In-Home Care Incentive:

Saving Money, Reducing Crime, Strengthening Families

Community-based juvenile justice programs cost less than out-of-home care, increase public safety, and improve youth and family well-being.

Research shows that community-based programs show better public safety and youth development outcomes.  These programs are proven to be equally, if not more, effective at holding youth accountable and reducing recidivism, because of the rigor, intensity, and individualized treatment for youth and their families. 

The In-Home Care Incentive is a competitive grant program meant to increase low-cost, highly effective community-based options for delinquent youth at the county level. 

• Currently, the Child Care Fund (CCF), administered through the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS), reimburses counties 50% of eligible expenditures for juvenile court programs that provide direct service to delinquent youth. The 50% reimbursement rate will prevail with the Incentive.

• By qualifying for the Incentive grant, counties will receive an added reimbursement from the CCF for in-home care services and are required to track and report program outcomes.

• Cost-neutrality is guaranteed.  As community-based, in-home care services are far less expensive than residential placement, the cost of the pilot project would be recouped within the first year through reduced out-of-home expenditures.

• Cost savings for Michigan will occur by using effective, but less costly in-home care services.  Examples of Michigan counties include: Midland County with more than $1.6 million saved; Berrien County reduced costs per juvenile from $87,000 to $5,100.  Examples of such savings in other states include:  RECLAIM Ohio saved $11 to $45 in commitment costs by using community-based alternatives; and, since 2004, Redeploy Illinois saved $18.7 million.

Michigan courts, counties, public safety officials, and child advocates support boilerplate language in the FY 2014 state budget for the In-Home Care Incentive Grant

Click below to learn more:

• An economic analysis on the In-Home Care Incentive's benefits to Michigan's budget. The Incentive could an estimated 20 percent of youth in residential placement into community-based programs, saving up to $44 million a year.
   
• There's No Place Like Home: Making the Case for Wise Investment in Juvenile Justice, MCCD (2013), a report outlining how the In-Home Care Incentive, like other fiscal incentives nationwide, can provide a smart reinvestment for juvenile justice in Michigan. 
   
• A full listing of the In-Home Care Incentive Supporters
   
• A brief In-Home Care Incentive Fact Sheet
   
• Michigan's Barriers to Enhanced In-Home Care Programs
   
• County Solutions to Enhancing In-Home Care -- responses from various Michigan court administrators discussing how they would use the In-Home Care Incentive grant.
   
• A Detailed Overview of the implementation and need for the In-Home Care Incentive
   
• Strategic County Use of in-home care or community-based services among 9 Michigan counties
   
• Juvenile justice fiscal realignment models in other states, specifically showing the cost benefits of shifting from out-of-home to in-home care.
   
• National examples of Model In-Home or Community-Based Services

Legislative Materials:

• Submitted Testimony by MCCD supporting the In-Home Care Incentive to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on DHS, 3/14/12.
• Submitted Testimony by Fight Crime Invest in Kids Michigan supporting the In-Home Care Incentive to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on DHS, 3/14/12.
• FY2012-13 Michigan House Appropriations Subcommittee on DHS -- Draft Boilerplate Language
• FY2012-13 Michigan House Appropriations Subcommittee on DHS -- Draft Fiscal Analysis including the In-Home Care Incentive
• Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, Issue Paper: A Comparison of Michigan's Residential Placement Options for Juvenile Delinquency Cases (2012).

Media:

• Pat Shellenbarger, "Smart not tough: Reconsidering Juvenile Justice," Bridge Magazine, February 21, 2012. Link to article.
• George Hunter, "‘We can’t arrest our way out' of youth violence issue, Detroit police chief says," The Detroit News, April 24, 2012. Link to article.
• Jennifer A. Bowen, "Redeploy Illinois program helps juvenile offenders stay out of jail," BND.com, May 2, 2012. Link to article.
• John Barnes, "Push to close Michigan's three juvenile reformatories sparks debate: Safety versus savings?" MLive.com, May 9, 2012. Link to article.
• Jeff Gerritt, Editorial, "In-home care grants help youths and budgets," The Detroit Free Press, May 14, 2012. Link to article.
• Benny Napoleon, David Leyton, Catherine Garcia-Lindstrom, & Gerald Cliff, Guest Commentary, "Save money and cut crime by investing in community programs to reform youths," The Detroit Free Press, May 15, 2012. Link to article.

National Resources:

• Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice, Lipsey, et al. (2010). Link to resource.
• No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, Annie E. Casey Foundation (2011). Link to resource.
• Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates, Aos, et al. (2006). Link to resource.
• Resolution, Reinvestment & Realignment: Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice, Butts, et al. (2011). Link to resource.

Supporters:

Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency
Michigan Association of Counties
Michigan Association for Family Court Administration
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids Michigan
Crossroads Bible Institute
Michigan Association of United Ways
Michigan County Social Services Association, Child and Family Committee
TrueNorth Community Services
Wayne County Department of Child and Family Services
Over 25 individual Michigan circuit and probate courts