MDHHS JJ Needs Assessment_Memo (1).pdf

148 State Street, 10th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 | (617) 426-2026 | www.publicconsultinggroup.com

Date: June 17, 2026

To: Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS)

From: Public Consulting Group LLC (PCG)

Re: MDHHS Juvenile Justice Needs Assessment Findings and Recommendations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This memorandum summarizes findings from MDHHS’s 2026 juvenile justice residential treatment needs assessment and stakeholder workgroup sessions facilitated by PCG. Together, the survey administered by MDHHS in March 2026 and stakeholder discussions facilitated by

PCG in April and May 2026 identified challenges affecting Michigan’s ability to provide timely, appropriate, and equitable residential treatment and supportive services for justice-involved youth. The findings also highlight opportunities to strengthen the residential continuum by enhancing workforce capacity, expanding practical training, improving consistency in the use of assessment tools, and refining regulatory and safety processes so providers are better equipped to serve youth with higher levels of need.

STAKEHOLDER INPUT

To help ensure that Michigan has sufficient juvenile justice residential treatment bed capacity, MDHHS issued a needs assessment survey to court administrators in March 2026. Information collected in the needs assessment sought to help MDHHS understand existing capacity, identify gaps, and inform decisions about building and procuring the right mix of beds. Simultaneously, this effort supports implementation of the Residential Advisory Committee’s (RAC) key recommendations to right-size the residential system, match youth to appropriate placements, and establish a competitive procurement and contracting process that promotes statewide standards, efficient bed management and accountability.

To build on the needs assessment findings, MDHHS contracted with PCG to analyze the survey data and facilitate three stakeholder workgroup sessions. Participants included court administrators, juvenile justice service providers, case management organizations, community mental health services programs (CMHSP), Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (JJAC) representatives, and additional relevant stakeholders. These one-hour sessions were designed to validate survey findings, explore underlying service, programming, and staffing challenges, and identify opportunities for systemic improvement. Discussion topics included service and placement types, staff recruitment and retention, and operational and administrative policies that create barriers within the residential system. Findings from the survey and workgroup sessions will help inform future planning, procurement, and policy decisions related to Michigan’s juvenile justice residential treatment continuum.

MDHHS Juvenile Justice Needs Assessment Findings and Recommendations

148 State Street, 10th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 | (617) 426-2026 | www.publicconsultinggroup.com

NEEDS IDENTIFIED BY STAKEHOLDERS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following needs are a summary of the feedback provided by the stakeholder workgroup sessions. The survey responses were provided by court administrative representatives and do not reflect the opinions of MDHHS or PCG.

Need #1: More placement options for youth with specialized needs.

Significant numbers of youth have specialized needs. Survey respondents reported that, from calendar year 2024 to 2025, the number of youth with low risk assessments increased by

60%, while youth with moderate and high-risk assessments each increased by about 81%.

Workgroup participants suggested this may partly reflect stronger adherence to MDHHS assessment requirements. Still, about 77.5% of all reported adjudicated youth placed out of home, post disposition, had a low, moderate, or high risk assessment in calendar 2025 (593 reported youth with a risk assessment out of 765 total reported youth).

These youth lack sufficient placement options. Focus group participants observed that limited placement availability—particularly for youth with complex mental health conditions, trauma-related behaviors, cognitive challenges, aggression, or problematic sexual behavior— often results in youth being denied admission, remaining in detention longer than necessary, or being placed in settings that are not clinically appropriate. Participants emphasized when placement decisions are driven by available capacity rather than clinical or behavioral fit, youth may experience greater instability, poorer outcomes, and increased risk of recidivism. This gap is most acute for youth with the most significant and complex needs, who are frequently rejected by providers and left in unstable or inappropriate conditions.

Supporting this finding, nearly half of the needs assessment respondents (49%) indicated that waitlists are the most likely reason why youth in the respondent’s county may remain in detention for longer than six months while awaiting residential treatment placement, while 31% cited lack of adequate services. Workgroup participants noted that these issues are closely connected, as waitlists often reflect the lack of adequate services.

Need #2: A larger and more skilled workforce.

A larger workforce: Stakeholders described persistent staffing shortages, burnout, turnover, and recruitment challenges that reduce service capacity and affect safety and quality of care.

Participants described several conditions contributing to these challenges, including high stress, safety concerns, secondary trauma, limited workplace flexibility, and difficulty maintaining coverage when staff must accompany youth to the hospital. These pressures are especially pronounced in rural areas and contribute to ongoing recruitment and retention difficulties. One focus group participant noted that their facility did not lack beds, but rather the staff to maintain required ratios.

Current recruitment and retention strategies—including outreach to colleges and job fairs, employee retreats, school stipends, child care support, and staff engagement efforts—reflect important steps, but stakeholders indicated that a more comprehensive workforce development approach is needed to stabilize staffing and improve care quality. Participants also emphasized the importance of work-life balance, stronger supervisory support, and workplace practices that align with the expectations of newer generations entering the workforce.

148 State Street, 10th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 | (617) 426-2026 | www.publicconsultinggroup.com

A more skilled workforce: Stakeholders identified gaps in practical and consistent staff training—particularly in behavior management and de-escalation, trauma-informed and culturally responsive care, mental health-informed practice, restraints and isolation policies, and serving youth with high-acuity needs—that further limit staff readiness and confidence.

Need #3: More services for youth with specialized needs.

Focus group participants identified the following needed services and programming:

• Mental health treatment

• Crisis stabilization / respite

• Family engagement and wraparound supports

• Specialized, individualized treatment plans tailored to each youth’s clinical, behavioral, developmental, and placement needs

• Educational and vocational programming

• Transitional and re-entry supports and planning, including smaller, home-like settings

• Gender-specific programming

• Programming for youth with problematic sexual behavior

• Stabilization services for low-risk youth

• Transitional living in a group setting for youth 18+ years of age

• Creative therapeutic approaches, such as art therapy and occupational therapy

Need #4: Short-term respite and stabilization placement options.

Stakeholders identified the need for alternatives to detention or full residential placement.

Participants also discussed the need for step-down, transitional living, and community reintegration supports, especially for older youth and youth returning home.

This observation was supported by the results of the needs assessment survey. When asked to rank “respite or stabilization placements,” “transitional living,” and “independent living” from highest to lowest priority of need for the respondent’s county, 69% of respondents identified

“respite and stabilization placements” as the highest priority need.

Need #5: More equitable geographic access to placements and services, particularly in rural areas. Participants noted that facilities often do not accept out-of-county youth.

Need #6: Changes to licensing and regulatory rules.

Participants cited restrictions around restraint and seclusion as factors that make it harder to manage high-needs youth, create safety concerns, discourage providers from accepting certain youth, and contribute to workforce turnover. Providers did not always have accurate understanding of MDHHS policy regarding restraint and seclusion.

Need #7: Consistent implementation and interpretation of risk and needs assessments across counties.

Participants noted that risk and needs assessments are being used more consistently due to policy changes and training. However, participants noted variation in tools, fidelity and implementation, how scores are interpreted, and whether changes in assessment practices are affecting trends in the data.

148 State Street, 10th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 | (617) 426-2026 | www.publicconsultinggroup.com

Need #8: Stronger family engagement and caregiver supports.

Focus group participants suggested that stronger family engagement would promote continuity of care, placement stability, safe community reintegration, and prevention of disruption or re-entry. Participants also identified the need for more support for caregivers and better communication about available resources.