Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
INCREASE CHILD CARE FUND REIMBURSEMENT AND
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
REQUIRE JUVENILE ASSESSMENTS OR SCREENINGS
Analysis available at
House Bill 4624 (H-2) as reported from committee http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Rep. Christine Morse
House Bill 4627 (H-1) as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou
House Bill 4628 (H-1) as reported House Bill 4629 (H-1) as reported
Sponsor: Rep. Felicia Brabec Sponsor: Rep. Amos O’Neal
Committee: Criminal Justice
Complete to 10-11-23
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4624 would increase the reimbursement formula for the Child Care Fund
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Counties receiving
reimbursement would have to adopt validated assessment or screening tools to guide diversion,
disposition, and detention decisions. The other three bills, which cannot take effect unless
House Bill 4624 is enacted, would require specified assessment or screening tools to be
conducted on a juvenile, and the results to be considered by the court, before disposition,
consent calendar placement, or pretrial detention.
House Bill 4624 would amend the Social Welfare Act to increase the reimbursement formula
for the Child Care Fund, require and allow certain uses of money from the fund, and require
certain performance measures.
Generally speaking, under the Social Welfare Act, the state and counties share the cost of
juvenile justice services in a 50/50 state-local cost-sharing model. For the cases in which the
county is the first payer, the state is required to reimburse counties for 50% of eligible expenses
from county child care funds for the costs of juvenile justice services. 1 The state makes these
reimbursements from the state Child Care Fund, which is a fund appropriated in the DHHS
budget from which the state reimburses counties for 50% of eligible expenditures concerning
the care and treatment for children who are court wards. 2
The fund reimburses counties for programs that serve neglected, abused, and delinquent youth,
and funding may be expended for out-of-home placements such as foster homes or county-
operated facilities. Expenditures may also be made for in-home services which allow children
to remain in their own homes, and may include job training skills, intensive probation,
community wraparound services, mentoring, family counseling, electronic tethers, alternatives
to detention, and other community-based services.
1
In addition, since October 1, 2021, the state has reimbursed 100% of the cost of juvenile justice services for juveniles
under the jurisdiction of the court who were 17 years old at the time of the offense. This was enacted in 2019 as part
of a group of bills (known as the “Raise the Age” legislation) that amended several state laws to treat individuals who
are 17 years of age as juveniles in criminal proceedings rather than automatically treating them as adults. See
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2019-2020/billanalysis/House/pdf/2019-HLA-4133-67514053.pdf
2
https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/doing-business/child-care-fund
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 7
 State share
The bill would increase the general state reimbursement share from 50% to 75% for in-home
expenses including community-based supervision, services, and relate practices, and per diem
rates for the use of respite care and shelter for less than 30 days. The state share would remain
at 50% for residential services of detention and long-term residential placements. From funds
received under these provisions, counties could use juvenile client management software to
allow for statewide juvenile justice data aggregation, analysis, and reporting.
In addition, beginning October 1, 2024, the state would no longer pay 100% of the cost of
juvenile justice services for juveniles under the jurisdiction of the court who were 17 years old
at the time of the offense. The bill also would eliminate a funding formula, based on actual
expenditures for 17-year-old juveniles, that is currently set to take effect October 1, 2025.
County requirements
Counties would be required to do all of the following from funds received from the Child Care
Fund as state reimbursement for juvenile justice services:
• Adopt a validated risk assessment tool to use before disposition.
• Adopt a validated risk screening tool to guide diversion and consent calendar decisions.
• Adopt a detention screening tool to inform the use of secure detention.
• Utilize research-based juvenile-specific probation standards as developed and
approved by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO).
• Employ a local quality assurance specialist to support the county with implementing
research-based practices, excluding counties or tribes receiving the basic grant as
described in section 117e of the act.
DHHS would have to develop and issue rules, policies, and practices to implement the above
requirements and to oversee compliance with these requirements by counties and tribes.
DHHS, in consultation with SCAO, also would have to establish performance measures for
evaluating county adherence to the above requirements and for evaluating the goals of the
Child Care Fund more generally. Beginning October 1, 2025, DHHS would have to prepare
and submit an annual report to the legislature on yearly Child Care Fund juvenile justice
expenditures and related performance measures.
Additional use of funds
Finally, the bill would provide that the Child Care Fund may be used for programs and practices
starting at the point when a complaint, referral, or petition is generated by the local prosecutor,
law enforcement, or authorized school personnel for a youth at risk of juvenile court
involvement through residential placement and reentry excluding general prevention services
for all youth at risk of juvenile justice system involvement. DHHS would have to align Child
Care Fund policies, budget requirements, and oversight practices to support those goals and to
ensure the appropriate use of funding.
Other amendments
The act would amend the definition of in-home care to specify that it includes services and
items provided in the home or in the community to be an alternative to out-of-home care or to
provide an early return home for a child placed out of their home.
MCL 400.117a
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4624, 4627, 4628, and 4629 as reported Page 2 of 7
 House Bill 4627 would amend the juvenile code (Chapter XIIA of the Probate Code) to require
a designated individual or agency to conduct a risk and needs assessment for each juvenile
before disposition. The assessment would have to be research-based and nationally validated
for use with juveniles and would have to comply with guidelines developed by SCAO under
the bill. The individual or agency designated to conduct assessments would have to be trained
on the applicable assessment’s appropriate use.
The results of the assessment, together with a dispositional recommendation made by the
individual or agency that performed it, would have to be shared with the court and each party
to the proceeding, including the juvenile, their counsel, and the prosecuting attorney. The
results of the assessment would have to be used to inform a dispositional recommendation and
to determine the most appropriate disposition for the juvenile considering all of the following
factors:
• The least restrictive setting possible.
• Public safety.
• Victim interests.
• Rehabilitation of the juvenile.
• Improved juvenile outcomes, including educational advancement.
The court would have to consider the results of the assessment when making a dispositional
decision regarding a juvenile under the juvenile code, including whether to place a juvenile
under supervision (including the supervision length, level, and conditions), whether to place a
juvenile on probation, and whether to place a juvenile in out-of-home care.
For the duration of each order of disposition for a juvenile, the court would have to require a
new risk and needs assessment for the juvenile if any of the following apply:
• Six months have passed since the juvenile’s last risk and needs assessment.
• The juvenile experiences a major life event.
• There is a major change in the juvenile’s proceedings.
A risk and needs assessment conducted as described above, and any information obtained from
a minor in the course of the assessment (including any admission, confession, or incriminating
evidence), would not be admissible in evidence in any adjudicatory hearing in which the minor
is accused and would not be subject to subpoena or any other court process for use in any other
proceeding or for any other purpose.
SCAO, under the supervision and direction of the supreme court, would have to create
guidelines on the use of risk and needs assessments under the bill.
The bill would take effect October 1, 2024.
MCL 712A.18
House Bill 4628 would amend the juvenile code to provide that a juvenile case cannot be
placed on the consent calendar 3 unless the court considers the results of a risk screening tool
and mental health screening tool conducted on the juvenile by a designated individual or
3
The consent calendar is an informal docket of cases the court has determined should not proceed on the formal
calendar but that the protective and supportive action by the court will serve the best interests of the juvenile and the
public. Under both current law and the bill, a case cannot be placed on the consent calendar unless the prosecutor, the
juvenile, and the parent, guardian, or legal custodian must agree to have the case placed on the consent calendar.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4624, 4627, 4628, and 4629 as reported Page 3 of 7
 agency trained in those screening tools. The screening tools would have to be research-based
and nationally validated for use with juveniles and would have to comply with guidelines
developed by SCAO. Results of a risk screening tool and mental health screening tool would
be part of the juvenile’s consent calendar case records and subject to provisions in the juvenile
code regarding access to those records.
A risk screening tool and mental health screening tool conducted as described above, and any
information obtained from a minor in the court of those screenings or provided by the juvenile
in order to participate in a consent calendar case plan (including any admission, confession, or
incriminating evidence), would not be admissible in evidence in any adjudicatory hearing in
which the minor is accused and would not be subject to subpoena or any other court process
for use in any other proceeding or for any other purpose.
SCAO, under the supervision and direction of the supreme court, would have to create
guidelines on the use of risk screening tools and mental health screening tools under the bill.
The bill also would prohibit the court from considering restitution when determining whether
a case should be placed on the consent calendar.
The bill would take effect October 1, 2024.
MCL 712A.2f
House Bill 4629 would amend the juvenile code to provide that an individual or agency
designated by the court must use a detention screening tool on a juvenile before the juvenile
may be detained in a secure facility pending hearing. Before detaining a juvenile, the court
would have to consult the results of the detention screening tool and follow any supreme court
rules regarding its use. The court would have to share the results of the detention screening tool
with all parties before a juvenile’s detention hearing. Any statement, admission, confession, or
incriminating evidence obtained from a juvenile in the court of a screening under these
provisions would be not admissible as evident in an adjudicatory hearing in which the juvenile
is accused, would not be subject to subpoena, and could not be used in any other court
proceeding or for any other purpose.
SCAO, under the supervision and direction of the supreme court and in collaboration with local
courts, would have to determine the appropriate detention screening tool.
The bill would take effect October 1, 2024.
MCL 712A.15 and 712A.16
BACKGROUND:
The Michigan Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform was created by Executive Order 2021-6
as a bipartisan advisory body in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 4 It
issued its final report on July 18, 2022. 5 The task force was asked to “lead a data-driven analysis
of [Michigan’s] juvenile justice system and recommend proven practices and strategies for
4
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2021-2022/executiveorder/pdf/2021-EO-06.pdf
5
https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2022/07/18/task-force-on-juvenile-justice-reform-
approves-blueprint-for-transforming-juvenile-justice
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4624, 4627, 4628, and 4629 as reported Page 4 of 7
 reform grounded in data, research, and fundamental constitutional principles.” In particular, in
the words of its final report, 6 the task force was “charged with developing recommendations
to improve state law, policy, and appropriations guided by the following objectives:
• Safely reduce placement in detention and residential placement and associated costs.
• Increase the safety and well-being of youth impacted by the juvenile justice system.
• Reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth impacted by the juvenile justice
system.
• Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the state’s and counties’ juvenile justice
systems.
• Increase accountability and transparency within the juvenile justice system.
• Better align practices with research and constitutional mandates.”
House Bills 4624, 4627, 4628, and 4629 would implement, at least in part, the following
unanimous task force recommendation, as quoted from its final report:
Enhance the Child Care Fund (CCF) to focus on establishing a minimum
framework of juvenile justice best practices statewide. These best practices will
be supported by an increase in the community-based services/supervision
reimbursement rate for counties and tribes in order to incentivize and support
the development, expansion, and strengthening of community-based services and
formal alternatives to detention and incarceration. [...]
a. Increase the state reimbursement rate from 50 percent to 75 percent for
community-based supervision and services (including respite/shelter).
Maintain the 50 percent state reimbursement rate for residential services
(detention and post-disposition longer term residential placements).
b. This increased rate would also incorporate costs related to Raise the Age
(transitioning in the final year of the current Raise the Age funding model) such
that the CCF becomes an integrated source of funding for Raise the Age and
CCF funding.
c. As part of the increased reimbursement rate for community-based services,
require local courts to 1) adopt a validated risk screening too to guide diversion
decisions 2) adopt a validated risk assessment tool for use prior to disposition
3) adopt a detention screening tool 4) adhere to best practice probation
standards, including officers being certified in these standards every two years
5) employ a local quality assurance specialist to support the above practices
(excluding counties/tribes that receive the basic grant) and 6) form cross-
systems youth service committees at the local/regional level to promote
collaboration and resource efficiencies.
d. Expand use of the CCF so that local courts and tribes can use funding as they
see fit for prearrest diversion through reentry, eliminate “intensive”
requirements so counties can match supervision/services to youth’s risk level,
and streamline administrative requirements.
e. Create a statewide CCF advisory committee composed of juvenile justice
association members, local court/county representatives, prosecutor and
defense attorney representatives, tribal representatives, MDHHS, advocates,
and impacted populations, to support evidence-based practice im