Guardianship Statistics

Aging Trends:

*In 2003, 12 percent of the total population of the United States, almost 36 million people, was 65 years of age and over.

*Over the 20th century, the older population grew from 3 million to 35 million. The seriously old population (age 85 and older) grew from just over 100,000 in 1900 to 4.2 million in 2000.

*The Baby Boomers (those citizens born between 1946 and 1964) will start turning 65 in 2011, and the number of older people will increase dramatically during the 2010-2030 period.

*The older population in the year 2030 is projected to be twice as large as in the year 2000, growing from 35 million to 71.5 million and representing 20 percent of the total U.S. population.

(Federal Inter Agency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. November 2004)

The United States Census Bureau has declared that by the year 2020, the sixty-five and above group will be the largest segment in America. By the year 2030 there will be more elderly Americans than young ones. In terms of percentage of growth, the “seriously old” – individuals over the age of eighty-five – currently form the fasted growing population group in the United States.

It stands to reason that the increasing elder population as well as the increased disbursement of families across the globe will lead to increased need for guardianships.

See also: Aging Stats 2004 Data and Aging Stats Main Site

Guardianship Statistics:

Basic data on guardianship is scarce. This scarcity makes reform more difficult. The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the dearth of statistical data limits oversight and reform efforts. The demographic trends noted above highlight the need for uniform consistent guardianship data, as those trends will account for an increased number of guardianships in coming years.

Few studies are available about guardianship, specifically in reference to individuals with disabilities. Those studies that have been conducted examined a limited range of guardianship issues.

For example, some studies examined the characteristics of the individuals involved in the process as it affects the elderly (Bulcroft et al., 1991; Friedman & Senage, 1988; Lisi et al., 1994); use of alternatives to guardianship (Iris, 1986; Lisi et al.); and individual state guardianship practices (O’Sullivan & Hoffman, 1995; Spring, Dubler & Garginlo, 1990). In 1987, the Associated Press (AP) investigated 2,200 guardianship files from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to obtain information on elderly wards and the guardianship process (AP, 1987). During the early 1990s, the National Center for Social Gerontology explored guardianship practices of 10 states. This national study also focused its attention exclusively on the elderly (The Center for Social Gerontology, 1994; Lisi et al.).

The Center for Social Gerontology had reported to the U.S. Administration on Aging in 1992 its estimate of court imposed guardians to be between 500,000 and 1,250,000. Since then, it is widely believed that the number of adult guardianships has doubled, if not quadrupled. The numbers are impossible to quantify because individual states themselves do not know how many aging adults they have agreed to “protect.”
See also: Factors Affecting Guardianship Practices

Adult Guardianship:

The National Center on Elder Abuse charged the American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging to conduct an exploratory survey of adult guardianship. They found the following:

1. Over one-third of responding state court administrative offices (34 percent) receive from trial courts reports on filings and dispositions for adult guardianship of the person and/or property as a distinct case type, but close to two-thirds (66 percent) do not.

2. Less than a fifth of responding state court administrative offices receive from trial courts reports of filings and dispositions for guardianship of the person only (19.1 percent); and just over a quarter of the offices receive reports for guardianship of the property (conservatorship) only (25.5 percent).

3. State court administrative offices do not receive from trial courts information on adult guardianship beyond the number of filings and dispositions.

4. Only five states reported that elder abuse is a distinct case type reported by trial courts to state court administrative offices, and a few additional states may receive such data in the future.

5. Over two-fifths (44.7 percent) of responding state court administrative offices indicated that they are interested in compiling data—or additional data—on adult guardianship, conservatorship, and elder abuse, but named substantial barriers.

6. A few local courts are planning for or demonstrating data collection practices that may assist other courts grappling with data collection issues.

They concluded the following:

* There is no state-level guardianship data for the majority of the reporting states. For states that do receive such data, comparison may be limited by differing definitions and coding.

* Data reported to state court administrative offices is limited to filings and dispositions.

* There is no data on a range of elements that would be critical for guardianship research and reform efforts. Whether, and to what extent, such data is maintained at the local court level is not known.

* Additional data beyond filings and dispositions may have two related purposes:

(1) enhancing case processing and strengthening oversight of guardians; and
(2) supporting broader guardianship research and reform efforts. Courts may be more apt to collect data for the former than the latter.

* There is almost no data on elder abuse as a distinct case type, reflecting a larger lack of elder abuse data nationally.

* While many states express interest in collecting additional information on guardianship and elder abuse, the burden to local courts, the need for standardized definitions, and the cost of technology are significant barriers.

* Isolated promising practices in some areas offer potential.

*Major investment in court technology, training, and standardized definitions is required to secure data for effective guardianship case management, as well as enabling courts, policymakers, and practitioners to move toward strengthening the guardianship system and preventing elder abuse.
See also: NCEA Guardianship Data

Conclusion:

Those who find themselves in the hands of unwanted guardians or conservators are not criminal, they are not mentally ill, they are not incompetent. They are asset-rich and old.

George Alexander and Travis Lewin, authors of The Aged and the Need for Surrogate Management put it this way:

The fault lies with the system created by the law. We define the condition of incompetency in a way in which psychiatrists can give no meaningful assistance and then abrogate the decision-making power to medicine. We devise a system which operates only at the initiation of those who stand to gain by imposition of the procedure and then ignore competing interests which causally follow. We draft a procedure that insures a speedy institution of incompetency but fails to provide an equally expeditious method for restoration. We design a system of surrogate management in the belief that mischief will befall the un-managed assets of the so-called mentally ill. Then we leave the determination of inauguration of incompetency in the hands of those benefiting from its continuation, magically believing that the basic beneficence of man will overcome his self interest and greed.
See also: Syracuse Law: Travis H. D. Lewin

>Guardianship Statistics

>Aging Trends:

*In 2003, 12 percent of the total population of the United States, almost 36 million people, was 65 years of age and over.

*Over the 20th century, the older population grew from 3 million to 35 million. The seriously old population (age 85 and older) grew from just over 100,000 in 1900 to 4.2 million in 2000.

*The Baby Boomers (those citizens born between 1946 and 1964) will start turning 65 in 2011, and the number of older people will increase dramatically during the 2010-2030 period.

*The older population in the year 2030 is projected to be twice as large as in the year 2000, growing from 35 million to 71.5 million and representing 20 percent of the total U.S. population.

(Federal Inter Agency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. November 2004)

The United States Census Bureau has declared that by the year 2020, the sixty-five and above group will be the largest segment in America. By the year 2030 there will be more elderly Americans than young ones. In terms of percentage of growth, the “seriously old” – individuals over the age of eighty-five – currently form the fasted growing population group in the United States.

It stands to reason that the increasing elder population as well as the increased disbursement of families across the globe will lead to increased need for guardianships.

See also: Aging Stats 2004 Data and Aging Stats Main Site

Guardianship Statistics:

Basic data on guardianship is scarce. This scarcity makes reform more difficult. The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the dearth of statistical data limits oversight and reform efforts. The demographic trends noted above highlight the need for uniform consistent guardianship data, as those trends will account for an increased number of guardianships in coming years.

Few studies are available about guardianship, specifically in reference to individuals with disabilities. Those studies that have been conducted examined a limited range of guardianship issues.

For example, some studies examined the characteristics of the individuals involved in the process as it affects the elderly (Bulcroft et al., 1991; Friedman & Senage, 1988; Lisi et al., 1994); use of alternatives to guardianship (Iris, 1986; Lisi et al.); and individual state guardianship practices (O’Sullivan & Hoffman, 1995; Spring, Dubler & Garginlo, 1990). In 1987, the Associated Press (AP) investigated 2,200 guardianship files from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to obtain information on elderly wards and the guardianship process (AP, 1987). During the early 1990s, the National Center for Social Gerontology explored guardianship practices of 10 states. This national study also focused its attention exclusively on the elderly (The Center for Social Gerontology, 1994; Lisi et al.).

The Center for Social Gerontology had reported to the U.S. Administration on Aging in 1992 its estimate of court imposed guardians to be between 500,000 and 1,250,000. Since then, it is widely believed that the number of adult guardianships has doubled, if not quadrupled. The numbers are impossible to quantify because individual states themselves do not know how many aging adults they have agreed to “protect.”
See also: Factors Affecting Guardianship Practices

Adult Guardianship:

The National Center on Elder Abuse charged the American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging to conduct an exploratory survey of adult guardianship. They found the following:

1. Over one-third of responding state court administrative offices (34 percent) receive from trial courts reports on filings and dispositions for adult guardianship of the person and/or property as a distinct case type, but close to two-thirds (66 percent) do not.

2. Less than a fifth of responding state court administrative offices receive from trial courts reports of filings and dispositions for guardianship of the person only (19.1 percent); and just over a quarter of the offices receive reports for guardianship of the property (conservatorship) only (25.5 percent).

3. State court administrative offices do not receive from trial courts information on adult guardianship beyond the number of filings and dispositions.

4. Only five states reported that elder abuse is a distinct case type reported by trial courts to state court administrative offices, and a few additional states may receive such data in the future.

5. Over two-fifths (44.7 percent) of responding state court administrative offices indicated that they are interested in compiling data—or additional data—on adult guardianship, conservatorship, and elder abuse, but named substantial barriers.

6. A few local courts are planning for or demonstrating data collection practices that may assist other courts grappling with data collection issues.

They concluded the following:

* There is no state-level guardianship data for the majority of the reporting states. For states that do receive such data, comparison may be limited by differing definitions and coding.

* Data reported to state court administrative offices is limited to filings and dispositions.

* There is no data on a range of elements that would be critical for guardianship research and reform efforts. Whether, and to what extent, such data is maintained at the local court level is not known.

* Additional data beyond filings and dispositions may have two related purposes:

(1) enhancing case processing and strengthening oversight of guardians; and
(2) supporting broader guardianship research and reform efforts. Courts may be more apt to collect data for the former than the latter.

* There is almost no data on elder abuse as a distinct case type, reflecting a larger lack of elder abuse data nationally.

* While many states express interest in collecting additional information on guardianship and elder abuse, the burden to local courts, the need for standardized definitions, and the cost of technology are significant barriers.

* Isolated promising practices in some areas offer potential.

*Major investment in court technology, training, and standardized definitions is required to secure data for effective guardianship case management, as well as enabling courts, policymakers, and practitioners to move toward strengthening the guardianship system and preventing elder abuse.
See also: NCEA Guardianship Data

Conclusion:

Those who find themselves in the hands of unwanted guardians or conservators are not criminal, they are not mentally ill, they are not incompetent. They are asset-rich and old.

George Alexander and Travis Lewin, authors of The Aged and the Need for Surrogate Management put it this way:

The fault lies with the system created by the law. We define the condition of incompetency in a way in which psychiatrists can give no meaningful assistance and then abrogate the decision-making power to medicine. We devise a system which operates only at the initiation of those who stand to gain by imposition of the procedure and then ignore competing interests which causally follow. We draft a procedure that insures a speedy institution of incompetency but fails to provide an equally expeditious method for restoration. We design a system of surrogate management in the belief that mischief will befall the un-managed assets of the so-called mentally ill. Then we leave the determination of inauguration of incompetency in the hands of those benefiting from its continuation, magically believing that the basic beneficence of man will overcome his self interest and greed.
See also: Syracuse Law: Travis H. D. Lewin

Guarding the Guardians

Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring
Research Report
Naomi Karp, J.D., AARP Public Policy Institute
Erica F. Wood, American Bar Association
December 2007

Court-appointed guardians step into the shoes of at-risk adults with cognitive impairments, making judgments about medical care, property, living arrangements, lifestyle and potentially all personal and financial decisions. Court monitoring of these guardians is essential to ensure the welfare of incapacitated individuals, detect abuses and sanction guardians who demonstrate malfeasance.

Despite a dramatic strengthening of statutory standards in recent years, judicial monitoring practices vary substantially by jurisdiction. This AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) Research Report by Naomi Karp (PPI) and Erica Wood (American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging) describes methods for helping courts protect some of our society’s most vulnerable people. Through site visits to exemplary courts, the authors have identified promising approaches that can be replicated by courts around the country.

Full Report (PDF)
In Brief (HTML)

In Brief (PDF)

Source: AARP: Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring

>Guarding the Guardians

>Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring
Research Report
Naomi Karp, J.D., AARP Public Policy Institute
Erica F. Wood, American Bar Association
December 2007

Court-appointed guardians step into the shoes of at-risk adults with cognitive impairments, making judgments about medical care, property, living arrangements, lifestyle and potentially all personal and financial decisions. Court monitoring of these guardians is essential to ensure the welfare of incapacitated individuals, detect abuses and sanction guardians who demonstrate malfeasance.

Despite a dramatic strengthening of statutory standards in recent years, judicial monitoring practices vary substantially by jurisdiction. This AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) Research Report by Naomi Karp (PPI) and Erica Wood (American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging) describes methods for helping courts protect some of our society’s most vulnerable people. Through site visits to exemplary courts, the authors have identified promising approaches that can be replicated by courts around the country.

Full Report (PDF)
In Brief (HTML)

In Brief (PDF)

Source: AARP: Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring

Guarding the Guardians

Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring
Research Report
Naomi Karp, J.D., AARP Public Policy Institute
Erica F. Wood, American Bar Association
December 2007

Court-appointed guardians step into the shoes of at-risk adults with cognitive impairments, making judgments about medical care, property, living arrangements, lifestyle and potentially all personal and financial decisions. Court monitoring of these guardians is essential to ensure the welfare of incapacitated individuals, detect abuses and sanction guardians who demonstrate malfeasance.

Despite a dramatic strengthening of statutory standards in recent years, judicial monitoring practices vary substantially by jurisdiction. This AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) Research Report by Naomi Karp (PPI) and Erica Wood (American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging) describes methods for helping courts protect some of our society’s most vulnerable people. Through site visits to exemplary courts, the authors have identified promising approaches that can be replicated by courts around the country.

Full Report (PDF)
In Brief (HTML)

In Brief (PDF)

Source: AARP: Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring

Guardianship Reform

Some information on guardianship reform from Mass Lawyers Weekly:

A recent series in The Boston Globe revealed numerous problems with guardianship cases in Massachusetts. Many of the examples were rather chilling indicators that the very system that is supposed to help the elderly can often hinder them in cruel ways. Lawyers know that this is an area ripe for reform, although it would be counterproductive to scapegoat any one interested party.

Probate & Family Court judges frequently are faced with difficult decisions in cases in which an elderly or incapacitated person may be at risk because of mental or physical incapacities. If that person has no family member or friend who can assist, there is the painful question as to who will stand up for the individual. As such, decisions on elder guardianships are not made lightly by judges. However, judges are not authorized by statute, or otherwise, to appoint counsel in guardianship cases, except in rare instances. And budget restrictions limit a judge’s ability to appoint guardians ad litem in all cases. Instead, GALs are appointed only in cases in which problems are identified. Further, only limited funding is available for individuals who are willing to serve in the role of a guardian.

Judges share the common goal that better due process protections need to be built into Massachusetts guardianships, and, in fact, efforts are under way to reform the way guardianships are handled here. One major reform would be the revision of the medical certificate that must accompany a guardianship petition. The new certificate would require details of the elder’s actual functionality. The revised medical document places the possibility of a limited guardianship at the forefront of any analysis of whether an individual who is alleged to be incapacitated is in need of guardianship.

Efforts are also under way by the court to provide greater instruction to guardians about their role and responsibilities. Written guidelines would be provided, and an educational video is being considered as well. The court has further been a staunch supporter of Article V of the Massachusetts Probate Code, which provides for significant reform in the guardianship area. While the Uniform Probate Code is being considered by the Legislature, the court is revising its petition for guardianship to require more information about the relationship of the petitioner to the ward, where the ward resided before the petition was filed, and the address where the elder is to reside if the guardianship is granted.

Guardianship reform is long overdue. If anything, lawyers and judges have attempted to deal with the shortcomings of the existing statutory scheme with as many creative solutions as they have been able to devise. Lawyers routinely assist the court by taking on the role of guardian or guardian ad litem for little or no fee. Judges are typically thoughtful and diligent in dealing with guardianship issues. But, undoubtedly, there are changes that should be made to improve the rights of potential wards and to streamline review of the actions of guardians. Only then will the process be fair to all.

Source: Mass Lawyers Weekly: Guardianship reform is overdue

Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s top adviser on elder affairs has thrown the administration’s support behind a far-reaching revamp of the system by which guardians are appointed in Probate & Family Court. Elder Affairs Secretary Michael Festa pushed for the overhaul, telling the Judiciary Committee that a pair of bills includes the necessary checks and balances for guardianship appointments that currently are not in place, such as permission for judges to appoint legal counsel for the person at the center of the case.

Probate & Family Court Chief Judge Paula M. Carey said that guardianship reform is “long overdue.” She asked lawmakers, if they pass legislation to give the court six month’s lead-time for the training of lawyers, staff and judges. Several attorneys have raised budget concerns, arguing that the legal counsel provision is potentially an “unfunded mandate.” Some who testified before the Judiciary Committee said they support guardianship reforms but oppose other aspects of the bill, including provisions dealing with a uniform probate code, estate administration and surviving-spouse’s shares.

In the guardianship section, referred to as Article V in the Senate version, the bills remove the standard for “mental illness, “ create a new standard for “incapacitated person, “ require the court to make detailed findings of incapacity before appointing a guardian and then ensure the guardian is qualified. Guardians would also have to submit detailed annual reports on the person’s mental, social and physical conditions.

Source: Mass Lawyers Weekly: Push on for reform of guardianship

Information on guardianships: Massachusetts Senior Citizens

>Guardianship Reform

>Some information on guardianship reform from Mass Lawyers Weekly:

A recent series in The Boston Globe revealed numerous problems with guardianship cases in Massachusetts. Many of the examples were rather chilling indicators that the very system that is supposed to help the elderly can often hinder them in cruel ways. Lawyers know that this is an area ripe for reform, although it would be counterproductive to scapegoat any one interested party.

Probate & Family Court judges frequently are faced with difficult decisions in cases in which an elderly or incapacitated person may be at risk because of mental or physical incapacities. If that person has no family member or friend who can assist, there is the painful question as to who will stand up for the individual. As such, decisions on elder guardianships are not made lightly by judges. However, judges are not authorized by statute, or otherwise, to appoint counsel in guardianship cases, except in rare instances. And budget restrictions limit a judge’s ability to appoint guardians ad litem in all cases. Instead, GALs are appointed only in cases in which problems are identified. Further, only limited funding is available for individuals who are willing to serve in the role of a guardian.

Judges share the common goal that better due process protections need to be built into Massachusetts guardianships, and, in fact, efforts are under way to reform the way guardianships are handled here. One major reform would be the revision of the medical certificate that must accompany a guardianship petition. The new certificate would require details of the elder’s actual functionality. The revised medical document places the possibility of a limited guardianship at the forefront of any analysis of whether an individual who is alleged to be incapacitated is in need of guardianship.

Efforts are also under way by the court to provide greater instruction to guardians about their role and responsibilities. Written guidelines would be provided, and an educational video is being considered as well. The court has further been a staunch supporter of Article V of the Massachusetts Probate Code, which provides for significant reform in the guardianship area. While the Uniform Probate Code is being considered by the Legislature, the court is revising its petition for guardianship to require more information about the relationship of the petitioner to the ward, where the ward resided before the petition was filed, and the address where the elder is to reside if the guardianship is granted.

Guardianship reform is long overdue. If anything, lawyers and judges have attempted to deal with the shortcomings of the existing statutory scheme with as many creative solutions as they have been able to devise. Lawyers routinely assist the court by taking on the role of guardian or guardian ad litem for little or no fee. Judges are typically thoughtful and diligent in dealing with guardianship issues. But, undoubtedly, there are changes that should be made to improve the rights of potential wards and to streamline review of the actions of guardians. Only then will the process be fair to all.

Source: Mass Lawyers Weekly: Guardianship reform is overdue

Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s top adviser on elder affairs has thrown the administration’s support behind a far-reaching revamp of the system by which guardians are appointed in Probate & Family Court. Elder Affairs Secretary Michael Festa pushed for the overhaul, telling the Judiciary Committee that a pair of bills includes the necessary checks and balances for guardianship appointments that currently are not in place, such as permission for judges to appoint legal counsel for the person at the center of the case.

Probate & Family Court Chief Judge Paula M. Carey said that guardianship reform is “long overdue.” She asked lawmakers, if they pass legislation to give the court six month’s lead-time for the training of lawyers, staff and judges. Several attorneys have raised budget concerns, arguing that the legal counsel provision is potentially an “unfunded mandate.” Some who testified before the Judiciary Committee said they support guardianship reforms but oppose other aspects of the bill, including provisions dealing with a uniform probate code, estate administration and surviving-spouse’s shares.

In the guardianship section, referred to as Article V in the Senate version, the bills remove the standard for “mental illness, “ create a new standard for “incapacitated person, “ require the court to make detailed findings of incapacity before appointing a guardian and then ensure the guardian is qualified. Guardians would also have to submit detailed annual reports on the person’s mental, social and physical conditions.

Source: Mass Lawyers Weekly: Push on for reform of guardianship

Information on guardianships: Massachusetts Senior Citizens

Guardianship Legislation

According to a State Adult Guardianship Legislation report, about 13 states passed a total of 16 adult guardianship bills last year.

The report includes – Connecticut bolstering procedures for appointment and appeal. Washington, Arkansas and Nevada creating or strengthening a public guardianship program.

Other states in the report include Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia.

Legislation at a glance:

California’s Omnibus Act was also mentioned in the report. “In 2006, in response to a series of reports on the state’s adult guardianship system (called “conservatorship” in California), the legislature passed an Omnibus Act, which was “a landmark package of bills to overhaul California’s troubled conservatorship system. That legislation [was] designed to remedy alarming deficiencies in California’s conservatorship system that had led to the abuses of California’s elderly and most vulnerable” (Bill Summary, Legislative Analysis, Leora Gershenzon). While the Act was moving through the legislature, the Chief Justice appointed a Probate Conservatorship Task Force to make recommendations for reform. The Task Force released recommendations, several of which were included in AB 1727, which also makes a number of technical and other clarifying amendments to last year’s Act.”

After the good news of California’s much needed reform, it was reported that Schwarzenegger vetoed the funding. “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday signed into law a $145 billion budget for FY 2007-2008, but not before using his line-item veto power to cut $700 million, including $17.377 million that would have implemented conservatorship reforms approved by lawmakers last year.”

Source: Schwarzenegger Vetoes Conservatorship Reform Funding

The Los Angeles Times reported: “When yacht owners are preferred over the aged and homeless, the bottom line is we’ve sunk too low.”

Source: Schwarzenegger’s bad budget cuts

In reality, it is not clear how any of the new legislation will help victims of guardianship and conservatorship abuse. NASGA believes that much more is needed.

Reports from the Commission on Law and Aging, American Bar Association:
State Adult Guardianship Legislation: Directions of Reform – 2007
State Adult Guardianship Legislation: Directions of Reform 2006

Guardianship Legislation

According to a State Adult Guardianship Legislation report, about 13 states passed a total of 16 adult guardianship bills last year.

The report includes – Connecticut bolstering procedures for appointment and appeal. Washington, Arkansas and Nevada creating or strengthening a public guardianship program.

Other states in the report include Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia.

Legislation at a glance:

California’s Omnibus Act was also mentioned in the report. “In 2006, in response to a series of reports on the state’s adult guardianship system (called “conservatorship” in California), the legislature passed an Omnibus Act, which was “a landmark package of bills to overhaul California’s troubled conservatorship system. That legislation [was] designed to remedy alarming deficiencies in California’s conservatorship system that had led to the abuses of California’s elderly and most vulnerable” (Bill Summary, Legislative Analysis, Leora Gershenzon). While the Act was moving through the legislature, the Chief Justice appointed a Probate Conservatorship Task Force to make recommendations for reform. The Task Force released recommendations, several of which were included in AB 1727, which also makes a number of technical and other clarifying amendments to last year’s Act.”

After the good news of California’s much needed reform, it was reported that Schwarzenegger vetoed the funding. “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday signed into law a $145 billion budget for FY 2007-2008, but not before using his line-item veto power to cut $700 million, including $17.377 million that would have implemented conservatorship reforms approved by lawmakers last year.”

Source: Schwarzenegger Vetoes Conservatorship Reform Funding

The Los Angeles Times reported: “When yacht owners are preferred over the aged and homeless, the bottom line is we’ve sunk too low.”

Source: Schwarzenegger’s bad budget cuts

In reality, it is not clear how any of the new legislation will help victims of guardianship and conservatorship abuse. NASGA believes that much more is needed.

Reports from the Commission on Law and Aging, American Bar Association:
State Adult Guardianship Legislation: Directions of Reform – 2007
State Adult Guardianship Legislation: Directions of Reform 2006

Guardianship Legislation

According to a State Adult Guardianship Legislation report, about 13 states passed a total of 16 adult guardianship bills last year.

The report includes – Connecticut bolstering procedures for appointment and appeal. Washington, Arkansas and Nevada creating or strengthening a public guardianship program.

Other states in the report include Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia.

Legislation at a glance:

California’s Omnibus Act was also mentioned in the report. “In 2006, in response to a series of reports on the state’s adult guardianship system (called “conservatorship” in California), the legislature passed an Omnibus Act, which was “a landmark package of bills to overhaul California’s troubled conservatorship system. That legislation [was] designed to remedy alarming deficiencies in California’s conservatorship system that had led to the abuses of California’s elderly and most vulnerable” (Bill Summary, Legislative Analysis, Leora Gershenzon). While the Act was moving through the legislature, the Chief Justice appointed a Probate Conservatorship Task Force to make recommendations for reform. The Task Force released recommendations, several of which were included in AB 1727, which also makes a number of technical and other clarifying amendments to last year’s Act.”

After the good news of California’s much needed reform, it was reported that Schwarzenegger vetoed the funding. “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday signed into law a $145 billion budget for FY 2007-2008, but not before using his line-item veto power to cut $700 million, including $17.377 million that would have implemented conservatorship reforms approved by lawmakers last year.”

Source: Schwarzenegger Vetoes Conservatorship Reform Funding

The Los Angeles Times reported: “When yacht owners are preferred over the aged and homeless, the bottom line is we’ve sunk too low.”

Source: Schwarzenegger’s bad budget cuts

In reality, it is not clear how any of the new legislation will help victims of guardianship and conservatorship abuse. NASGA believes that much more is needed.

Reports from the Commission on Law and Aging, American Bar Association:
State Adult Guardianship Legislation: Directions of Reform – 2007
State Adult Guardianship Legislation: Directions of Reform 2006