3. Social Services-Guardian and Protective Serv funding
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
County Commission
>
2006
>
05-15-2006
>
Regular Agenda
>
3. Social Services-Guardian and Protective Serv funding
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2006 12:01:03 PM
Creation date
6/5/2006 1:16:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Court Cases Involvin!! Public Guardianship <br />. Litigation is an important but little used strategy for strengthening public <br />guardianship programs. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />Individuals Served <br />. States should provide adequate funding for home and community-based care for <br />wards under public guardianship. <br />. The effect of public guardianship services on wards over time merits study. <br /> <br />Pro!!ram Characteristics <br />. States would benefit from an updated model public guardianship act. <br />. States should avoid a social services agency model. <br /> <br />Functions of Public Guardianship Pro!!rams <br />. State public guardianship programs should establish standardized forms and <br />reporting instruments. <br />. Public guardianship programs should limit their functions to best serve individuals <br />with the greatest needs. <br />. Public guardianship programs should adopt minimum standards of practice. <br />. Public guardianship programs should not petition for their own appointment, should <br />identify others to petition, and should implement multidisciplinary screening <br />committees to review potential cases. <br />. Public guardianship programs should track cost savings to the state and report the <br />amount regularly to the legislature and the govemor. <br />. Public guardianship programs should undergo a periodic and meaningful external <br />evaluation. <br /> <br />Fundin!! and Staron!! ofPro!!rams <br />. Public guardianship programs should be capped at specific staff-to-ward ratios. <br />. States should provide adequate funding for public guardianship programs. <br />. Research should explore state approaches to use of Medicaid to fund public <br />guardianship. <br /> <br />Public Guardianship as Part of State Guardianship System: Due Process <br />Protections and Other Reform Issues <br />. State court administrative offices should move toward the collection of uniform, <br />consistent basic data elements on adult guardianship, including public guardianship. <br />. Courts should exercise increased oversight of public guardianship programs. <br />. Courts should increase the use of limited orders in public guardianship. <br />. Courts should waive costs and filing fees for indigent public guardianship wards. <br />. Courts should examine the role of guardians ad Ii/em and court investigators, <br />especially as it bears on the public guardianship system. <br />. Research should explore the functioning of the Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act, <br />as implemented by the states. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.