HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1130
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in
their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
As Reported by House Committee On:
Judiciary
Appropriations
Title: An act relating to creating an office of public guardianship as an independent agency of the judiciary.
Brief Description: Creating an office of public guardianship as an independent agency of the judiciary.
Sponsors: Representatives Lantz, Rodne, Morrell, Schual-Berke, Goodman, Kenney, Haigh and Moeller.
Brief History:
Judiciary: 1/17/07, 1/23/07 [DPS];
Appropriations: 2/6/07, 2/26/07 [DP2S(w/o sub JUDI)].
Brief Summary of Second Substitute Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 9 members: Representatives Lantz, Chair; Goodman, Vice Chair; Rodne, Ranking Minority Member; Warnick, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Flannigan, Kirby, Moeller, Pedersen and Williams.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 2 members: Representatives Ahern and Ross.
Staff: Edie Adams (786-7180).
Background:
Guardianship is a legal process through which a guardian is given the power to make
decisions for a person who is determined to be "incapacitated" and therefore unable to take
care of himself or herself. A person may be incapacitated if the individual is at a significant
risk of financial harm because of an inability to manage his or her property or financial affairs
or has a significant risk of personal harm because of an inability to provide for nutrition,
health, housing, or physical safety.
The court may establish a guardianship over the person, the person's estate, or both. The
court may also establish a limited guardianship for persons who need protection or assistance
because of an incapacity, but who are capable of managing some of their affairs. A guardian
of an incapacitated person's estate is responsible for managing the person's property and
finances. A guardian of the person is responsible for assessing and meeting the person's
physical, mental and emotional needs.
Any adult person residing in Washington may serve as a guardian unless the person is of
unsound mind, has been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, or is found unsuitable by the
court. Often the court will appoint a family member or close family friend to serve as
guardian. If there are no suitable family members or friends who are able or want to serve as
the guardian, the court may appoint a professional guardian. Professional guardians must be
certified by the Certified Professional Guardian Board (Board) and must meet certain
education, experience, and training requirements established by the Board.
The Elder Law Section of the Washington State Bar Association formed a Public
Guardianship Task Force (Task Force) to develop recommendations on the issue of residents
who need the help of a guardian but are unable to pay for the guardian's services. The Task
Force estimated that there are approximately 4,500 people in Washington who are in need of,
but lack, guardianship services because they have neither volunteers able to provide those
services nor the resources to pay for them. The Task Force recommended that the Legislature
establish an Office of Public Guardianship to address this need.
Summary of Substitute Bill:
An Office of Public Guardianship (Office) is created as an independent agency of the
judiciary. The Supreme Court appoints the public guardianship administrator to establish and
administer a public guardianship program within the Office. Initial implementation is on a
pilot basis in at least two geographical areas, including one urban and one rural area.
Client Criteria: The Office may provide public guardianship services to people who are age
eighteen or older and whose income does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty level
or who are receiving long-term care services through the Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS).
The Office must adopt eligibility criteria to enable it to serve people with the greatest need
when the Office is unable to provide public guardianship services to all persons determined
to need a public guardian. The eligibility criteria may be based on whether there is: (a)
significant risk of harm from abuse, exploitation, abandonment, neglect, or self-neglect; or
(b) imminent danger of loss of public services necessary to live in the least restrictive
environment appropriate for the individual.
Public Guardian Requirements: A public guardian must be certified by the Certified
Professional Guardian Board and must meet minimum standards of practice adopted by the
Office. A public guardian must visit each incapacitated person the guardian is serving at
least once a month in order to be eligible for compensation from the Office. In addition, an
entity providing professional guardianship services may not be compensated for services if
the entity is serving more than 20 incapacitated persons per certified professional guardian.
Public guardianship providers must annually certify that, for each person they serve, they
have evaluated whether it is appropriate to limit or terminate the guardian's authority and that
the court has been asked for such a modification or termination where it appears warranted.
Additional Requirements: The Office may not petition for the appointment of a public
guardian for any person and may not act as public guardian or limited guardian, or in any
other representative capacity, for any person.
The Office must develop a monitoring system for the performance of public guardians,
including making in-home visits to randomly-selected public guardianship clients, and must
adopt a process for receiving, considering, investigating, and responding to complaints.
Public Guardianship Advisory Committee: A Public Guardianship Advisory Committee
(Advisory Committee) is created to review the activities of the Office, review the
performance of the public guardianship administrator, and make recommendations on issues
relating to the provision of public guardianship services. The Advisory Committee consists
of 18 members who serve three-year terms, except for initial members who serve for varying
terms specified in the act.
Data Collection, Reports, and Studies: The Office is required to issue an annual report of its
activities, track and report cost savings to the Legislature and Governor every two years, and
contract with the Institute for Public Policy for a study to analyze costs and off-setting
savings to the state from the public guardianship program. The Office is also required to
collect and analyze various data and issue reports on alternatives to guardianship services and
training needs for public guardians.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
The original bill's provision regarding the development of client criteria included as a factor
that the person is "in imminent danger of" abuse, neglect, or exploitation and the substitute
bill changed this to "at substantial risk of harm from" abuse, neglect, or exploitation.
The original bill did not include the provision stating that the Office's complaint process must
include investigation where the administrator determines investigation is appropriate.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) Many people as they age don't need the services of a guardian because they have
family and resources to help them. But for those persons who are alone and have no
resources, the lack of a guardian can be devastating. There can be abuse, exploitation, or
failure to get proper nutrition or needed medical care. Although guardians are not needed in
most cases, a guardian can be an invaluable resource for some individuals. A guardian can
increase the likelihood that a person can live in his or her home for an extended period of
time and under better conditions.
Providing public guardianship services may actually save the state significant amounts of
money. A study of a Virginia public guardianship program found that the state saved
$12,000 per individual served. These cost savings can result from a number of areas, such as
avoiding expensive nursing home care or emergency medical treatment. In addition, there is
a real cost in human terms to being shoveled off to a nursing home before it is time.
There is a real need to create the Office of Public Guardianship. This bill takes a good step
towards meeting the needs of residents who currently can't afford to pay for guardianship
services. The bill contains safeguards that include: limiting the number of individuals a
guardian can serve; minimum standards of practice; and oversight by the Office of Public
Guardianship.
The Office should not be simply a conduit for public funds. There should be real oversight
and real monitoring, and this bill provides both. The experiences of other states makes it
clear that this can't just be a conduit for money. You have to make sure the program works,
and to do that the program needs to be adequately funded.
One concern with the bill is that it seems to set up a system of two classes of guardians
public guardians under the Office's rules and standards and private guardians under the rules
of the Certified Professional Guardian Board. In addition, some of the limitations on who
can be a public guardian may result in excluding current professional guardians who have
extensive expertise in serving these needs.
(Concerns) The eligibility criteria should be expanded to include persons who are on a
waiting list to receive long-term care services to make sure those services aren't premature.
The Office should not be duplicating the training that is already provided by the Certified
Professional Guardianship Board and the complaint process needs to adequately address
complaints in a timely fashion. One big question with the bill still remains: what happens to
persons who are receiving public guardianship services and then the money to provide those
services goes away?
Persons Testifying: (In support) Leesa Camerota, Certified Professional Guardian; Don
Moreland, Chair, Seattle King County Disability Council; Peter Greenfield, Washington State
Bar Association, Advisory Council on Aging and Disabilities Services; David Lord,
Washington Protection and Advocacy System; Lauren Moughon, American Association of
Retired People, Washington; Kathy Leitch, Department of Social and Health Services, Aging
and Disability Services Administration; and Louise Ryan, Long Term Care Ombudsman.
(Concerns) Loren Freeman, father of a young adult with disabilities; and Julie Peterson,
Washington Association of Housing and Services for the Aging.
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Majority Report: The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass and do not pass the substitute bill by Committee on Judiciary. Signed by 23 members: Representatives Sommers, Chair; Dunshee, Vice Chair; Cody, Conway, Darneille, Ericks, Fromhold, Grant, Haigh, Hunt, Hunter, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Linville, McDermott, McIntire, Morrell, Pettigrew, Priest, Schual-Berke, Seaquist and P. Sullivan.
Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 11 members: Representatives Alexander, Ranking Minority Member; Bailey, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Haler, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Anderson, Buri, Chandler, Dunn, Hinkle, Kretz, McDonald and Walsh.
Staff: Owen Rowe (786-7391).
Summary of Recommendation of Committee On Appropriations Compared to
Recommendation of Committee On Judiciary:
A null and void clause was added, making the bill null and void unless funded in the budget.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date of Second Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. However, the bill is null and void unless funded in the budget.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) This bill would provide needed guardianship services to vulnerable people who
are cognitively impaired, poor and alone. The evidence from other states is enough to justify
a pilot coupled with a study to see what the results are. The Legislature would be in control
of the costs related to public guardianship in this legislation.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: Peter Greenfield, Washington State Bar Association and Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services.