The Case for Restorative Justice in Michigan's Juvenile Justice System

by Philip Schaedler

Michigan is undergoing fundamental changes in its juvenile justice system. Driven by the 2024 legislative reforms and the dedicated efforts of the Michigan Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform, the state is embracing a new philosophy: restorative justice.

WHAT IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE?

Grounded in evidence and equity, the Task Force’s findings emphasize repairing harm, promoting accountability, and reducing reliance on punitive measures. Restorative justice is both a philosophy and a set of practices designed to repair harm by bringing together victims, offenders, and community members. Its core is dialogue—a process where everyone affected by the crime has a voice, and accountability is achieved through mutual understanding and healing.

But what exactly is restorative justice—and why is its integration into Michigan’s youth justice framework seen as so promising?

WHAT MICHIGAN HAS DONE & WHAT CHANGED

Here is a summary of Michigan’s recent reforms and findings, especially via the Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform, and the legislative changes.

Task Force & Key Findings:

Established by Executive Order 2021‑6 under Governor Whitmer; chaired by Lt. Gov. Gilchrist.
Released its final report with comprehensive recommendations in July 2022.

Some of its major observations:

Diversion and low-risk youth: Michigan lacks consistent statewide policy/infrastructure for diverting youth who present a low risk of reoffending.
High proportion of status and non-person misdemeanors: Many petitions are for status offenses (truancy, running away, etc.), non-person misdemeanors.

Geographic, county, wardship, facility variation: Services, case management, quality of outcomes differs a lot depending on location and facility..
Lack of uniform screening and assessment tools that would help steer decisions about diversion, detention, probation..
Funding and incentive misalignment: funding for juvenile justice and reimbursement rates do not always properly support community‑based or restorative alternatives.

The “blueprint for transforming juvenile justice” approved July 2022 recommends expanding diversion for youth who are not a public safety risk; creating best practice standards; increasing funding for community‑based alternatives; instituting data collection; establishing family & youth advisory boards; and strengthening probation/residential program standards.

Recent / 2023‑2024 Legislation (“Justice for Kids and Communities” package, etc.):

SB 418 (Public Act 297) as of Oct 1, 2024: establishes a statewide minimum framework of juvenile justice best practices. Raises reimbursement rate for community‑based supervision/services via Child Care Fund from 50% to 75%. Allows counties to use Child Care Fund funds for pre‑arrest diversion. Requires adoption of evidence‑based practices: risk screening, assessment, detention screening, local quality assurance specialists.
Bills HB 4625 / 4626 / 4628 etc. (PAs 287, 288, 289) expand diversion eligibility; require screenings (risk & mental health) before diversion or consent calendar; remove restitution from being a basis to deny diversion or consent calendar eligibility; set limits on diversion duration unless otherwise needed.
Public Acts 123 and 124 of 2024: extend time juvenile offenders must complete the juvenile consent calendar case plan (from 3 to 6 months) and allow courts to establish Court‑Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs.
Also, Michigan has been awarded federal grants to help implement reform: e.g., for building local continuums of care, reducing residential placements, reducing racial disparities; also grants for listening tours to engage youth/families.

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN MICHIGAN’S REFORM ENABLING RESTORATIVE PRACTICES

Established reforms include “particular provisions in the 2024 legislation that directly enable restorative justice practices”:

The new laws widen pre‑arrest diversion opportunities (e.g. using CCF funds for pre‑arrest diversion). Diversion is often where restorative justice practices are most feasible (juvenile enters a program rather than formal court).
The requirement that risk screening and mental health screening tools be used before determining diversion / consent calendar eligibility helps guide decisions in a way which can favor community‑based or restorative alternatives rather than punitive ones.
Removing restitution as a basis for denying diversion or consent calendar eligibility is important; restitution is traditionally part of restorative justice (making amends), but if it’s used as a barrier then it can prevent participation. Michigan’s reform removes that as a disqualifier.
Extending the time allowed for juvenile consent calendar case plans (from 3 to 6 months) gives more flexibility for program completion—some restorative justice or community‑based interventions take longer.
Raising reimbursement to incentivize community‑based supervision / alternatives to residential placement is critical to allowing restorative / non‑punitive methods to be financially viable.

This transformative approach shifts focus from punishment to healing.

HOW MICHIGAN COMPARES TO OTHER STATES

Many states (Georgia, Tennessee, Utah, Kansas) using Pew Charitable Trust grants have established similar reform trajectories: forming task forces, emphasizing diversion, aligning funding toward community‑based interventions, reducing reliance on secure residential placements.
Some states passed reforms which make status offenses largely non‑jurisdictional or severely limit residential placement for misdemeanors. Michigan has not gone as far in some areas (it still allows detention for status offenses under certain conditions; not all counties have consistency in implementation).
Michigan’s reforms are comprehensive, especially in codifying best practices (screening, risk/needs, quality assurance), tying reimbursement, and increasing operational consistency across counties. In other states, reform has sometimes lagged in implementation or lacked strong funding/incentive alignment. The raising of reimbursement rates to 75% for community‑based services is a strong push in that direction.
Many states focus more on data collection / performance measurement; Michigan’s Task Force and legislation also emphasize this as it is viewed as essential to monitor disparities in outcomes.
In some states, restorative justice practices are more explicitly named, or certain restorative programs are broadly mandated or incentivized. Michigan’s reforms so far seem to enable restorative‑type practices (via diversion, consent calendars, screening, community supervision, etc.) but are less explicit about legal requirements that restorative justice processes (e.g. victim‑offender conferencing, circle processes) must be used. Michigan tends to be more about enabling / expanding opportunity.

FEEDBACK, PRACTITIONERS, SUCCESS STORIES IN MICHIGAN

Because Michigan reforms are very recent data tends to be scarce or lacking altogether however:

Many of the reforms are just coming into effect (e.g. October 2024, etc.), so longitudinal data is still limited.
Some community and advocacy groups have expressed concern / critical feedback, especially around screening tools and risk of increasing disparities if tools are not validated or if local jurisdictions lack resources. Also, there are some concerns about “one size fits all” approaches. (Though some of that feedback is anticipatory, rather than based on implementation outcomes).
Practitioners appear generally supportive of the shift, particularly those working in probation, community services, juvenile defense, but they also note challenges including training, workload, funding of community alternatives, resistance in some courts, variable capacity across counties.

CASE STUDIES & COUNTY‑LEVEL EXAMPLES IN MICHIGAN

Midland County – Youth Diversion Program

In 2025, the Midland County 42nd Circuit Court Family Division received a $100,000 grant from the State of Michigan to create a Youth Diversion Program aimed at status offenses (non‑criminal behaviors like truancy, underage drinking) to redirect low‑risk youth from formal court proceedings into community‑based support.
Positive implications:

Early intervention rather than punishment for minors.
Community‑based services provide supportive programs rather than detention.
Aligns with the Task Force’s recommendation for consistent statewide diversion of status‑offense cases.

Because the program is new (2025), there isn’t outcome data yet on recidivism, victim satisfaction, or long‑term impact. The effectiveness will need to be tracked over time.

Washtenaw County – Restorative Justice Program (Adult & Juvenile Referrals)

Washtenaw County’s Circuit Court established a restorative justice program via local administrative order in October 2022. It allows certain criminal cases (with exceptions such as sexual assault, intimate partner violence, etc., or cases where there is high public safety risk) to be diverted into restorative justice.
Reported outcomes:

So far, “the overwhelming majority” of cases referred have been successful — meaning the harmed party and person who caused the harm reached an agreement, completed the program, and made amends.
Also, a requirement: participants must not engage in new criminal activity for 18 months after admission; to date, none of the participants who have completed the program have new criminal activity.

The Challenges / limitations reported:

The program’s creation was driven largely by staff already committed to restorative justice; there was less involvement initially of some stakeholder groups.
Staff implementing the program often wear multiple hats, so they couldn’t always dedicate full time to a restorative‑justice role, this limits capacity and focus.

Directory of Michigan Programs Incorporating Restorative Justice Principles

There is a published directory (though somewhat dated (early 2000s) listing Michigan juvenile programs implementing one or more restorative justice principles. These include mediation, victim participation, community involvement, etc.
What this tells us:

Restorative justice in some form is not entirely novel in Michigan; there has been sporadic use in various counties, courts, and community organizations for many years.

Many of those programs are smaller, varied in their degree of restorative practice, and inconsistent in terms of evaluation or outcomes.

Positive Impacts Observed (Early / Anecdotal)

Washtenaw County’s restorative justice program reports zero recidivism among program graduates within the 18‑month follow‑up period — this is strong, though limited data so far.
Diversion programs (like Midland’s) are projected to reduce formal court involvement, which may reduce labeling, reduce future justice system involvement, lower costs, preserve educational/community ties etc. These are expectations, not yet fully measured.
A 2024 federal grant of $825,000 awarded to MDHHS is being used to build “local continuums of care” to support youth success — which implies expansion of community‑based and restorative / intervention‑oriented services.

The Benefits: Why Restorative Justice Makes Sense

Reduced Recidivism Research suggests that when youth understand the impact of their actions and are guided to make amends, they are less likely to reoffend. This focus on responsibility rather than punishment supports lasting behavioral change.
Victim Empowerment In contrast to traditional justice systems which often sideline victims, restorative practices provide a platform for them to share their experiences. This active involvement can lead to genuine emotional closure and a true sense of justice.
Cost-Effectiveness Restorative processes tend to be less expensive than prolonged court proceedings and detention. By keeping young people out of high-cost facilities, the state can save millions while achieving better outcomes.
Developmentally Appropriate Practices The approach aligns with insights from adolescent brain science—highlighting the significance of relationship-building, empathy, and positive reinforcement that facilitate healthier behavior modification.
Community Involvement and Healing Bringing in community stakeholders not only contributes to resolving individual cases but also helps rebuild trust and social cohesion, especially in communities disproportionately impacted by the juvenile system.

The Trade-Offs: Potential Pitfalls and Concerns

Inconsistent Implementation Without statewide standards and comprehensive training, the quality and effectiveness of restorative justice programs can vary significantly. Poorly facilitated processes may lead to unintended harm.
Variable Victim Participation Since restorative justice requires voluntary and informed participation—especially from victims—there is the risk that some might not feel prepared or willing to engage in dialogue.
Risk of Net-Widening If not carefully designed, restorative programs might inadvertently involve youth who would have otherwise avoided formal justice intervention, thereby expanding the system’s reach.
Cultural Competence and Adaptation Programs must reflect the local culture and values. A one-size-fits-all approach could alienate youth and families in marginalized communities, undermining the goals of the initiative.
Limitations for Certain Offenses Restorative justice tends to be most effective in non-violent or low-risk cases. In more serious situations, communities may demand stricter accountability measures, requiring a nuanced application of these practices.

A Balanced Path Forward

Despite these challenges, the potential of restorative justice to reshape Michigan’s juvenile justice system remains significant. With proper oversight, training, and community engagement, restorative justice can foster an environment of accountability, healing, and equity. The forthcoming statewide Office of Juvenile Justice Services will be pivotal by setting quality standards, ensuring equitable access, and aligning these initiatives with broader reform goals.

Michigan finds itself at a moment of political consensus and public demand for a smarter approach to justice. By embracing restorative justice wisely, the state can break harmful cycles and offer young people a better chance to repair, grow, and succeed.

Why Restorative Justice Resonates with Practitioners

For dispute resolution professionals, the inclusion of restorative justice is both timely and transformative. It validates core values and opens a new frontier in youth justice that is deeply rooted in dialogue and community healing.

Built on Dialogue: Restorative practices—whether through victim-offender mediation, family conferencing, or community peace circles—center on bringing people together to share their stories and foster mutual understanding.
Focusing on Relationships: Treating harm as relational rather than merely legal, these practices create safe, non-adversarial spaces where youth learn from their actions in a supportive environment.
Valuing Community and Culture: By incorporating indigenous and local traditions, restorative models ensure that justice is culturally relevant and reflective of community wisdom, inviting practitioners to lead reforms in diverse settings.
Developmentally Informed Approaches: Recognizing that punitive measures can exacerbate trauma, restorative justice offers alternatives that nurture the adolescent need for belonging, identity, and dignity.

Opportunities and Cautions for the Field

Dispute resolution professionals have a vital role to play as Michigan scales up restorative initiatives. Key considerations include:

Ensuring Voluntary, Informed Consent: It is essential to protect all participants, especially victims, ensuring that engagement is truly voluntary.
Providing Specialized Training: Facilitators must be well-versed in trauma-informed and culturally competent practices to guide these complex processes effectively.
Establishing Quality Standards: Setting robust guidelines will help maintain fidelity to the principles of restorative justice rather than reducing it to mere procedure.
Avoiding Net-Widening: Restorative programs should be designed as alternatives to standard justice involvement, not as new entry points for youth into the system.
Continuous Evaluation: Documenting outcomes and incorporating feedback is essential to refining processes and building lasting public trust.

STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST, AND HOW MICHIGAN ADDRESSES THOSE CONCERNS

Arguments in favor of restorative justice / restorative practices:

Better outcomes for youth: Less recidivism, more opportunities for youth to stay in community, maintain family/school connections, which improves rehabilitation.
Fairness and equity: Reduces disparities by standardizing assessments, reducing fee/fine burdens, eliminating barriers to diversion.
Cost savings: Community‑based alternatives and diversion are often less costly than detention or residential facilities.
Victim satisfaction / healing: Allows victims to be heard, to be part of resolution, to receive restitution or apology, to participate in process.
Public safety: Properly implemented, restorative practices can increase accountability, reduce repeat offending, and thus enhance safety.

Arguments or concerns against / challenges:

Public safety: For more serious offenses or repeat offenders, there may be concern that restorative justice may under‑punish or not protect the community sufficiently.
Implementation inconsistency: When resources, training, screening, and oversight are uneven, restorative justice might be uneven or even harmful.
Victim willingness / participation: Not all victims want to participate; some may feel unsafe or that restorative justice is insufficient; risk of re‑victimization or feeling pressure.
Risk of inequity / bias in screening tools: Risk/needs assessments have been criticized for bias; tools must be validated and used carefully.
Insufficient funding or capacity: Community programs, trained facilitators, supervision, quality assurance—all of these require investment; without them, restorative justice can be superficial or fail.

How Michigan addresses or is trying to address these concerns:

Using validated screening tools (risk, mental health, detention risk) to help identify appropriate cases for diversion or community‑based interventions. (Helps guard against public safety risks and mismatch).
Setting minimum standards, quality assurance requirements, requiring local quality assurance specialists.
Increasing reimbursement for community‑based care to encourage adoption; reducing reliance on expensive residential care.
Extending timelines for consent calendar, making diversion more accessible, removing some disqualifications (like restitution obstacles).
Engaging youth/families and allowing community feedback (e.g. listening tours, advisory boards) to help shape implementation.

A Moment of Invitation

Michigan’s journey toward a more balanced, humane juvenile justice system is an invitation to mediators, peacebuilders, and restorative practitioners. With the new statewide Office of Juvenile Justice Services setting the stage, this is a chance to move beyond siloed interventions and engage in a process that repairs harm, nurtures youth, and strengthens communities.

As restorative justice becomes a cornerstone of reform, its promise lies in delivering real change—guided by the skills, values, and courage of those dedicated to building a more equitable future.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

From what is visible so far, here’s what seems to be true (or likely) about the impact of restorative justice in Michigan:

Promise of positive outcomes: Early results (e.g. Washtenaw) suggest that restorative programs can lead to no new offenses among participants over ~1.5 years, successful completion of agreements, and better outcomes for youth who otherwise might go through traditional court/detention.
Enhanced fairness & access: New legislation and grants (Midland, federal grants, etc.) are shifting the structure to make restorative alternatives more available, reduce financial / fee barriers, standardize the use of screening tools, expand diversion. This can reduce disparities if well implemented.
Public & system buy‑in is growing Stakeholders (judges, county courts, state agencies) are showing more openness; Washtenaw’s program shows that with judicial & prosecutorial buy‑in, it is feasible to set up restorative diversion. Also, supportive legal / policy frameworks are being passed.

Challenges remain: Especially around scaling, consistency across counties, ensuring victims’ desires & safety, managing resources and staffing, measuring long‑term outcomes, avoiding unintended inequities in screening or eligibility.

Phillip Schaedler began his legal career with the defense litigation law firm of Janes & Hall P.C. in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, representing local health care facilities, physicians, and financial institutions.

In 1984, Phill began a 20-year career in the health care and insurance industry representing some of the nation’s leading community hospitals and health care systems as well as the world’s oldest and fourth largest property and casualty insurance company. He has been a national leader in the area of health care risk management and alternative risk finance, and at the forefront of the adoption and application of alternative dispute resolution techniques in the health care industry.

Phill is a former board member and chair of the Family Mediation Council – Michigan, the State Bar of Michigan Alternative Dispute Resolution Council, and the State Bar of Michigan Character and Fitness Committee for District H, and the State Bar of Michigan’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. He is a member in good standing of the State Bar of Michigan, the American Bar Association, and the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, and he is a member, fellow, and former board member of the American Society of Health Care Risk Management. He is also a certified professional healthcare risk manager.

Phill’s practice in Adrian, Michigan, centers on alternative dispute resolution in both general civil and domestic relations cases. He is a trained practitioner in the areas of facilitative and evaluative mediation, arbitration and collaborative law.

Phill is certified as a trainer in general civil mediation, restorative conferencing, neglect and abuse mediation and circle keeping.