U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–059 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–147 

PROTECTING SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH 

DISABILITIES: AN EXAMINATION OF COURTAPPOINTED GUARDIANS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PAIGE HERWIG, Democratic Chief Counsel/Staff Director 

DANIELLE CUTRONA, Republican Acting Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Baldwin, Robert N., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, National 

Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia ............................................... 10 

Brown, Kay E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC ........................................ 4 

Hollister, Michelle R., Managing Partner, Solkoff Legal, Delray Beach, Florida .......................................................................................................................... 11 

Holtz, Deb, State Ombudsman for Long-Term Care, Minnesota Board on 

Aging, St. Paul, Minnesota .................................................................................. 6 

Karp, Naomi, Senior Strategic Policy Advisor, AARP Public Policy Institute, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 8 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Baldwin, Robert N., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, National 

Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, statement ........................... 27 

Brown, Kay E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, statement ..................... 34 

Hollister, Michelle R., Managing Partner, Solkoff Legal, Delray Beach, Florida, statement ....................................................................................................... 45 

Holtz, Deb, State Ombudsman for Long-Term Care, Minnesota Board on 

Aging, St. Paul, Minnesota, statement ............................................................... 49 

Karp, Naomi, Senior Strategic Policy Advisor, AARP Public Policy Institute, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 22 

National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA), Elaine Renoire, 

President, Loogootee, Indiana, September 21, 2001, letter .............................. 53 

Ring, Latifa, President, National Organization To End Guardianship Abuse 

(NOTEGA), and Founder of the National Elder Abuse and Guardianship 

Victims Taskforce for Change, statement .......................................................... 56 

Susman, Thomas M., American Bar Association, Washington, DC, statement . 68 

VandeNorth, Deanna S., Saint Paul, Minnesota, September 22, 2011, letter .... 82 

(1) 

PROTECTING SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH 

DISABILITIES: AN EXAMINATION OF COURTAPPOINTED GUARDIANS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE

COURTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Franken, and Blumenthal. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. I am pleased to call this hearing of the 

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and 

the Courts to order. Good afternoon to everyone, and thank you for 

being here to discuss this very important issue of guardianship. I 

think we will have some other Senators joining us. I hope we do. 

A little lonely up here. But I know we have a number of people 

that care very much about this issue. We have some victims and 

people in the audience. Thank you for being here. We are very glad 

to have you here. And we also have some great witnesses here that 

are going to shed some light on this important issue for all of us. 

One of society’s most important obligations is to care for those 

who cannot care for themselves. Whether this is an aging parent 

or a child with a disability, we have a duty to protect those who 

are most in need of care. 

Sometimes that obligation requires courts to appoint a guardian 

or a conservator to make financial and other decisions for people 

who are not capacity of managing their own affairs, typically the 

elderly and people with disabilities. 

In my home State of Minnesota, over 20,000 people have courtappointed guardians or conservators. These guardians are charged 

with looking out for the best interests of the people under their supervision, but sadly, too often that does not happen. 

I know these cases are devastating for the victims and the family 

members involved, and over the last few weeks, our office has 

heard from victims and advocates, some of whom are in this room, 

across the country who had heart-breaking stories to tell. These experiences should be shared, and that is why, in addition to our 

2 

staff collecting them or asking if people are interested in writing 

them down and submitting testimony for the Congressional Record, 

we will leave the record open for 1 week. And so please, if you have 

any questions about that, you can also talk to our staff, to Craig 

or to Elizabeth back here as well after the hearing. 

While the vast majority of court-appointed guardians are undoubtedly professional, well-meaning, and law-abiding, there is 

mounting evidence that some guardians use their position of power 

for their own gain at the expense of the very people that they were 

supposed to be looking out for. 

Now, I had a number of cases when I was county attorney— 

which is like being the D.A.—in Hennepin County, which represents about a fourth of the population in Minnesota, and one of 

the things that I saw there was just the abuses of power that you 

would see every single day. 

One of the cases that we had was a case involving a judge—now, 

this was not a guardian; it was a trustee. But it was a very similar—hello, Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Hi. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. It was a very similar position of trust 

that had been violated. In this case you had a judge on the second 

highest court in Minnesota, the court of appeals, who was a trustee 

for a young woman who had severe disabilities. She lived in her 

20’s in a world of dollars and stuffed animals. Her father had asked 

this man, who was at the time a lawyer, to become her trustee. He 

had set aside hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The trustee then became a judge, was promoted to the second 

highest court in Minnesota, and 1 day—we will never forget it— 

the guardian and the trustee came to see the lawyers in our office 

and claimed that this very famous judge had been ripping off the 

trust. At first we actually did not believe it, and we sent out an 

investigator, and we looked into it. And I still remember my lawyer 

calling me on Christmas Eve Day, crouched down in his car, looking at this judge’s house, and said, ‘‘There is no way this guy can 

afford this on a judge’s salary.’’ 

What we found out was that he had gone through every penny 

in the trust that he had been claiming that he was basically putting in new equipment, a bed in her house, and he was buying gold 

statues in L.A.; that he was putting in floors in her house when 

he was putting in marble floors in his own house. He went to prison for 5 years, and those are the kinds of cases that have made 

me very interested in this issue and realize that we cannot just 

trust the system to work on its own. 

A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office found 

hundreds of allegations of neglect and improper actions by guardians across the country. GAO looked closely at 20 of those cases 

and discovered that $5.4 million had been improperly taken by 

guardians from 158 victims. 

Now, when we are in Washington here dealing with billions of 

dollars, this may not seem like large sums of money in Washington 

talk. But to the victims, as you all know, the consequences can be 

devastating. 

I read one account of a guardian accused of improperly paying 

herself thousands of dollars while failing to provide for the basic 

3 

needs like food and housing of the person she was overseeing. The 

victim had to be removed from his home by social workers because 

of the poor conditions in his apartment. 

In some cases, the guardian may not necessarily be corrupt. They 

may just be incompetent or negligent. But the results can be just 

as harmful for the person under their supervision. 

Given the evidence of the widespread problems, I believe it is a 

moral imperative that we take action. Clearly, the responsibility for 

these abuses is with those guardians who do not fulfill their role 

properly and lawfully, but it falls to the rest of us to make sure 

that we are doing all we can in terms of oversight and putting the 

proper policies in place. 

Currently, the rules for screening guardians before they are appointed and monitoring them afterwards vary from State to State. 

For instance, the GAO found that only 13 states conduct criminal 

background checks of guardians, if you can imagine. Also, State 

and local court systems often do not have the resources to improve 

their guardianship procedures, although some courts have been 

taking steps to do so. 

For example, Ramsey County in the Twin Cities has implemented electronic filing for guardianship accounting reports which 

can potentially improve the oversight. And Hennepin County, 

where I worked for 8 years, has a data-sharing agreement with the 

VA because the VA appoints fiduciaries for some of the same people who have court-appointed guardians, so they are able to doublecheck on their credentials. 

In order to bolster these efforts in Minnesota and elsewhere in 

the country, I have been working on legislation that would promote 

criminal background checks and e-filing and allow State courts to 

improve their practices and policies with respect to guardianships. 

So I am eager to hear from our witnesses today about the problems that we face, and about the potential solutions to ensure that 

we are on the right track to provide some increased accountability 

and oversight of this issue. 

Before we swear the witnesses in, I do not know if you wanted 

to say a few words, Senator Franken. We have a witness here from 

Minnesota, Deb Holtz. 

Senator FRANKEN. I know Deb, and she testified in Maple Grove 

in a hearing we had on the Older Americans Act, and I thank you 

for being here. I, too, want to hear all your testimony, and then I 

will subject to grueling cross-examination. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. It will be kind of like the Google hearing 

yesterday, just so you are ready. 

OK. Why don’t you stand to be sworn in. Do you affirm that the 

testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Ms. BROWN. I do. 

Ms. HOLTZ. I do. 

Ms. KARP. I do. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I do. 

Ms. HOLLISTER. I do. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

4 

I am going to introduce our witnesses and then have each of 

them speak for 5 minutes, and as I mentioned, we also have testimony from victims, and I will be submitting that for the record. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. We are first joined by Kay Brown, who 

serves as the Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security at the Government Accountability Office, known as GAO. 

Next, from my home State of Minnesota, we have Deb Holtz. Deb 

serves as Minnesota’s long-term care ombudsman and is the top 

consumer advocate for seniors. And I know you have been a tireless 

advocate, Deb, for countless victims of guardianship fraud and 

abuse, and I look forward to hearing about your work and also the 

stories of working with victims’ family members in Minnesota. 

We will also hear from Naomi Karp, who is a strategic policy advisor at AARP. 

Next we have Robert Baldwin, who is the executive vice president and general counsel at the National Center for State Courts. 

I just threw you in so that they would know we do not have a glass 

ceiling with our witnesses since the rest of them are women. It is 

sort of an affirmative action thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. OK. And then finally we have Michelle 

Hollister, who is managing partner at Solkoff Legal in Delray 

Beach, Florida. Michelle was the former executive director of the 

Florida Statewide Public Guardianship Office. 

So thank you very much, all of you, for coming, and we will start 

with Kay Brown from the GAO. 

STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BROWN. Chairman Klobuchar, Senator Franken, thank you 

for inviting me here today to discuss guardianship, a very important issue that affects the well-being of some of the Nation’s most 

vulnerable individuals. 

When courts appoint guardians to protect an individual’s personal and financial welfare, it is not without risk. Although many 

guardians faithfully carry out their duties in the best interest of 

their wards, we know from our work that in some cases guardians 

have stolen or otherwise improperly obtained assets and sometimes 

neglected and abused their wards. 

Today I will cover two issues: the importance of screening and 

monitoring to reduce the risk of abuse by guardians, and ways in 

which the Federal Government may be able to help. 

First, regarding screening and monitoring, most States require 

courts to follow specific procedures for screening prospective guardians. However, requirements differ among States. For example, 13 

require guardians to undergo an independent criminal background 

check, 9 prohibit convicted felons from serving as guardians, and 

2 prohibit convicted criminals; 13 offer guardianship certification. 

However, these screening procedures are not always effective. 

For example, using two fictitious identities, one with bad credit and 

one with a Social Security number of a deceased person, GAO was 

5 

able to obtain guardianship certification or meet certification requirements in the four test States where we applied. 

Once guardians are appointed, most States require their performance to be monitored in some way, most often by requiring annual reports. However, these reports are not useful unless they are 

submitted on a timely basis and reviewed. From our work we know 

this does not always happen. 

For example, we have identified cases where the courts failed to 

oversee guardians after their appointment, allowing abuse and exploitation to continue over a period of years. 

In a 2004 GAO survey of courts in three States, most indicated 

they did not have sufficient resources to adequately oversee guardians. AARP reported similar results in a 2007 report. So what can 

be done? 

AARP and the American Bar Association have identified a number of promising practices to strengthen court monitoring, such as 

ways to improve reporting, flag likely problems, and increase inperson visits to incapacitated persons. Some State courts have 

begun to adopt these practices, but more can be done. Given limited resources for monitoring, courts may be reluctant to invest in 

new practices without evidence of their feasibility and effectiveness. 

On my second point regarding ways the Federal Government 

could help, we have gone on record in the past encouraging the Social Security administration to take steps so its staff can make certain information available to State courts upon request. For example, courts may find it useful to know whether an SSA fiduciary 

has misused benefits in the past. However, SSA does not believe 

it has authority to do this and has not taken steps to obtain it. 

Regarding HHS, its Administration on Aging established the National Legal Resource Center in 2008 to improve the delivery of 

legal assistance and enhance elder rights protections. The center 

has supported State courts and national guardianship organizations through training and technical assistance. 

Although screening and selecting potential guardians are State 

responsibilities, the Federal Government has an opportunity to 

help by contributing to provide technical assistance and support 

evaluations of promising monitoring practices. We recently recommended that HHS support pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility, cost, and effectiveness of such promising practices, and HHS 

agreed and noted that it could run these pilots under existing demonstration grant authority. 

In conclusion, governments at all levels are facing severe fiscal 

constraints. However, the problem of guardianship abuse is real 

and likely to grow as the number of older adults grows. Actions 

such as identifying cost-effective, promising practices can help 

States make the best use of their limited resources and still focus 

on improving protections for this vulnerable population. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HOLTZ. 

6 

STATEMENT OF DEB HOLTZ, STATE OMBUDSMAN FOR LONGTERM CARE, MINNESOTA BOARD ON AGING, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 

Ms. HOLTZ. First I need to push the button, and then I can talk. 

First, I just need to say Minnesota is so honored to have you and 

Senator Franken represent us. I just need to thank you for your 

work that you do for us. And thank you for the honor to be here 

and talk about what we do in the ombudsman office. 

We are a unique Federal program. We have a mandate to listen 

to people who have concerns or complaints if they live in nursing 

facilities or board-and-care homes. And in 1989, Minnesota actually 

expanded that mandate to include home-care recipients. We are 

one of only 12 States that does that. 

At this point in my notes it says to thank Senator Franken for 

something that he is working on with home care, but since he is 

going to grill me later and use up my time, I am just going to skip 

that paragraph. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HOLTZ. Last year, over 21,000 people had personal contact 

from our office, either through our staff or volunteers, and almost 

2,500 complaints were responded to. Among those complaints are 

also systemic issues that we have been looking at, and guardianship is one of them. In 2009, actually, we moved some legislation 

that reformed some of our State guardianship laws. 

We are very supportive of your efforts, Senator Klobuchar, to 

take a look at this and determine what can be used across the 

country. You took some of my words I was actually going to talk 

about with the new mandate in the State of taking the pilot project 

that started in Ramsey County with e-filing for conservatorships 

that is now going to be statewide. But one of the things that I 

wanted to share today are some of the stories of the victims. 

Many of the victims or many of the survivors that we work with 

in our office are too frail to travel or to tell their stories or have 

passed away. But I want to emphasize a couple stories today primarily about—you have already heard about some of the abuses 

that professional guardians take. One of the encouraging things 

that I think, Senator Klobuchar, you are focusing on also is the 

speed at which the court reviews cases and how they actually review cases and monitor cases. 

We are working with an individual right now who is a veteran. 

He is a veteran who actually is legally blind, and he has some 

brain injuries, so he really does not understand the whole case that 

we are working on. But his brother—and some of you may have 

seen this in the recent media—is disputing a $1,000 bill from the 

veterans’ home that happened several years ago, and because of his 

refusal to pay that and the interest that has now compounded, this 

bill is over $100,000, and this veteran is at risk of being discharged 

from the veterans’ home. There is no need for this to have gotten 

this far, and I do not understand how it gets this far if we have 

a court process that is supposed to be monitoring and looking at 

these issues. 

We had another case several years ago that probably is the saddest case that I have ever encountered in my entire history of 

working with people with disabilities or people who are seniors, 

7 

and this was not a professional guardian. This was a family member. And this is not the first time this has happened. Dad had remarried, so it was his second wife, and the daughter just did not 

like this second wife. And so she was able to get guardianship, and 

this was before our laws changed in Minnesota. She was able to 

state that for the best interest of her father, the second wife should 

not visit the father. The father, unfortunately, was beginning to 

slip away in dementia, and as he still had some lucid moments, he 

would question us why his wife was not coming to visit him. ‘‘Why 

doesn’t she love me anymore? Where is she?’’ And there was no 

court review to actually see what decisions the guardian was making and how this was harming this gentleman. He slipped into the 

final stages of dementia thinking that this woman that he loved 

and that he had chosen for his second wife did not love him anymore and did not come to visit. 

I have about 30 seconds, so I guess I have to talk a lot faster. 

The other case that I wanted to tell you about is just the timeliness of the court. We are working with an individual woman who, 

in March, showed some signs of dementia, so she was appointed a 

professional guardian. But family members are arguing about who 

can visit on what days. Believe it or not, these are the kinds of 

things that make it to the court. The court has been bringing in 

experts to determine what would be beneficial for her. Our office 

came up with a visitation schedule that everyone agreed to except 

one attorney—one attorney of the entire family members—because 

it was informal mediation instead of formal mediation. So she is 

still left without visits from the family. This started in March. 

I have 1 second—OK. You know, so what I want to say is that 

the idea of looking at things that have happened in Minnesota and 

in other States, such as the Bill of Rights for People under Guardianship, when we reformed the guardianship in 2009, one of the 

best things that we did pertained to these visits. The law used to 

read that guardians could make a decision about who could visit 

whom based on the best interest of the ward. Now the burden of 

proof is switched. We got language in there that says you can only 

restrict a visitor if you can show that there was harm with this visitor coming there. 

So what that means is that you and I are entitled to have mom 

or that brother or that friend that gets into an argument with us 

and it is just part of that routine that we have. Maybe it is just 

an argumentative relationship, or it is the ups and downs. How 

many of us get along with our family members 100 percent of the 

time? What this law will allow us to do is to enable people to have 

the visitors, people that mean the most in their lives, come and 

visit them, and the burden of proof is switched to be now on the 

guardian. 

I guess I am going over, so now would be a good time, if you 

want to grill me, because then I can go into more—— 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. We will do that at the end of the panel. 

Ms. HOLTZ. OK. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. As fun as that is going to be, we will do 

that at the end. 

Ms. HOLTZ. All right. 

8 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Holtz appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. You just cannot 

wait for it. 

We will go on to Ms. Karp. Thank you so much. 

STATEMENT OF NAOMI KARP, SENIOR STRATEGIC POLICY 

ADVISOR, AARP PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. KARP. Thank you. Chairman Klobuchar, Senator Franken, 

thank you for giving AARP the opportunity to address the critical 

topic of protecting older adults with court-appointed guardians. 

Guardianship is a powerful legal tool that can bring good or ill 

for an increasing number of vulnerable adults. It provides necessary decisionmakers for people with diminished capacity and protects them from abuse—yet it also removes fundamental rights and 

may increase the opportunities for abuse of the very people we 

strive to protect. 

As you know, a State court judge appoints a guardian who steps 

into the shoes of an incapacitated adult and makes judgments 

about property, medical care, living arrangements, lifestyle, and 

potentially all personal and financial decisions. 

And the number of these guardianship appointments will continue to grow dramatically, as we know, due to the increasing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, the extended life span of people with 

developmental disabilities, and the rising incidence of elder abuse 

because guardianship can be a remedy for elder abuse. The data 

are scarce, but the National Center for State Courts recently estimated that about 1.5 million adults nationally have guardians. In 

other words, there are as many people with court-appointed guardians as there are residents in U.S. nursing homes at any given 

time. And as you also know, our Federal and State governments 

have longstanding and comprehensive structures in place to protect 

nursing home residents. But who is guarding the guardians? 

AARP has long advocated that individuals subject to guardianship receive full due process rights, and that once guardians are 

appointed, courts fully monitor cases, identify abuses, and sanction 

guardians who demonstrate malfeasance. 

When a guardian is abusive, he or she is cloaked in the court’s 

authority and can really be a wolf in Little Red Riding Hood’s 

cape—often with no one protecting grandmother. The victim may 

not be able to seek help. Abusers often isolate their victims, and 

people with cognitive impairments are easier to isolate. The majority of guardians are family members, and, of course, many of them 

do a great job and are very well meaning. But a national elder 

abuse study found that 5.2 percent of older adults experience financial mistreatment by a family member, and that is only the tip of 

the iceberg. 

As mentioned by the GAO, AARP’s Public Policy Institute and 

the ABA Commission on Law and Aging spent 2 years studying 

how courts monitor guardians. We found many troubling signs, although there are some bright spots. In our 2006 survey of judges, 

lawyers, guardians, and others in the system, we learned that we 

have a long way to go. 

9 

For example, we found that although almost all States require 

guardians to file annual reports and accounts, one-third of survey 

respondents said that no one at all at their court verifies these 

records; and even more troubling, 40 percent of our respondents 

said that no one is assigned to visit the wards, which is really the 

only real way to see how they are faring. 

These are not deliberate failings. The fact is that most courts 

simply lack the staff, the resources, the knowledge. and the time 

to effectively monitor. 

So in 2007, we wanted to look at what was the good news out 

there, what were the promising practices, and we found that some 

dedicated courts are making great strides by harnessing technology, using volunteers, and working with the aging network. 

Some of the key practices are requiring that guardians file prospective plans so that the courts can then later, you know, go back and 

measure whether they are doing what they said they would do. 

They have visits to the incapacitated person at home either by staff 

investigators or trained volunteers who serve as really the eyes and 

ears of the court, and random audits of accounting and so forth. 

Senator Klobuchar, as you mentioned already, one of the most 

promising practices we found back in 2007 was the system of electronic filing in Ramsey County, which was very impressive. And 

just to explain it a little bit more, the software allows guardians 

to submit their annual accounting in a uniform online format. The 

system does the math, thereby avoiding common accounting errors. 

But more importantly, the system can be set up to have red flags 

automatically built in, so that, for example, if the closing balance 

in one year’s report does not match the opening balance the next 

year, or if something extraordinary shows up, automatically a red 

flag can pop up that is showing that maybe this guardianship has 

gone bad. And then a human being on the court staff can investigate and, you know, perhaps find a case like the one you described, Senator Klobuchar. So we should encourage the replication 

of practices like that. 

I know my time is running out. I just wanted to mention also the 

criminal background checks you cited, the statistics that so few 

States are recommending them. We support the notion of criminal 

background check screening. We think that that is extremely important. 

In closing, I would just like to quote Judge Steve King, who is 

a Texas judge with a very comprehensive monitoring program, and 

Judge King said: ‘‘People will not always do what you expect, but 

they will do what you inspect.’’ And AARP looks forward to working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to help 

give hard-working courts the opportunity to inspect where needed 

to protect vulnerable older people. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Karp appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Also now we have been joined by Senator Blumenthal, former Attorney General of Connecticut, who I know has done work in this 

area as well. 

Please, Mr. Baldwin. 

10 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. BALDWIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL CENTER FOR 

STATE COURTS, WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA 

Mr. BALDWIN. Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, 

the National Center for State Courts is a private nonprofit corporation formed 40 years ago at the behest of then Chief Justice of the 

United States, Warren E. Burger. The mission of the center is to 

promote the rule of law and to improve the administration of justice in the State courts, and we appreciate this opportunity to testify today. 

Each year, the center produces a report that tries to set forth 

some of the trends that will be affecting and are affecting the State 

courts. In 2008, that report highlighted the fact that, in less than 

25 years, the senior population—those over 65 in this country— 

would more than double to over 70 million people. The report went 

on to talk about some of the challenges that this demographic shift 

would bring about and some of the needed actions. 

Pursuing those challenges and responding to them, the National 

Center has been working with the National College of Probate 

Judges to try to update and expand the national standards for probate courts. Given the fact that practice and procedure vary from 

State to State, these standards provide an opportunity for greater 

uniformity, consistency, and hopefully continued improvement of 

the probate practices of our Nation’s courts. 

In addition, the National Center created within its own organization a Center for Courts and the Elderly. That center provides the 

opportunity for research, for training and educational tools, as well 

as a forum for judges and aging experts from around the country 

to get together and talk about these issues, and obviously a website 

to provide resource information. 

In 2009, the center conducted a survey, the results of which led 

to recommendations by the Conference of Chief Justices and the 

Conference of State Court Administrators Task Force on Courts 

and the Elderly. Those recommendations are very consistent with 

the findings of the GAO report and with some of the things that 

have already been mentioned here today. They include that each 

State should, in fact, collect information on the number of 

guardianships, the number of conservatorships, the number of 

elder abuse cases that are filed, pending, and concluded each year; 

that each State should adopt and implement procedures to more effectively monitor the performance of conservators and guardians; 

that each State experiment with technology, in order to document, 

track, and more effectively monitor these types of cases; and, finally that both Federal, State, and private funds should be sought 

to support the collection and analysis of national information on 

guardianship cases and best court practices. 

This latter point, the need for credible data in this regard, is particularly important. It is very difficult to solve a problem you do 

not understand or do not have much information about. And as has 

already been said, we at this point in time can only estimate the 

number of open guardianship cases and that estimate is 1.5 million. 

We commend the Senator on your efforts to assess the effects of 

conducting background checks on prospective conservators as well 

11 

as introducing the electronic filing of accountings and other reports. These are steps in the right direction. 

We especially commend the proposed possibility of a Guardianship Court Improvement Program modeled after the Court Improvement Program for Abused and Neglected Children. That program has been exceptionally successful in raising the awareness of 

this issue, creating collaborations, improving training and collection of data, and improving outcomes. 

The Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State 

Court Administrators last year endorsed the creation of a Guardianship Court Improvement Program. In addition to assessing the 

State laws and practices, such a program could also be very effective in leading to the creation of statewide guardianship task forces 

in those States that do not already have them, to the development 

of local data collection systems, to the creation of statewide court 

guardianship coordination positions, and to the development of 

State court action plans. Implementation of such action plans that 

were developed under the CIP program for abused and neglected 

children has been very successful and has contributed to reducing 

the number of children in foster care. We are confident that such 

a Guardianship Court Improvement Program would have equally 

positive benefits for those adults with diminished capacity and for 

the public in general. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baldwin appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Ms. Hollister. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE R. HOLLISTER, MANAGING 

PARTNER, SOLKOFF LEGAL, P.A., DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 

Ms. HOLLISTER. Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Hollister. 

Currently, I am an elder law attorney with Solkoff Legal, P.A., in 

Delray Beach, Florida. Prior to my joining the Solkoff firm, I was 

appointed by Governor Bush and continued under Governor Crist 

as executive director of Florida’s Statewide Public Guardianship 

Office. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. 

I begin by asking that everyone in this room consider what happens if you do not make it home tonight. Nobody likes to think 

about unexpected life-altering injuries, but they occur every day to 

many people, and these events leave permanent damage. We live 

good lives, and we try not to think about bad things. We fail to 

plan because planning means admitting to our own frailty. 

If you needed assistance, who would you turn to? If something 

happened to you, who would take care of those who depend on you? 

We really have two choices: One is to self-delegate so that we pick 

the people who can do for us if we cannot do for ourselves. The second choice is to do nothing. If we do nothing, every State has provided a system of guardianship. 

Guardianship is expensive, time-consuming, and very intrusive. 

Because people often do not do the planning themselves, the demand on the social services and judicial systems continues to grow. 

Guardians do for others what others can no longer do: make sure 

12 

doctors are visited, there is a roof over your head, food on the table, 

clothes on your back, medicines are available, money is in the 

bank. And the list goes on and on. And with all this responsibility, 

many States have little or no oversight over guardians. 

With problems have come attempts at solutions. In the 1980’s, 

the South Florida media began an investigative series on the lack 

of guardianship oversight. As a result, legislation was adopted that 

required courts to conduct credit and criminal history reviews of 

professional guardians and allowed courts to exercise discretion for 

non-professional guardians. 

The recognition of this need for guardianship monitoring was significant. Broward County, home to one of the largest populations 

of older Americans, was compelled to take action though no resources were available. They implemented an investigation fee, 

along with charging the applicant for the actual costs of the investigation. The program was implemented for all professional and 

non-professional guardians in Broward County. That was almost 15 

years ago. The investigation fee, along with some county dollars 

and space, funds two full-time staff. This has become one of the few 

court monitor offices in our State. The office also supports independent contractors that are appointed to provide oversight on an 

as-needed basis and who are compensated from the assets of the 

ward. 

Shortly after establishing legislative authority for the background screening and court monitors, the Florida Legislature created the Statewide Public Guardianship Office. The original purpose of the office was for the State to appoint and oversee public 

guardians—guardians that serve indigent people that have nobody 

to assist them. Upon recognition of the need to implement professional guardian oversight, the Statewide Public Guardianship Office was charged with the responsibility to oversee all of the professional guardians, whether for the indigent or not. 

The goal of the statewide office became to assist the courts in 

identifying professional guardians who are competent to assume 

the responsibilities of managing the person and property of others. 

The basis for the Florida statewide program evolved from a 2003 

study done by a Subcommittee of the Florida Supreme Court Commission on Fairness. The report provided guidance on the components of a guardianship monitoring program, and it specified four 

areas, the foundation being the ongoing screening of guardians. 

Every professional guardian in Florida must be registered with 

the Statewide Public Guardianship Office. Registration includes a 

State and Federal criminal history every 2 years unless the person 

is electronically printed. There is a review of the professional 

guardian’s credit history every 2 years. Florida was one of the first 

States to require professional guardians pass an examination in addition to its mandatory 40 hours of instruction. 

In order to create and implement the exam, the State issued a 

request for proposals that indicated no monies were available for 

the initiative. The Center for Guardianship Certification already 

had an exam in place and, therefore, was able to provide the test 

at no cost to the State by charging the applicant $250. The professional guardian also pays a small registration fee, currently $35, to 

the statewide office. 

13 

In addition to the above, the professional guardian must complete 16 continuing education hours every 2 years and annually 

submit proof that they have a bond. The Statewide Public Guardianship Office maintains a real-time data base on its website for 

the judiciary as well as the public to confirm a professional guardian’s licensure is current. 

The remaining components of Florida’s monitoring program fall 

within the purview of the presiding judge. Those areas include: the 

annual reporting on the well-being of the ward, the annual reporting on the protection of the ward’s assets, and ongoing case administration. Florida continues to strive toward guardianship monitoring innovations. Earlier this month, the Palm Beach County 

Clerk of Court unveiled a guardianship fraud hotline with Florida 

inspector general staff dedicated to conducting high-level financial 

audits upon the request of the public and the judiciary. 

I am conflicted to be here touting Florida’s accomplishments because those that work within the area are aware that there is 

much left to do. Although I am proud of what we did with little 

resources, please know there is still much more work in this area. 

I began by asking what would happen if you did not make it 

home tonight. Accidents happen all the time. The bottom line is 

that if you do not have advance health care directives and power 

of attorney documents, chances are great that you will end up the 

subject of a guardianship. And if so, is anybody watching over your 

guardian? 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hollister appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. That was 

very interesting testimony, and helpful. I guess I will start where 

we ended here with you, Ms. Hollister, and just ask you if you 

think this has improved things. Are there actual statistics? It 

sounds like Florida—which we all know has a major population of 

seniors, many of them from Minnesota who like to go down there 

for the weather. Do you have numbers to show that there was improvement with that coming in? 

Ms. HOLLISTER. That is one of the challenges that we do not 

have—— 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. You probably did not have a baseline. 

Ms. HOLLISTER. No. 1, not a baseline, and the technology that is 

available is not able to capture—we can tell you anecdotally that 

the courts have reported that there is a decrease similar to the 

words, I guess, of the Texas judge that now they know they are 

being inspected. And so anecdotally we know. But to facts and figures, the technology exists, but we do not have the resources to implement. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. And then the public data base that you 

talked about, what is on there exactly? The credentials or the— 

what is that? 

Ms. HOLLISTER. It lets the public as well as the judges know that 

a professional guardian’s licensure is current, so that means that 

they have passed their credit and criminal history, they have maintained their CEUs, their continuing education, passed the State 

14 

exam, their bond is current, and that they could be appointed on 

a case. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. And it sounds like—and maybe we will 

go to some of the other people, to you, Ms. Karp. I think the statistics that Ms. Brown brought up, that only nine States do the criminal background checks, and so this must be a little more advanced 

in some of the other States. Or do you have any opinion of what 

other States are doing? 

Ms. KARP. My sense really is—oh sorry. I mostly know about 

what is in their statutes, and it is very surprising to me. I believe 

it is only 13 States require the background checks. We do not even 

have an idea how many of them are actually doing them, what systems they have, how they are paying for them, because there is a 

cost for them. So I do not think we have a picture of what the reality is. We just know what laws are on the books. 

Unfortunately, in many cases the guardianship laws in general 

that are on the books are great. There are monitoring requirements. There are a lot of due process requirements. But it is really 

where the rubber meets the road. How is it being implemented and 

is anyone really investigating? And with very few resources, in 

many cases they do not seem to be. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. So is that why—maybe you, Ms. Karp, 

and Ms. Holtz could chime in, Mr. Baldwin. Is that why that 

Ramsey County program we talked about where they do the e-filing—I am trying to think of how you—I am sure there are legislative changes that can be made. We have some ideas here that we 

are working on. But does the e-filing—I would guess with the trigger system, maybe it is a more efficient way of catching these 

things than having a court monitor every single thing. I do not 

know if one of you wants to—the court gets involved after there is 

a trigger, or someone does. 

Ms. HOLTZ. Madam Chair, members, it is important to remember 

with the e-filing that it is only for conservators in Minnesota, so 

it is only looking at financial accounts. It does not take into account any of the guardianship and the things that actually happen 

to the person. But I think it has got potential to do that with flags 

that could be written into a software program for the same thing. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. OK. Ms. Karp? 

Ms. KARP. And if I could add, I think one of the beauties of it— 

my understanding, at least when it was developed initially in 

Ramsey County—was developing the software itself was not that 

expensive, in the area of $50,000. The problem most courts have 

is that they do not have the personnel to monitor, to actually read 

the reports and do any verification and visit. So the benefit of this 

is it really could save dollars because of the automated feature. 

And so then when the red flags do pop up, that is when we could 

put our human capital into really investigating the cases, but we 

can have those automatic red flags popping up in every case because of the automation of it. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Baldwin, the legislation that we are 

working on would allow for State courts to assess and improve 

their practices and procedures for appointing and monitoring the 

guardians. We based this idea to some degree on a court improvement program for child welfare. Could you tell us is there any inVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 071059 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71059.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15 

formation about how these court improvement programs have been 

beneficial? 

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, I think the Court Improvement Program for 

Abused and Neglected Children, as I indicated earlier, has been 

widely accepted as being effective. First of all, they had several national summits that brought together State teams that were 

charged with creating State individual plans. These were interdisciplinary teams that returned home with an action plan to work 

not only in the courts but with the social service agencies to improve the processing of those cases which included improving the 

laws, improving court practices and procedures, and creating a 

forum for collaboration. 

So there is a good history, I think, behind how that has worked, 

so it is, I believe, an exceptionally good model for the program you 

are talking about, and we believe that would be a very effective 

way to proceed. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Very good. We will be working with you 

moving forward. 

Ms. Brown, I know that the GAO has issued several reports over 

the years. You mentioned them in your testimony. Since issuing 

these reports, what changes have you seen in the way that State 

courts oversee guardianship procedures? And do you believe that 

the conditions have worsened for those because of budget constraints across the country for those involved in guardianship? I 

was just thinking we know—I think the number of seniors in our 

State are doubling by the year 2030. Maybe I used those stats 10 

years ago, but clearly we are seeing—what did we call it?—the ‘‘silver tsunami’’ that there is going to be a lot more seniors, and I 

would think that the needs to make sure that we are monitoring 

these effectively are going to increase. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. When we did this most recent report, one of our 

tasks was to look back and see what kind of changes the States 

that we had looked at earlier had made, and I think the bottom 

line there is the changes were in fits and spurts. States are picking 

up one idea that they think is good, or they are making a couple 

changes and then the next year making a few more changes. But 

the idea of having a set of good practices or a set of standards for 

courts to follow I think is something that can be really helpful in 

a situation like this where we have so many different situations because these are State-administered courts. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Mr. Baldwin, do you want to 

add something? Then I am going to turn to Senator Franken. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, I would just add to that I think this is an excellent example of where impetus can be provided by introduction 

of Federal funds. I know that everyone—— 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Federal legislation. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, right. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. And maybe some funds. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BALDWIN. I know everyone says that, but what the States 

and the courts many times are in need of is that spark, sowing that 

seed. There are plenty of good ideas that are out there, and they 

need that little impetus to get started, and then the momentum 

builds. I think then you would see some significant improvements. 

16 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. I agree. We saw that with everything 

from domestic abuse with the VAWA bill and that it did training 

and other things. We see it with everything from seat belt rules 

that have crossed the States, but just there is still something to 

setting some standards our federally. Even if they are suggested 

standards, that can make a difference, and then tying hopefully pilots to them and other things that we can try out. So it just puts 

it in a bigger way for the other court systems to look at. Thank 

you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to commend you for convening this hearing and for raising awareness on 

these issues and for your suggestion of pilots, which is a way of 

getting programs started without across-the-board funding around 

the country. 

Many Minnesotans work very hard every day to ensure that our 

seniors receive the care that they need and deserve, and those people, I believe, are unsung heroes. 

Unfortunately, we have recently been reminded of instances of 

elder abuse and that they still occur, and obviously that is unacceptable. And that is why I am planning to introduce legislation to 

expand the long-term care ombudsman program to serve seniors in 

the home and community-based setting, in both of those. 

Ms. Holtz, this is where the grilling starts. As Minnesota’s longterm care ombudsman, do you see an opportunity for ombudsmen 

to have more involvement in protecting vulnerable seniors both in 

nursing facilities and at home? 

Ms. HOLTZ. Absolutely, and I think we have an obligation as 

more and more people state that they want to remain in their 

homes and in their communities. So, yes, we have great opportunities and an obligation for it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Now, all these recent reports of abuse in the 

State guardianship system demonstrate how important it is for 

seniors to have explicit rights and protections written into the law. 

Minnesota has a home care bill of rights, as you mentioned, to protect seniors who receive home care services, and recently passed a 

bill of rights to address some of the abuses in the guardianship 

context. What can we all learn from Minnesota’s experiences with 

these bills of rights? 

Ms. HOLTZ. You know, we had good success in 2009 getting the 

bill of rights into legislation, and actually I want to give credit publicly to MAGIC. That is the trade association in Minnesota that 

looks at—it is the Minnesota Association for Guardianship and 

Conservatorship, and they really had all of these rights listed already. And when it was suggested that it be put into law, actually 

some people had questions about it because that makes it a little 

stricter, and then you have to enforce it. 

But we came together and we got them into law, and I think one 

of the things that does, even if you do not have enough funding for 

enforcement and monitoring, it gives people information, it gives 

people the power to know that they have choices and they have 

rights. If they are involuntarily discharged from home care or if 

they are facing abuse from a guardian, they know that they have 

rights in the law. They can call our office. They can call others. So 

17 

it is a first step. It has to be followed by enforcement and monitoring, but it is a good standard to have. And I believe with some 

of these pilot projects we can do a great service working together 

across the Nation to look at either some standardized bill of rights 

or just the idea that every State should have a bill of rights for people. 

Senator FRANKEN. And not only does the person who—the senior, 

say, understand these rights, but also their family members, et 

cetera. 

Ms. HOLTZ. Correct. 

Senator FRANKEN. And that makes a difference. 

Ms. HOLTZ. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Senator FRANKEN. Ms. Karp, in your testimony you mentioned 

the importance of identifying local models that can provide best 

practices for the rest of the country. In Hennepin County in Minnesota, which the Chair was the chief prosecutor of, the local adult 

protective services program screens guardians and provides them 

with ongoing training to make sure they are acting in the best interest of seniors and other vulnerable adults. 

The legislation I was discussing just now with Ms. Holtz recognizes the importance of adult protective services programs and encourages more coordination between adult protective services and 

the ombudsman program. Do you agree that there is a role for 

adult protective services and the ombudsman to play in protecting 

seniors from maltreatment by guardians? 

Ms. KARP. Absolutely, and we know that adult protective services 

sometimes is called in to investigate a case when there is no guardian and there is abuse, and then they identify the fact that the person does no longer have the capacity to make decisions for themselves, and they may be the ones to initiate or trigger a guardianship which can be protective. So that is one very important role 

they can play. 

On the other hand, when we have a guardian appointed and then 

there is some evidence that there is abuse by the guardian, adult 

protective services can be brought in to investigate, and that can 

lead to sanctions or removal of the guardian. 

So on many fronts, adult protective services plays a key role. 

Similarly, the ombudsman, you know, is the other very important 

State entity that really is charged with protecting people who may 

not be able to speak for or protect themselves. And with elder 

abuse, we know that a multidisciplinary approach, whether it be 

through multidisciplinary teams or task forces, is really the way to 

go because we need expertise from multiple agencies and professions. So I would totally agree. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Holtz, as I mentioned, the vast majority of people who work 

in the elder care field do a great job, and I commend them. But a 

few bad actors is all that it takes to undermine confidence in the 

system. I recently read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune 

about a lawyer who had been disbarred because she lied to her clients and mismanaged their cases, but who was still appointed to 

be a guardian for dozens of incapacitated adults. We should not be 

entrusting our seniors to someone like that, obviously, so my bill 

would establish quality assurance standards for home and commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 071059 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71059.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18 

nity-based service providers. This would give seniors and their families information about whether a home care worker has received 

a background check or has been trained. 

Would standards like this help protect our seniors? 

Ms. HOLTZ. Absolutely, and we need more of that, and we need 

more transparency. Even with the background checks that take 

place in Minnesota, consumers do not get the information about a 

misdemeanor or some offense that took place years ago that allows 

the person to still go through the process. So we need all of that. 

Your language in your bill would be absolutely necessary and very 

good. It would prevent a lot. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. My time is up. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, and thank 

you all for being here, especially the folks who have come from 

Minnesota, whose Senators are doing great work on this issue. We 

really appreciate their leadership, and it is no accident that they 

are both here today, because, speaking very seriously, they have 

really championed this cause, as you know. It is just supremely important to all of us around the country who have any contact in 

this area; whether it is through law enforcement or just plain citizens, children, parents, friends, and neighbors, all are affected. 

One of my quandaries here is what really is the barrier or barriers, the major barriers, to information sharing. Obviously there 

are privacy protections. There are institutional obstacles, State, 

Federal, courts, governments, and so forth. So maybe I can ask 

each of you what are the three major information-sharing barriers 

when it comes to background checks or principally the qualifications and bona fides of people who serve in this critical relationship 

of trust and stewardship with people whom they know, some they 

do not know. So maybe we can go down the line and ask each of 

you to comment on that. 

Ms. BROWN. I think you mentioned one of the most important 

ones, and that has to do with the challenges with data sharing and 

technology. And one of the things we are finding in many different 

areas—I do some work in child abuse protections as well, and we 

saw two things again and again, one being challenges with sharing 

data because of the systems, the other being challenges with sharing data because of concerns about privacy. I think there is a real 

fear among some organizations that sharing information about individuals would be detrimental, and so maybe some really important information does not get shared. 

And the third piece you also mentioned, and that is the collaboration across different organizations. These are multifaceted problems, and trust and support across the community organizations is 

always a challenge. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Holtz. 

Ms. HOLTZ. I think you would lose a lot of those barriers if you 

have the consent of the individual or their representative. Our office has a very unique part in the Federal law that states we are 

not mandated reporters, and that is because when Congress enacted this law decades ago, they wanted one place where seniors 

19 

could go and share any kind of information and know that it would 

not be shared without their consent. But we almost always have 

the consent of them if we are working with adult protection and 

other systems to get it going. 

To answer your broader question, though, we need a national 

system. We need a system, a data base, or a registry so that the 

bad apple that gets fired in Alabama cannot move up to Minnesota 

and do the same thing because we did not know about it occurring 

in another State. So we need a national registry or a national data 

base. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Rather than just State systems that share 

information with each other. 

Ms. HOLTZ. Absolutely. You still need the State systems that 

share, but we are seeing too many of these things occurring where 

people move around from State to State. They prey on the victims. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. KARP. I guess the first one I want to stress—and this is 

something that the GAO has now repeated in, I think, three reports over the last 8 years—is the Social Security Administration 

representative payee program, the VA fiduciary system, and the 

State court guardianship systems all frequently serve the same 

people, and yet there are no systems for them to talk to one another. And, in particular, Social Security has always been extremely concerned that the Privacy Act bars them from sharing the 

information. On the other hand, everyone knows that if one of 

those three entities has identified a bad apple, you know, shouldn’t 

we be sharing that with the others? Because why should someone 

be removed as a Social Security rep payee and still be appointed 

by the State court to serve as a guardian and have control over the 

finances? So that is a big barrier, and we need to really clear up 

that Privacy Act issue and those other barriers. 

Second, I think within States we have a lack of coordination. We 

at AARP Public Policy Institute looked at criminal background 

check screening in home care and the pilot project in long-term 

care, and one of the issues has been that a lot of different State 

agencies do background checks on the same individuals, and they 

are not coordinating, and that is wasting resources. So if we had 

different State agencies working together, we could save repeated 

checks; we could share information; we could have a tiered system 

that makes sense. So coordination within the State. 

And then, finally, I think just the fact that we lack staff to do 

all of these things, we lack staff at the courts; we lack staff at APS; 

we lack staff at the long-term care ombudsman. There is only so 

far we can go on screening people when we do not have the people 

to administer the systems and to look and make sure we are keeping the bad apples out. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But even without staff, which requires resources and money, you are saying—and others have confirmed— 

that some of the institutional or legal barriers are—not easily, but 

at least they are alterable? 

Ms. KARP. It would appear to be, and I know that the VA is definitely making some strides to try to coordinate, and so I do not see 

why we cannot have more of that across—— 

20 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. The VA is making those efforts, but most 

of the beneficiaries or most of the people who are in guardianships 

would be in SSA. Is that correct? 

Ms. KARP. Probably more—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I think the GAO report makes that point. 

Ms. KARP. Yes. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I think the points already made are very good 

ones, and I might expand on your question just slightly to speak 

from the courts’ perspective. One of the things which is somewhat 

of an institutional barrier to all of this, not just the sharing of information, is that courts are primarily—in the overwhelming majority of cases they deal with, reactive entities. If a court decides 

that a plaintiff is entitled to some money and then orders the defendant to pay money, they do not then monitor whether or not the 

defendant is paying the plaintiff money. They rely upon the defendant to come back to court if he is not being paid the money. 

If you take that mind-set, in most of what the court does, they 

do not have in place systems or staff or anything else to monitor, 

keep up with, investigate, report on, share information with and so 

forth. So anytime you have a category of cases—many times in the 

family area—that requires the court to do something that is out of 

sync with what its normal institutional requirements are, it means 

creating new systems, creating new ways of doing things, changing 

mentalities, and more expenditures of money. And so I think that 

from a court’s perspective that is fundamentally something that is 

dealt with on a piecemeal basis, but it is why things lag behind 

and take longer to be corrected. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. My time has actually expired, 

so, Ms. Hollister, I do not know whether—— 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. If you want to ask another question, that 

is fine. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. No, I just want to give Ms. Hollister a 

chance to answer the question that has already been asked. I did 

not want to cut you off. 

Ms. HOLLISTER. Well, I appreciate that. In my experience, what 

everybody has said has held true for me as well. The only thing 

that I would add quickly is the problem that we see, ironically, is 

the technology, that everybody has different systems, and so to get 

everybody’s system to talk to each other actually can be a stumbling block, and that would be the only point I would want to add. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Senator Franken, do you have any additional questions? 

Senator FRANKEN. No, I do not. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman KLOBUCHAR. Well, very good. Well, I want to thank everyone because it has been incredibly helpful for all of us to hear 

the good things. I was thinking with my little story I told, the bad 

story of the girl and the trustee case, in fact, the one that caught 

the problem was a guardian. And so we know that there are guardians that do good work every day. But we also know, as we see, 

as I said, a doubling of our senior population, as we see limited resources on the State basis, we are going to have to do a much better job of inspecting and monitoring this situation and hopefully 

21 

putting some better standards in place and learning from these 

best practices. So we will be introducing our legislation soon with 

Senator Nelson and Senator Kohl, and I just want to thank all of 

your for your good work in this area. 

I think we are going to leave the record open for a week, and I 

just want to—again, this has been incredibly helpful. The stories 

are heartbreaking. I know the victims’ stories, and a number of 

them here are just as heartbreaking as the ones we heard today. 

As I noted, we want to include their stories in our record, and we 

want to thank you, and we will continue to work with you in the 

future to improve this system. 

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

22 


71059.001
23 


71059.002
24 


71059.003
25 


71059.004
26 


71059.005
27 


71059.006
28 


71059.007
29 


71059.008
30 


71059.009
31 


71059.010
32 


71059.011
33 


71059.012
34 


71059.013
35 


71059.014
36 


71059.015
37 


71059.016
38 


71059.017
39 


71059.018
40 


71059.019
41 


71059.020
42 


71059.021
43 


71059.022
44 


71059.023
45 


71059.024
46 


71059.025
47 


71059.026
48 


71059.027
49 


71059.028
50 


71059.029
51 


71059.030
52 


71059.031
53 


71059.032
54 


71059.033
55 


71059.034
56 


71059.035
57 


71059.036
58 


71059.037
59 


71059.038
60 


71059.039
61 


71059.040
62 


71059.041
63 


71059.042
64 


71059.043
65 


71059.044
66 


71059.045
67 


71059.046
68 


71059.047
69 


71059.048
70 


71059.049
71 


71059.050
72 


71059.051
73 


71059.052
74 


71059.053
75 


71059.054
76 


71059.055
77 


71059.056
78 


71059.057
79 


71059.058
80 


71059.059
81 


71059.060
82 


71059.061
83 


71059.062
84 


71059.063
85 

Æ 


71059.064