NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Taylor, J.P. |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
CS/416/aHJC/aHFl#1 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Create Office of Guardianship |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
Relates
to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act
LFC
files
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HFl#1 Amendment
Synopsis
of HJC Amendment
The House Judiciary Committee amendment to House
Government and Urban Affairs Committee Substitute for House Bill 416 adds
financial records to the list of items to which office of guardianship shall
have access.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
The House Government
& Urban Affairs Committee Substitute for House Bill 416 appropriates
$100,000 from the general fund to the Developmental Disabilities Planning
Council (DDPC) for the purpose of establishing the guardianship program. This
bill moves the guardianship program out of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
into the DDPC.
HB 416/HGUACS establishes
the authority and responsibilities of the guardianship program, provides for
the monitoring and oversight of contracts for guardianship services, establishes minimum requirements for all such contracts,
requires the establishment of a procedure for investigating and resolving complaints
about contractors, transfers all assts and obligations of the current program
to the new office.
Significant
Issues
The AGO has administered contracts for
state-funded guardianship services for income-eligible adults since 1995. Prior to 1995, such services were provided
through various state agencies, including the AOA and the DOH. Although the 1995 law had the advantage of
consolidating state-funded guardianship services within a single agency, issues
remain concerning whether the AGO is the proper place for such services. First, the AGO is not a social services
agency and is not well equipped to assess the quality and appropriateness of
social services programs. Second, the
AGO, the AOA, and the DOH each have statutory authority to investigate,
administer, or enforce different laws relating to the provision of services to
vulnerable adults that may be in conflict with administering guardianship
services.
The DDPC is already established under state and
federal law. They encourage coordination in planning and services for persons
with developmental disabilities and they advocate for the needs of persons with
disabilities. They receive state and federal funds and are experienced in entering
into contracts for services and in monitoring them.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of
$100.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund. Any
unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 2004
shall revert to the general fund. (See Technical Issue below)
TECHNICAL
ISSUES
Currently the AGO is appropriated $1,863.2 in
the general appropriation act for guardianship services. For HB 416/HGUACS to
be effective, it is likely the bill needs to provide for this appropriation to
be transferred from the AGO’s budget to the DDPC.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
HB 416/HGUACS requires
the DDPC to issue regulations to establish a process for the filing,
investigation and resolution of complaints against guardianship contractors. regulations specify
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The DDPC has noted the
following issues:
Unnecessarily
restrictive types of guardianship must be avoided. There has been a trend in
There must be full
accountability on the part of the guardian. The office of guardianship must
carefully examine the end-of–year report of each guardianship case. Reports from advocacy groups and individuals
across the state indicate that guardianship is renewed with a “rubber stamp”
without careful perusal as to whether the person or entity acting as guardian
has completed all the responsibilities a guardian is required to cover,
especially in the area of fiscal management.
The proposed office of guardianship must have procedures in place to
review guardianship terms carefully to determine whether the type of
guardianship granted previously is still appropriate, and whether the guardian
has fulfilled all of its responsibilities in an ethically and fiscally
responsible manner.