Evaluation of the Implementation of the Michigan Juvenile Justice Assessment System/Ohio Youth Assessment System-Detention (MJJAS/OYAS-DET) Screener across Michigan

Background and Purpose: In December 2023, Michigan enacted the “Michigan Justice for Kids and Community” legislation, mandating the use of a validated detention screening tool for youth at the point of arrest to guide detention decisions. The Michigan Juvenile Justice Assessment System/Ohio Youth Assessment System–Detention (MJJAS/OYAS-DET) was selected for statewide implementation beginning October 1, 2024. While structured decision-making tools are intended to reduce bias and improve consistency, little is known about how such mandates are implemented in practice or how practitioners perceive their utility. This study aimed to (1) examine changes in detention decision-making processes following the mandate, (2) assess implementation fidelity and variation across jurisdictions, and (3) explore practitioner perceptions of the MJJAS/OYAS-DET. The primary research questions focused on how detention practices shifted post-implementation and what factors facilitated or hindered effective use of the screening tool.

Methods: Quantitative data were collected through a statewide survey of Michigan family court administration and juvenile detention leadership teams (n = 60; 72.3% response rate), capturing information on detention decision-making practices before and after implementation, use of screening tools, and perceptions of the MJJAS/OYAS-DET. Qualitative data were gathered through five group interviews with selected jurisdictions to provide deeper insight into implementation experiences. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey findings. Thematic analysis was utilized with qualitative data to identify key themes related to implementation, perceived strengths and limitations, and contextual factors influencing tool use.

Results: Findings indicate that detention decision-making processes remained largely consistent across jurisdictions following the mandate, with many counties continuing to rely on existing practices. However, there was an increase in the use of formal screening tools, with several jurisdictions adopting multiple tools alongside the MJJAS/OYAS-DET. Although the tool was administered as required, practitioners reported limited reliance on its results in actual detention decisions. Concerns were frequently raised regarding the perceived bias and static nature of certain screening items. At the same time, some respondents noted that the mandate helped formalize decision-making processes and improved collaboration with law enforcement. Implementation challenges were also prominent, particularly related to administering the tool with fidelity (e.g., conducting in-person screenings) and ensuring adequate staff training.

Conclusions and Implications: This study highlights the complexity of implementing standardized risk assessment tools in juvenile justice settings. While the mandate increased the formalization and consistency of detention processes, it did not substantially alter underlying decision-making practices. Practitioner concerns about tool validity and feasibility suggest a need for ongoing refinement of the MJJAS/OYAS-DET, as well as enhanced training and technical assistance. Future policy efforts should prioritize practitioner engagement, address concerns about bias, and consider local context to improve adoption and utility. Further research is needed to examine the impact of detention screening tools on youth outcomes and equity in detention decisions.