The bill creates a sum sufficient appropriation under DCF for youth aids-related purposes but only to reimburse counties, beginning on January 1, 2026, for costs associated with juveniles who were alleged to have violated a state or federal criminal law or any civil law or municipal ordinance at age 17.
Juvenile justice reform review committee
The bill creates a juvenile justice reform review committee in DCF with members appointed by the governor. Under the bill, the committee is charged with studying and providing recommendations to DCF and DOC on how to do all of the following:
1. Increase the minimum age of delinquency.
2. Eliminate original adult court jurisdiction over juveniles.
3. Modify the waiver procedure for adult court jurisdiction over juveniles and incorporate offenses currently subject to original adult court jurisdiction into the waiver procedure.
4. Eliminate the serious juvenile offender program and create extended juvenile court jurisdiction with a blended juvenile and adult sentence structure for certain juvenile offenders.
5. Prohibit placement of a juvenile in a juvenile detention facility for a status offense and limit sanctions and short-term holds in a juvenile detention facility to cases where there is a public safety risk.
6. Sunset long-term post-disposition programs at juvenile detention facilities.
7. Create a sentence adjustment procedure for youthful offenders.
8. Conform with the U.S. Constitution the statutes that mandate imposing sentences of life imprisonment without parole or extended supervision to minors.
Under the bill, the committee terminates on September 15, 2026, and DCF and DOC must submit in their 2027–29 biennial budget requests a request to implement the committee’s recommendations.
Contract payments for placement of juveniles
The bill creates a sum sufficient GPR appropriation for DOC to make payments under contracts for the placement of juveniles. The bill limits the appropriation to $20,000,000 in each fiscal year and sunsets it on July 1, 2029.
Juveniles placed at Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center
Under current law, DOC may transfer to the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center (MJTC) juveniles who are under DOC’s supervision or juveniles who are placed in a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility regardless of whether those juveniles are under the supervision of DOC or a county department of social services or human services. Current law requires DOC to reimburse DHS for the cost of providing services to these juveniles at MJTC at a per person daily cost specified by DHS. The bill specifies that DOC is required to reimburse DHS only for the cost of services provided to juveniles who are under DOC’s supervision and are transferred to MJTC.
Daily rates for juvenile correctional services
Under current law, DOC charges counties for the costs of certain juvenile correctional services DOC provides according to a per person daily cost assessment specified in the statutes (daily rate). Counties use community youth and family aids (youth aids) funding allocated to them from various state and federal moneys to pay these costs. Under current law, the daily rate for care of a juvenile who is in a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility or transferred from a juvenile correctional facility to an inpatient treatment facility is set at $1,268 until June 30, 2025. The bill continues this daily rate until June 30, 2027.
Youth aids; allocations
Under current law, DCF is required to allocate to counties community youth and family aids (youth aids) funding. Youth aids funding comes from various state and federal moneys and is used to pay for state-provided juvenile correctional services and local delinquency-related and juvenile justice services. The bill updates the allocation of youth aids funding that is available to counties for the 2025-27 fiscal biennium.
The bill eliminates current law requirements that some of the youth aids funding be allocated for emergencies related to youth aids, for alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs, and to reimburse counties that are purchasing community supervision services from DOC for juveniles. The bill also eliminates the community intervention program (CIP), under which DCF may award funding to counties for early intervention services for first offenders. The bill replaces these allocations and CIP with the youth justice system improvement program. Under the bill, DCF may use youth aids funding for the youth justice system improvement program to support diversion, prevention, and early intervention programs, to address emergencies related to youth aids, and to fund other activities required of DCF under youth aids.
Youth aids; administration
Under current law, youth aids funding is allocated to counties on a calendar year basis. Youth aids funds that are not spent in the calendar year can be carried forward three ways: 1) DCF may carry forward 5 percent of a county’s allocation for that county for use in the subsequent calendar year; 2) DCF may carry forward $500,000 or 10 percent of its unspent youth aids funds, whichever is larger, for use in the subsequent two calendar years; and 3) DCF may carry forward any unspent emergency funds for use in the subsequent two calendar years.
The bill changes the way that unspent youth aids are carried forward. Under the bill, DCF may still carry forward 5 percent of a county’s allocation for that county to use in the next calendar year. However, instead of carrying forward $500,000 or 10 percent of its unspent youth aids funds, whichever is larger, for use in the next two calendar years, under the bill, DCF may transfer 10 percent of unspent youth aids funds to the appropriation for the youth justice system improvement program.
COURTS AND PROCEDURE
Supreme court and circuit courts
Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court
The bill creates the Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court, to consist of one chief marshal of the supreme court, one deputy chief marshal of the supreme court, deputy marshals of the supreme court, and administrative personnel. The bill provides that the Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court is a law enforcement agency and that the marshals of the supreme court are law enforcement officers who are employed for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime and enforcing laws or ordinances and are authorized to make arrests for violations of the laws or ordinances. The bill requires the marshals of the supreme court to meet the requirements established by the Law Enforcement Standards Board for officer certification, police pursuit, recruitment, and firearms training and to comply with any other statutory requirements applicable to a law enforcement agency.
The bill also provides that marshals of the Supreme Court are protective occupation participants in the Wisconsin Retirement System. Current law specifically classifies police officers, firefighters, and various other individuals as protective occupation participants. Under the WRS, the normal retirement age of a protective occupation participant is lower than that of other participants and the percentage multiplier used to calculate retirement annuities is higher for protective occupation participants than for other participants.
The bill further provides that the Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court may provide police services to the state court system, with statewide jurisdiction; provide protective services for the supreme court justices and their offices; provide security assessments for the justices, judges, and facilities of the state court system; and provide safety and security support services and advanced security planning services for circuit court proceedings. The operation of the Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court does not affect the operations or jurisdiction of sheriffs or local law enforcement agencies to perform courthouse security, handle active emergencies, perform criminal investigations, or perform any other law enforcement functions.
Circuit court payments
Under current law, the director of state courts must make payments to counties for certain circuit court costs. Under the bill, beginning on January 1, 2026, the director of state courts must make additional payments to circuit courts, including a payment that, beginning January 1, 2027, is available only to counties that operate an alternatives to prosecution and incarceration program.
Circuit court branches
The bill adds two additional circuit court branches for Brown County on August 1, 2026.
Special prosecutors and the state public defender
Compensation for special prosecutors
Under current law, the SPD provides legal representation for indigent persons in criminal and delinquency cases. The SPD assigns cases either to staff attorneys or to local private attorneys. A private attorney assigned to a case by the SPD is paid an hourly amount that varies depending on the year in which the case was assigned. For instance, a private attorney assigned a case between December 1, 1992, and July 29, 1995, was generally paid $50 per hour for time spent related to the case and $25 per hour for time spent in related travel. The amount has increased periodically; a private attorney assigned a case after July 1, 2023, is generally paid $100 per hour for time spent related to the case and $50 per hour for time spent in related travel.
Current law provides the same compensation to other attorneys as the compensation paid to a private attorney assigned to case by the SPD. For example, if a judge appoints a special prosecutor to perform the duties of a district attorney, the special prosecutor compensation is the amount paid to a private attorney for a case assigned between December 1, 1992, and July 29, 1995. The bill changes the compensation for the special prosecutor to be the amount paid to a private attorney assigned a case on the date the approval was made.
Private bar reimbursement rate for cases involving violent crimes
Under current law, the SPD provides legal representation for indigent persons in criminal, delinquency, and certain related cases. The SPD assigns cases either to staff attorneys or to local private attorneys. Generally, a private attorney who is assigned a case by the SPD on or after July 1, 2023, is paid $100 per hour for time spent related to the case and $50 per hour for time spent in travel related to a case. The bill increases the rate the private attorney is paid for cases to $125 per hour if the case is assigned on or after July 1, 2025, and involves a charge of a violent crime. The bill does not change the rate for cases that do not involve a charge of a violent crime or for travel.
District attorneys
Increase in deputy district attorney allocation
The bill increases the number of deputy district attorneys that may be appointed in a prosecutorial unit with a population of 200,000 or more but less than 750,000 from three deputy district attorneys to four deputy district attorneys.
General courts and procedure
Privacy protection for federal judicial officers
The bill adds current and former district judges and magistrate judges for federal district courts in this state as well as current and former bankruptcy judges for federal bankruptcy courts in this state to the list of judicial officers to whom certain privacy protections apply. Current law provides, upon written request, certain privacy protections for the personal information of judicial officers. Among other protections, if a government agency receives a written request from a judicial officer, the government agency may not publicly post or display publicly available content that includes a judicial officer’s personal information. That information is also exempt from inspection and copying under public records law unless the agency has received consent to make that information available to the public. Under current law, upon written request, a data broker may not knowingly sell, license, trade, purchase, or otherwise make available for consideration the personal information of a judicial officer or a judicial officer’s immediate family. Current law also provides that, if the judicial officer has made a written request, no person, business, or association may publicly post or display on the Internet publicly available content that includes the personal information of a judicial officer or the judicial officer’s immediate family. The bill allows current and former federal district court judges, magistrate judges, and bankruptcy judges in this state to have these protections.
Sharing information regarding potential jurors
Under current law, DOT annually transmits to the director of state courts a list of persons residing in the state that includes certain information about those persons. Each year, the director of state courts uses that information to compile a master list of potential jurors for use by the state circuit courts. The bill requires DOT to also send that list to the clerks of court for the federal district courts within this state.
Also under current law, the director of state courts may request and use the following information, in addition to the DOT information, to create the master list: 1) a list of registered voters from the Elections Commission; 2) a list of individuals who filed state income tax returns with DOR; 3) a list of child support payors and payees from DWD; 4) a list of recipients of unemployment compensation from DWD; and 5) a list of state residents issued approvals or licenses from DNR. The bill requires, rather than allows, the director of state courts to use that information. The bill also modifies the requirements for those state agencies to transmit the lists they maintain to the director of state courts to be similar to DOT’s obligations. For example, the bill requires each state agency to annually transmit the list the agency maintains to the director of state courts without the need for the director of state courts to request the information.
Qui tam actions for false claims
The bill restores a private individual’s authority to bring a qui tam claim against a person who makes a false or fraudulent claim for medical assistance, which was eliminated in 2015 Wisconsin Act 55, and further expands qui tam actions to include any false or fraudulent claims to a state agency. A qui tam claim is a claim initiated by a private individual on his or her own behalf and on behalf of the state against a person who makes a false claim relating to medical assistance or other moneys from a state agency. The bill provides that a private individual may be awarded up to 30 percent of the amount of moneys recovered as a result of a qui tam claim, depending upon the extent of the individual’s contribution to the prosecution of the action. The individual may also be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the action, as well as attorney fees. The bill includes additional changes not included in the prior law to incorporate provisions enacted in the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and conform state law to the federal False Claims Act, including expanding provisions to facilitate qui tam actions and modifying the bases for liability to parallel the liability provisions under the federal False Claims Act. In addition to qui tam claims, DOJ has independent authority to bring a claim against a person for making a false claim for medical assistance. The bill modifies provisions relating to DOJ’s authority to parallel the liability and penalty standards relating to qui tam claims and to parallel the forfeiture amounts provided under the federal False Claims Act.
CRIMES
Expungement
Under current law, a court may order a person’s criminal record expunged of a crime if all of the following apply:
1. The maximum term of imprisonment for the crime is six years or less (Class H felony and below).
2. The person committed the crime before the age of 25.
3. The person had not been previously convicted of a felony.
4. The crime was not a violent felony.
Current law specifies that the expungement order must be made only at sentencing and then the record is expunged when the person completes his or her sentence. If the court does not order a criminal record expunged at sentencing, current law generally does not provide for another means to expunge the criminal record.
The bill makes several changes to the expungement process. The bill removes the condition that the person committed the crime before the age of 25. (The bill retains the conditions that the crime be no greater than a Class H felony, the person have no previous felony convictions, and the crime not be a violent felony.) The bill makes certain crimes ineligible for expungement, such as traffic crimes, the crime of violating a domestic abuse restraining order or injunction, criminal trespass, and criminal damage to a business. The bill also allows the sentencing court to order that a person’s record not be eligible for expungement.
The bill continues to allow the court to order at sentencing that the record be expunged when the person completes his or her sentence. The bill also provides that, if the court did not make an order at sentencing, the person may file a petition with the sentencing court after he or she completes his or her sentence. Upon receipt of the petition, the court must review the petition and then may order the record expunged or may deny the petition. If the court denies the petition, the person may not file another petition for two years. The person must pay a $100 fee to the county for a second petition, and no person may file more than two petitions per crime. The bill limits a person to one expungement. The changes described in this paragraph apply retroactively to persons who were convicted of a crime before the bill takes effect.
The bill provides that, if a record is expunged of a crime, that crime is not considered a conviction for employment purposes and specifies that employment discrimination because of a conviction record includes requesting a person to supply information regarding a crime if the record has been expunged of the crime. Finally, the bill provides that it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record for the Law Enforcement Standards Board to consider a conviction that has been expunged with respect to applying any standard or requirement for the certification, decertification, or required training of law enforcement officers, tribal law enforcement officers, jail officers, and juvenile detention officers.
Immunity for certain controlled substances offenses
Current law grants immunity from prosecution for possessing a controlled substance to a person, called an aider, who summons or provides emergency medical assistance to another person because the aider believes the other person is suffering from an overdose or other adverse reaction to a controlled substance. Under 2017 Wisconsin Act 33, an aider was also immune from having probation, parole, or extended supervision revoked for possessing a controlled substance under the same circumstances. Act 33 also granted the aided person immunity from from having probation, parole, or extended supervision revoked for possessing a controlled substance when an aider seeks assistance for the aided person. The immunity applied only if the aided person completes a treatment program as part of his or her probation, parole, or extended supervision. Act 33 also provided that a prosecutor must offer an aided person who is subject to prosecution for possessing a controlled substance a deferred prosecution agreement if the aided person completes a treatment program. The expanded immunities under 2017 Wisconsin Act 33 were temporary, and expired on August 1, 2020. The bill permanently restores these expanded immunities from 2017 Wisconsin Act 33. Alternatives to prosecution for disorderly conduct
The bill requires a prosecutor to offer to certain disorderly conduct defendants a deferred prosecution agreement or an agreement in which the defendant stipulates to his or her guilt of a noncriminal ordinance violation. Under the bill, a prosecutor must offer alternatives to prosecution to a person who has committed a disorderly conduct violation if it is the person’s first disorderly conduct violation, the person has not committed a similar violation previously, and the person has not committed a felony in the previous three years. Under the bill, if the person is offered a deferred prosecution agreement, he or she must be required to pay restitution, if applicable.
EDUCATION
Primary and secondary education: general aids and revenue limits
Per pupil revenue limit adjustment
Current law generally limits the total amount of revenue per pupil that a school district may receive from general school aids and property taxes in a school year to the amount of revenue allowed per pupil in the previous school year plus a per pupil adjustment, if any, as provided by law. Current law provides a $325 per pupil adjustment each school year from 2023 to 2425. Under the bill, beginning in the 2026–27 school year, the per pupil adjustment is the per pupil increase for the previous school year as adjusted for any increase in the consumer price index.
Low revenue ceiling; per pupil amount and restrictions
Current law provides a minimum per pupil revenue limit for school districts, known as the revenue ceiling. Under current law, the per pupil revenue ceiling is $11,000. The bill increases the per pupil revenue ceiling to $12,000 for the 2025–26 school year and to $12,400 for the 2026–27 school year and each subsequent school year.
Current law also provides that during the three school years following a school year in which an operating referendum fails in a school district, the school district’s revenue ceiling is the revenue ceiling that applied in the school year during which the referendum was held. The bill eliminates the provision under which a school district’s revenue ceiling is the revenue ceiling from a previous school year because an operating referendum failed in the school district.
Revenue limits; personal property tax repeal aid
For purposes of school district revenue limits, current law defines “state aid” as general school aid, computer aid, and exempt personal property aid. The bill adds personal property tax repeal aid to the definition of “state aid.”
Special adjustment aid
Under current law, a school district is guaranteed an amount of general equalization aid equal to at least 85 percent of the amount it received in the previous school year. The bill increases the amount of general equalization aid that a school district is guaranteed to receive to an amount that is at least 90 percent of the amount it received in the previous school year.
Counting four-year-old kindergarten pupils
The bill changes how a pupil enrolled in a four-year-old kindergarten is counted by a school district for purposes of state aid and revenue limits. Under current law, a pupil enrolled in a four-year-old kindergarten program is counted as 0.5 pupil unless the program provides at least 87.5 additional hours of outreach activities, in which case the pupil is counted as 0.6 pupil. Under the bill, if the four-year-old kindergarten program requires full-day attendance by pupils for five days a week, a pupil enrolled in the program is counted as one pupil.
Primary and secondary education: categorical aids
Per pupil aid
Under current law, per pupil aid is a categorical aid paid to school districts. Per pupil aid is funded from a sum sufficient appropriation and is not considered for purposes of revenue limits. Under current law, the amount of per pupil aid paid to a school district is calculated using a three-year average of the number of pupils enrolled in the school district and a per pupil amount set by law. In the 2024–25 school year, the per pupil amount is $742. Under the bill, the per pupil amount is $800 in the 2025–26 school year and $850 in the 2026–27 school year and each year thereafter.
In addition, beginning in the 2025–26 school year, the bill requires DPI to pay a second amount of per pupil aid to school districts based on the number of economically disadvantaged pupils enrolled in a school district. Under the bill, beginning in the 2025–26 school year, in addition to the base amount of per pupil aid, DPI must also pay a school district an additional amount equal to 20 percent of the standard per pupil amount for each economically disadvantaged pupil enrolled in the school district in the previous year. Under the bill, an economically disadvantaged pupil is a pupil who satisfies either the income eligibility criteria for a free or reduced-price lunch under federal law or other measures of poverty, as determined by DPI.
Funding for special education and school age parents programs
The bill changes the rate at which the state reimburses school boards, operators of independent charter schools, cooperative educational service agencies (CESAs), and county children with disabilities education boards (CCDEBs) for costs incurred to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities and for school age parents programs (eligible costs). Under current law, the state reimburses the full cost of special education for children in hospitals and convalescent homes for orthopedically disabled children. After those costs are paid, the state reimburses remaining eligible costs from the amount remaining in the appropriation account at a rate that distributes the full amount appropriated.
The bill changes the appropriation to a sum sufficient and provides that, beginning in the 2025–26 school year, after full payment of hospital and convalescent home costs, the remaining costs are reimbursed at 60 percent of eligible costs.
Currently, DPI provides 1) special education aid to school districts, independent charter schools, CESAs, and CCDEBs; 2) aid to school districts, CESAs, and CCDEBs for providing physical or mental health treatment services to private school and tribal school pupils; and 3) aid for school age parents programs to school districts only.
