the provider did not consistently check its background-screening roster, ensure that uncleared applicants remained directly supervised or submit certain background-check applications within the required time.

The latest investigation began after the Disability Law Center of Utah, the state’s federally designated protection and advocacy organization, submitted a complaint on June 16 containing multiple allegations about the Springville facility. Licensing Director Shannon Thoman-Black said investigators reviewed medical records, internal documents and surveillance video and interviewed employees and residents.

According to state officials, that review uncovered incidents that had not been reported to regulators as well as reports that allegedly excluded information needed to determine whether the school was complying with state law. The Disability Law Center welcomed the revocation while urging Utah officials to intervene earlier when facilities repeatedly fail to protect residents.

The school may request an administrative hearing within 15 days of the notice. Provo Canyon School said it disagreed with the state’s decision and was evaluating legal and administrative options, including an appeal. The organization said its priority remained providing safe care and support for adolescents and their families.

The state’s order does not require residents to leave immediately. Regulators said an abrupt shutdown could create additional risks for children who require psychiatric, educational or behavioral support. Until the Aug. 6 deadline, the department plans to continue inspections and work with families, guardians, the facility and agencies in other states to arrange safe discharges or transfers.

The enforcement action comes against the backdrop of two civil lawsuits announced in June against Provo Canyon School and affiliated entities. The cases contain allegations that two teenagers did not receive timely medical attention after separate medical emergencies. The claims have not been adjudicated, and the licensing revocation is a separate administrative matter.

One lawsuit alleges that a 13-year-old boy suffered a brain bleed, severe facial injuries and a broken jaw after another resident attacked him while staff members were nearby. The family contends that employees did not immediately summon emergency medical responders. Utah regulators later imposed strict conditions on the separately licensed Provo campus after investigating a May 18 assault in which a minor was knocked unconscious.

The department said employees at the Provo campus used a nonmedical transportation company rather than immediately calling 911. Investigators also concluded that administrators did not adequately respond to earlier safety concerns and transfer requests from the child and his guardian. Those findings led the state to halt new admissions at the Provo location, require additional unannounced inspections and mandate changes to emergency and violence-prevention policies.

The second lawsuit alleges that a teenage girl experienced severe vomiting, pain and other symptoms before being hospitalized with serious kidney complications. Her family claims the facility waited days before obtaining hospital-level treatment. Public reporting has not clearly established that the girl’s case occurred at the Springville campus, making it important to distinguish the civil allegations from the specific violations underlying the Springville revocation.

Paris Hilton, who attended Provo Canyon School as a teenager under prior ownership, appeared with the families when the lawsuits were announced. Hilton has said she experienced physical and emotional abuse, forced medication and isolation while enrolled at the school in the 1990s. The current administration has said it cannot address events that occurred before the institution’s ownership changed.

Hilton called the license revocation validation for former residents who have spent years describing alleged mistreatment. Her advocacy has helped focus national attention on what critics call the “troubled teen” industry, a network of residential programs that provide behavioral treatment and education to minors, frequently far from their families and home states.

Because these programs perform both educational and clinical functions, oversight is divided among licensing agencies, health regulators, school authorities and child-welfare systems. The Provo Canyon case illustrates how gaps in reporting or delayed regulatory responses can carry heightened consequences when residents cannot easily leave, independently obtain medical care or communicate privately with families and advocates.

For students currently at the Springville campus, the immediate issue is continuity. Guardians must decide whether children can safely return home, enter community-based services or transfer to another residential program. Regulators will also need to ensure that academic records, medications, treatment plans and special-education services follow each student without interruption.

The Springville order does not revoke Provo Canyon School’s separate license for its Provo location. That campus remains subject to enhanced oversight and an admissions freeze. The differing actions underscore that Utah is evaluating each licensed facility independently, even when campuses share a name and corporate ownership.

Unless an administrative judge delays, modifies or overturns the order, the Springville campus must complete its shutdown by Aug. 6. The owners would then be barred from applying for another license for five years. The appeal process, transition of current residents and continued monitoring of the Provo campus will determine whether the revocation becomes a final closure or the beginning of a longer regulatory dispute.