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
Senate Bill 418 as enacted http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Public Act 297 of 2023
Sponsor: Sen. Sylvia A. Santana
Senate Bill 421 as enacted
Public Act 298 of 2023
Sponsor: Sen. Veronica Klinefelt
House Bill 4628 as enacted House Bill 4629 as enacted
Public Act 289 of 2023 Public Act 290 of 2023
Sponsor: Rep. Felicia Brabec Sponsor: Rep. Amos O’Neal
House Committee: Criminal Justice
Senate Committee: Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety
Complete to 1-23-24
SUMMARY:
Senate Bill 418 increases the reimbursement formula for the Child Care Fund administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Counties receiving reimbursement
must adopt validated assessment or screening tools to guide diversion, disposition, and
detention decisions. The other three bills 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. The bills take effect October 1, 2024.
Senate Bill 418 amends 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-
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
 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.
State share
The bill increases 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 remains at
50% for residential services of detention and long-term residential placements. From funds
received under these provisions, counties may use juvenile client management software to
allow for statewide juvenile justice data aggregation, analysis, and reporting.
In addition, beginning October 1, 2024, the state will 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 eliminates a funding formula, based on actual expenditures
for 17-year-old juveniles, that was set to take effect October 1, 2025.
County requirements
The bill requires counties 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 must 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 must 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 must 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 provides that the Child Care Fund may be used for programs and practices
starting 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 must align Child Care Fund policies,
budget requirements, and oversight practices to support those goals and to ensure the
appropriate use of funding.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 418 and 421 and HBs 4628 and 4629 as enacted Page 2 of 7
 Other amendments
The act amends 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
Senate Bill 421 amends 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 must be research-based and nationally validated for use with
juveniles and must comply with guidelines developed by SCAO under the bill. The individual
or agency designated to conduct assessments must 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, must 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 must 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 must 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 must 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), is not admissible in evidence in any adjudicatory hearing in which the minor is
accused and is not 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, must create guidelines on the
use of risk and needs assessments under the bill.
MCL 712A.18
House Fiscal Agency SBs 418 and 421 and HBs 4628 and 4629 as enacted Page 3 of 7
 House Bill 4628 amends 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 agency trained in
those screening tools. The screening tools must 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 are 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), is not admissible in evidence in any adjudicatory hearing in which the
minor is accused and is not 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, must create guidelines on the
use of risk screening tools and mental health screening tools under the bill.
The bill also prohibits the court from considering restitution when determining whether a case
should be placed on the consent calendar.
MCL 712A.2f
House Bill 4629 amends 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 must consult
the results of the detention screening tool and follow any supreme court rules regarding its use.
The court must 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 is not admissible as
evidence in an adjudicatory hearing in which the juvenile is accused, is not subject to subpoena,
and cannot 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, must determine the appropriate detention screening tool.
MCL 712A.15 and 712A.16
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 SBs 418 and 421 and HBs 4628 and 4629 as enacted Page 4 of 7
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 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.”
The bills would implement, 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-
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
6
https://micounties.org/wp-content/uploads/Michigan-Taskforce-on-Juvenile-Justice-Reform-Final-Report.pdf
House Fiscal Agency SBs 418 and 421 and HBs 4628 and 4629 as enacted Page 5 of 7
 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 implementation
and statewide capacity building.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Senate Bill 418 would increase state costs for the Department of Health and Human Services
by a net of approximately $16.0 million once the bill