[Senate Hearing 118-13]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]










                                                         S. Hrg. 118-13

                     GUARDIANSHIP AND ALTERNATIVES: 
                       PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS


                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                             WASHINGTON, DC

                               ----------                              

                             MARCH 30, 2023

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 118-02

         Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging




    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

































                                                         S. Hrg. 118-13

                     GUARDIANSHIP AND ALTERNATIVES:
                       PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS


                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             WASHINGTON, DC

                               __________

                             MARCH 30, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-02

         Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging






    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]








        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov     
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
52-114 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
                       SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

              ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York      MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             J.D. VANCE, Ohio
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania         PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
                              ----------                              
               Elizabeth Letter, Majority Staff Director
                Matthew Sommer, Minority Staff Director  
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Opening Statement of Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr., Chairman......     1
Opening Statement of Senator Mike Braun, Ranking Member..........     2

                           PANEL OF WITNESSES

Tina Paone, M.D., Professor and Licensed Professional Counselor, 
  Lansdale, Pennsylvania.........................................     4
Ryan King, Guardianship Reform Advocate, (accompanied by Susie 
  King, Ryan's mother), Washington, D.C..........................     6
Nick Parker, Staff Attorney, Adult Guardianship Office, Indiana 
  Office of Court Services, Indiana Supreme Court, Indianapolis, 
  Indiana........................................................     7
Karrie Shogren, Ph.D., Director, Kansas University Center on 
  Developmental Disabilities, Lawrence, Kansas...................     9

                                APPENDIX
                      Prepared Witness Statements

Tina Paone, M.D., Professor and Licensed Professional Counselor, 
  Lansdale, Pennsylvania.........................................    27
Ryan King, Guardianship Reform Advocate, Washington, D.C.........    29
Nick Parker, Staff Attorney, Adult Guardianship Office, Indiana 
  Office of Court Services, Indiana Supreme Court, Indianapolis, 
  Indiana........................................................    31
Karrie Shogren, Ph.D., Director, Kansas University Center on 
  Developmental Disabilities, Lawrence, Kansas...................    33

                        Questions for the Record

Nick Parker, Staff Attorney, Adult Guardianship Office, Indiana 
  Office of Court Services, Indiana Supreme Court, Indianapolis, 
  Indiana........................................................    45
Karrie Shogren, Ph.D., Director, Kansas University Center on 
  Developmental Disabilities, Lawrence, Kansas...................    47

                       Statements for the Record

Elder Justice Coalition Statement................................    53
Statement's for the Record.......................................    54

 
                     GUARDIANSHIP AND ALTERNATIVES: 
                       PROTECTION AND EMPOWERMENT 

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 30, 2023

                                        U.S. Senate
                                 Special Committee on Aging
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Room 
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senator Casey, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Braun, 
Scott, and Vance.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR 
                 ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., CHAIRMAN

    The Chairman. The Senate Special Committee on Aging will 
come to order. This is the second hearing of the Special 
Committee on Aging in the 118th Congress. Senator Braun, thank 
you for your continued partnership on this Committee, as well 
as all the members. Today, we will discuss the topic of growing 
national concern, guardianships of older adults and people with 
disabilities.
    The data we have suggests that guardianships affect at 
least 1.3 million people in the United States who have a 
disability, or are an older adult. In many cases, guardianship 
is a blunt legal tool that transfers all decision-making power 
about the life of a person to someone else. Guardianship can 
also put a person at risk for abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
    In 2018, this Committee documented a number of concerns 
with guardianship in a bipartisan report that called for the 
following, greater oversight of guardianship, better data 
collection, and the need to promote alternatives to 
guardianship.
    Often, people in guardianships need permission to make 
basic decisions about such matters as their living 
arrangements, health care, and education. Under some 
arrangements, a person living under a guardianship must consult 
with their guardian about voting.
    Unfortunately, many of our existing systems, such as our 
schools, health care agencies, and even courts, communicate to 
families that guardianship is the only way, the only way to 
assist their loved ones to make important decisions.
    However, there are less restrictive alternatives to 
guardianships that can increase protections for people needing 
assistance. These less restrictive alternatives enable a person 
to retain the power to make decisions that affect them and 
affect their lives directly.
    Alternative arrangements, such as supported decision-
making, can provide people with the support they need to make 
the decisions for themselves with the support of a team.
    Today, we will hear from experts and people with lived 
experience about how these alternative arrangements can help 
preserve the independence and autonomy of people with 
disabilities and older adults, while ensuring they have the 
support they need to make key life decisions.
    For the past three weeks, the Committee has asked for input 
about guardianships and their alternatives, specifically about 
how to improve protections and independence for people with 
disabilities who live under guardianships. One individual from 
Pennsylvania wrote to the Committee saying, and I am quoting, 
``the system is a sad commentary on how we treat our elderly, 
and in a word, the system is disgusting.'' That is the view of 
one Pennsylvanian. I want to thank everyone for that kind of 
input that we have heard from many different quarters, and for 
them taking the time to provide that kind of feedback.
    Without objection, I offer their statements for the record, 
and these are the statements, 312 statements from 40 states and 
territories. You can see it is a pretty heavy volume of 
statements.
    I appreciate those who shared their troubling experiences 
with fraud and exploitation, as well as those who offered ideas 
about how to promote alternatives to guardianships while 
protecting the rights of individuals.
    Many of the experiences that people shared contributed to 
the development of my new Bill, the Guardianship Bill of Rights 
Act, which will be introduced today. We know that guardianship 
is a complex and personal issue. It is clear that we need 
guardrails, guardrails to protect the rights of people in 
protective arrangements.
    This Guardianship Bill of Rights Act will ensure that the 
civil rights of older Americans and people with disabilities 
are protected and that alternatives to guardianships are in 
fact promoted.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We are 
thankful for their presence in their testimony, the experience 
and expertise they bring to us, and with that, I will turn to 
Ranking Member Braun for his opening remarks.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR 
                   MIKE BRAUN, RANKING MEMBER

    Senator Braun. Thank you, Chairman. There are far too many 
difficult and painful stories of guardianship abuse, often from 
people who did not require a guardianship in the first place. 
No American should have their rights unnecessarily stripped 
from them.
    Harrowing tales were sent to this Committee of rights being 
taken away by a single stroke of a pen in the name of 
guardianship.
    There are a number of Hoosiers who shared their personal 
experiences with me. I thank you all for submitting your 
statements. It gave me a lot to go on in terms of what we need 
to emphasize here in this hearing.
    I heard from the sister of a Navy veteran, Jimmy Johnston, 
who said that a court ordered guardianship ultimately led to 
her brother's death. While she had been designated his health 
care surrogate, a professional guardian was appointed to make 
life or death medical decisions for Jimmy without prior medical 
knowledge or family history.
    After Jimmy's death, his family received a hospital bill of 
nearly $1.2 million. $1.2 million. Nearly all of it was billed 
to Medicare. That is unacceptable. Guardianship is supposed to 
mean protection, not that.
    When done correctly, it is a valuable tool to protect 
vulnerable people, but as so many stories have shown us, it can 
also lead to exploitation and abuse. We must empower states 
with the tools and resources they need to protect and empower 
their most vulnerable residents.
    Indiana has been an innovative laboratory on guardianship 
in recent years. It created a guardianship registry to improve 
data. In 2019 Indiana passed the supported decision-making law 
to expand options for people who need a protective arrangement.
    This gives Hoosiers in need the chance to pick support that 
works best for them, and when we do this state by state, we are 
using the laboratories in this country in terms of how to do it 
best across the country.
    Indiana's Volunteer Advocates for Seniors or Incapacitated 
Adults Program connects volunteer guardians focused on personal 
autonomy to Hoosiers without support or protection. These 
volunteers step in when they get calls from adult protective 
services, nursing homes, or even banks alerting them to an 
incapacitated person who has no one else to look after their 
affairs.
    Sarah Walker is a Director of Southern Indiana Adult 
Guardianship Services. She is a self-described old soul who 
traces her love of working with older adults to her love for 
her own grandparents. Sarah and her teamwork across five 
counties in small town USA to help Hoosiers be as independent 
as possible.
    They assisted one client struggling with drug use to find 
help and a better living arrangement. Now they are working to 
restore her rights. Hoosiers continue to show us how states can 
solve these issues.
    The Adult Guardianship Office is managing these innovative 
services. It works with the courts and stakeholders to find 
practical solutions for local issues in the guardianship 
system. Our role is to remove barriers in states' ways, not add 
to them.
    I am introducing the Guardianship Grant Flexibility Act 
with Chairman Casey to remove barriers by making Federal 
guardianship grants more flexible. This Bill would allow states 
to recruit and train law students to represent respondents in 
guardianship cases and to serve as guardians ad litem.
    Law students interested in protecting the rights of older 
adults should not be held back by arbitrary Federal 
interference. This is a commonsense reform to give states more 
tools to protect people in need. I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a letter of support for this Bill by the 
Elder Justice Coalition.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Braun. I look forward to hearing more about common 
sense steps we can take to strike the right balance between 
protection and freedom, and I look forward to hearing how 
states can learn more from each other on the issue. I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Braun. Our first 
witness today is Dr. Tina Paone. Dr. Paone is a Professor in 
the Department of Educational Counseling and Leadership at 
Monmouth University. She is also a licensed counselor and a 
resident of my home State of Pennsylvania.
    Dr. Paone has personal experience with the guardianship 
system when her mother was placed in a guardianship following a 
stroke in 2015. Thank you, Dr. Paone, for sharing your 
expertise and experience with us today. Next, I will introduce 
our second witness, Mr. Ryan King.
    Today, Ryan is accompanied by his mother, Susie. Ryan works 
with several organizations, including Quality Trust and Project 
Action to advocate for guardianship reform. He was in a 
guardianship for 13 years before becoming the first person in 
Washington, D.C. to have their guardianship terminated in favor 
of supported decision-making.
    Ryan, thank you for being with us today and for sharing 
your story and your expertise with the Committee. Now I will 
turn to Ranking Member Braun to introduce our third witness.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. I am going to introduce Nick 
Parker. He is a Staff Attorney for Indiana's Adult Guardianship 
Office. Nick oversees Indiana's Volunteer Advocates for Seniors 
or Incapacitated Adults Program, the Guardianship Registry, and 
the Adult Guardianship Symposium.
    He engages with practitioners, experts, and stakeholders to 
improve Indiana's guardianship system. He also spearheads 
efforts across the Hoosier State to promote alternatives like 
supported decision-making.
    Nick is a graduate of IU's Mauer School of Law. He 
previously worked for Indiana Legal Services Medical Legal 
Partnership. He also has direct experience representing clients 
in guardianship cases and in securing supported decision-
making. Welcome, Nick.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Braun. Our final 
witness, fourth and final witness is Dr. Karrie Shogren. Dr. 
Shogren is the Director of the Kansas University Center on 
Developmental Disabilities, Senior Scientist at the Shuffle 
Bush Lifespan Institute, and a Professor in the Department of 
Special Education at Kansas University. Her research focuses on 
assessment and intervention in self-determination and 
supportive decision-making for people with disabilities. She is 
an expert in less restrictive alternatives to guardianship. Dr. 
Shogren, thank you for being here. We will start with our first 
witness and her testimony. Dr. Paone, you may begin your 
testimony.

                 STATEMENT OF TINA PAONE, M.D.,

              PROFESSOR AND LICENSED PROFESSIONAL

               COUNSELOR, LANSDALE, PENNSYLVANIA

    Dr. Paone. Good morning, Chairman Casey, Ranking Member 
Braun, and members of the Special Senate Committee. I am a 
University Professor and a Licensed Professional Counselor. I 
live just outside of Philadelphia in Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania. I am here to share my family's story.
    It is a story that resonates with so many other families. 
In January 2015, my 68-year-old mother had a major stroke. A 
judge granted guardianship to myself and my brother. The judge 
also ordered a court appointed attorney, as well as another 
evaluation by a court appointed psychologist.
    At that point, two professionals declared my mother 
incapacitated. Much to our surprise, the newly appointed 
attorney insisted on a third evaluation. It resulted in the 
same conclusion but now the cost to my mother's estate was over 
$8,000. This was the first indication that something was wrong 
with the guardianship system.
    Soon after, the inventory of the estate was filed, which 
valued my mother's estate at a little over $2 million, 
including the business she owned. My brother and I successfully 
performed guardianship duties for almost a year.
    Regardless, the court appointed attorney insisted on a new 
plenary guardian, a lawyer who admitted she had no previous 
experience working with large estates, businesses, or families 
who were actively involved. This was the second indication that 
something was wrong with the guardianship system.
    In 2018, my mother's assisted living facility told us they 
had not been paid in months. Despite more than adequate funds 
available, our mother was in arrears for close to $100,000 to 
her facility and care aides.
    When we threatened to expose this situation to the courts, 
the guardian resigned, but she only resigned as guardian of the 
person, not guardian of the estate. We quickly learned that 
this was a decision that was supported and encouraged by the 
court appointed attorney. This was very concerning to us and 
indicative of a much larger problem.
    My brother and I kept expressing concerns, but we had no 
voice. Eventually, in 2022, our mother's guardian informed us 
that our mother's business would be sold, eliminating half of 
the monthly income she relied on for her care.
    Even worse, real estate taxes went unpaid. My mom never 
paid a bill late in her entire life, and now late fees and 
penalties piled up in excess of $11,000 due to the negligence 
of the Guardian. This was a person charged with ensuring my 
mom's well-being, and yet she intentionally sold the business, 
my mother's largest asset and income source, and she failed to 
protect her second largest asset, her home.
    It was only when we approached the court appointed attorney 
to request the removal of the guardian that the bills got paid. 
Finally, the guardian of the estate agreed to resign. Shortly 
after, the court appointed attorney agreed to resign with 
conditions. My brother and I cannot contact any governmental, 
regulatory, or administrative office to make claims or 
allegations of her wrongdoings.
    We cannot speak to family or friends about her negative 
impacts. Either action would be deemed a violation and would 
result in monetary sanctions and possible removal as our 
mother's current guardians.
    If we had agreed to this gag order, I would not be here 
today, and yet we fear vindictive repercussions as a result of 
my testimony today. Since her stroke, this situation has cost 
my mother more than $116,000. That is money that could have 
been spent on her care, but instead went to fund a system that 
seems driven to pay professional guardians, attorneys, and 
others motivated by greed and power.
    My situation is not isolated. In my experience, when an 
incapacitated person has a larger estate, they are more likely 
to have frequent involvement with the courts, which increases 
payments to lawyers, guardians, and services hired by these 
guardians.
    Even more disturbing, the same individuals are selected 
repeatedly to serve in these roles, creating conflicts of 
interest and perpetuating a widespread abuse of power that 
impacts this marginalized population.
    As I sit here today, my mother's situation remains 
unresolved. I call on you, our Senators, to create change. You 
have the ability to implement meaningful reform. From my 
perspective, we need Federal standards that regulate the 
appointment and oversight of judges, court appointed attorneys, 
and court appointed guardians.
    Additionally, families like mine must have a recourse to 
prevent devastating medical and financial exploitation. On 
paper, the current system appears well-intentioned. That is not 
how it plays out.
    On behalf of my family and so many others, I beg you to 
please implement meaningful reform. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Dr. Paone, thank you for providing your 
testimony and bringing your mother's story to this hearing 
today. Our next witness is Mr. Ryan King. Ryan, we are going to 
play your video testimony, video statement that we will play 
right now.

     STATEMENT OF RYAN KING, GUARDIANSHIP REFORM ADVOCATE, 
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. King. Good morning, everyone. My name is Ryan H. King. 
I live in Washington, D.C. I have disabilities. I know I am 
independent. I was under guardianship for 13 years, but not 
anymore.
    I can do many things on my own, but sometimes I need help. 
I cook three days a week with support. Wash my clothes and do 
dishes. Take out the trash--go to the movies, go to WWE events, 
wrestling matches, and travel. I work at Safeway. Come October 
it will be 23 years as a Courtesy Clerk. I love what I do, and 
Metro Access Transportation Services takes me to work.
    In 2003, I graduated from high school and wanted to own a 
limousine business. To get started on my business, I had to go 
to the Government agency for help. My parents were told they 
had to get guardianship for me, if I wanted to get their 
services. Why? I was already independent with support for the 
things that I wanted to do.
    I can make choices. No, I didn't like being under 
guardianship because I had to go to court. I had to let them 
know everything I did, like going to events, doctor's 
appointments, and church. No one else in my family did that.
    In 2007, My parents went to court to end guardianship. The 
court gave me a lawyer, the lawyer said I needed to stay 
undergoing guardianship. The judge agreed. I did not win my 
case. I read about Jenny Hatch in the paper.
    Jenny Hatch was the first person to use supported decision-
making--to end her guardianship. Quality Trust for Individuals 
with Disabilities helped her. I got them to help me tell the 
court about the things I can do. They used Supported Decision 
Making to show what I could do.
    All the people who helped me, my family, my friends, and 
programs I am in--I did that--I did all of that. A part of my 
team--I am in Project Action for advocacy, Lifelong Partners 
for activities, and Quality Trust for leadership and advocacy 
support. We went back to court in 2016. I told the judge--the 
judge said he read about everything I can do. He was impressed, 
and then ended guardianship--I won.
    Now, I know I can do something by myself. I know I need 
help sometimes. Everybody needs help sometimes. I tell people 
not to judge me before you know me.
    The Chairman. Mr. King, thanks for your testimony.
    Yours is a story of inspiration, and we need to hear that, 
and we are grateful you are here. Mr. Parker, you are next. 
Thank you.

           STATEMENT OF NICK PARKER, STAFF ATTORNEY,

           ADULT GUARDIANSHIP OFFICE, INDIANA OFFICE

               OF COURT SERVICES, INDIANA SUPREME

                  COURT, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

    Mr. Parker. Thank you, Chairman Casey, Ranking Member 
Braun, Members of the Committee, my name is Nick Parker and I 
am the Staff Attorney for the Adult Guardianship Office with 
the Indiana Supreme Court.
    My office serves as a resource for courts, members of the 
public, judicial staff, and grantees to receive quality 
information on the guardianship process and tools to maintain a 
functioning and effective system overall. Before starting with 
the court, I was a staff attorney with Indiana Legal Services.
    In this role, I worked directly with clients, addressing 
decision-making needs with them in their families, including 
guardianship, but often also including termination and 
supported decision-making.
    My interest in caretaker issues started when I was in the 
fourth grade, watching my mother care for my grandfather while 
balancing two nursing jobs and raising her own family. Her goal 
was to allow him to live as independently as possible for as 
long as possible. She never served as his legal guardian but 
was his primary caretaker for many years.
    I know that not all seniors were as fortunate as my 
grandfather to have my mom, and to this day, I understand the 
importance of having strong programs and supports to help those 
that need it most and to help them live independently.
    My office funds and supports 20 volunteer programs called 
Volunteer Advocates for Seniors and Incapacitated Adults. These 
programs work on the local level with county courts to address 
the needs of people in their communities who require 
guardianship services but do not have suitable friends or 
families to take on that role.
    These programs cover 52 Indiana counties and adhere to both 
Indiana law and National Guardianship Association standards of 
practice. We have strict ethical requirements in place about 
staff to volunteer ratios and reasonable caseloads for these 
programs.
    My office also oversees court technology, including a 
guardianship registry for local courts. This is an online 
system to verify guardianship information. It serves both the 
public data base function and a behind the scenes case 
organization feature.
    This registry is so important because it provides timely 
and important data on guardianships and promotes uniformity and 
entry of guardianship cases in our e-filing system. Judges and 
others across the State can use this registry to ensure safety 
of protected persons through access to contact information and 
demographics.
    Banks and financial entities can also check our registry to 
confirm a guardianship, and it does keep track of cases that 
have been terminated. The Adult Guardianship Office was a 
crucial part of a grassroots task force to address supported 
decision-making and less restrictive alternatives in our State.
    This task force showed the power of local organizations 
working together to effectuate State level change. In 2019, 
Indiana became one of the first states to recognize supported 
decision-making as a State law.
    This new law also created a requirement for courts to 
consider less restrictive alternatives before ruling on a 
guardianship petition. Since then, my office has been working 
on ways to implement ideas for guardianship innovation, often 
in the absence of direct funding.
    This includes a proposed guardianship educational system, 
modeled after a program in Ohio, which we hope to launch as a 
pilot program to help courts ensure that guardians are given 
proper introductory and ongoing education about their roles and 
duties. We are also considering a law school clinic program 
that would link supervised students to local courts to serve as 
direct advocates or guardians ad litem.
    The GAL process in Indiana ensures that the best interests 
of a person at risk of guardianship is served and that 
appropriate levels of decision-making support, including 
supported decision-making, could be put in place.
    Guardian ad litem can investigate less restrictive 
alternatives and ensure compliance with State law and promising 
practices. For counties and communities that might 
traditionally have a hard time recruiting suitable GAL 
candidates, a law student clinic could provide the necessary 
staffing for this process to be a success.
    The Indiana courts have the proven ability to convene 
multiple stakeholders and bring organizations and entities 
together to address problems head on. Indiana has strong 
support and commitment from our Chief Justice, Loretta Rush, 
which will allow our Adult Guardianship Office to serve its 
traditional functions, as well as expand its outreach in new 
areas in the coming years.
    Though there is room for improvement in Indiana, we have a 
strong working network of guardianship stakeholders that are 
willing and able to tackle issues that come up in our State. 
Grassroots organizing and local input have been successful in 
the past, and we hope that similar working groups will help 
implement changes and improvements uniquely suited to the needs 
of our communities.
    I look forward to discussing the strengths and experiences 
of our State with others today, and I hope to share thoughts 
for the future of guardianship programing and innovations that 
are needed. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Parker, thanks very much. Thanks for 
bringing in Indiana's story to the Committee. Dr. Shogren, you 
are next. Thank you.

              STATEMENT OF KARRIE SHOGREN, PH.D.,

               DIRECTOR, KANSAS UNIVERSITY CENTER

        ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, LAWRENCE, KANSAS

    Dr. Shogren. Thank you, Chairman Casey, Ranking Member 
Braun, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to 
testify on the importance of alternatives to guardianship for 
people with disabilities, including people with intellectual 
and developmental disabilities and older adults.
    My name is Karrie Shogren. I am a Professor and the 
Director of the Kansas University Center on Developmental 
Disabilities. My research over the past 20 years has sought to 
advance self-determination of people with disabilities, and 
there is clear evidence that we can provide alternatives to 
guardianship that preserve rights, enhance self-determination, 
and support the intent of disability civil rights laws such as 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which states in its 
findings that physical and mental disabilities in no way 
diminish a person's right to fully participate in all aspects 
of society, but that people with physical or mental 
disabilities are frequently precluded from doing so because of 
prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to remove 
societal and institutional barriers.
    As Senator Casey noted in his remarks, it is estimated, 
although we are in critical need of better national data, that 
1.3 million adults with disabilities and older adults are under 
guardianship arrangements that limit their legal capacity to 
make decisions about their lives.
    Being under a guardianship arrangement can take away rights 
to make legal decisions, relationship decisions, reproductive 
decisions, financial decisions, health and medical decisions, 
education decisions, decisions about where to live, employment 
decisions as well as rights to vote and be involved in civic 
life, to travel freely, and to be involved in other daily life 
decisions.
    There is a general consensus that in practice, guardianship 
remains a default for many people with disabilities and older 
adults who need supports with decision-making. There is limited 
and inconsistent access to and understanding of less 
restrictive alternatives like supported decision-making.
    This is despite people with disabilities and organizations, 
including the National Guardianship Association, asserting that 
guardianship should only be considered after alternatives to 
guardianship have been proven ineffective or unavailable.
    Defaulting to guardianship without considering alternatives 
sustains societal and institutional barriers. Current research, 
advocacy, and lived experience has shown us that people with 
disabilities can make decisions in their communities and access 
the supports they need to do so.
    None of us would want our rights or the rights of our 
family members or loved ones to be taken away if there were 
other alternatives. What can we do to change the options 
available to people with disabilities, older adults in their 
families? We can change the default and provide access to 
alternatives.
    For example, supported decision-making as an alternative to 
guardianship can be understood as the process whereby a person 
with a disability or an older adult is enabled to make and 
communicate decisions with respect to personal, financial, and 
legal matters on an equal basis with others without 
disabilities.
    Supported decision-making does not remove decision-making 
rights. It builds a system of support. For example, if a person 
needs support with medical decision-making, they can identify 
the person, technology, or other decision that can best support 
them in understanding and communicating their decisions.
    They can identify a different person or resource for 
financial decisions or for any life domain they need support 
with, and these supports can be changed over time as support 
needs and as decision needs change. This is aligned with how we 
all use supports to make decisions in our communities.
    We all get information and advice from people we trust in a 
way that we can understand it to help us make the decisions we 
need to. To advance protection and empowerment in guardianship 
and its alternatives, the goal of today's hearing, I offer the 
following recommendations rooted in research and the voices of 
people with disabilities and older adults.
    First, establish a clear, consistent definition of 
supported decision-making and guidelines for its use.
    Second, advance education, training, and outreach on 
supported decision-making and alternatives to guardianship 
across the multiple systems such as education, legal, health, 
disability, financial, and aging that impact decision-making 
rights.
    Third, adopt recommendations by the National Guardianship 
Association and other organizations that guardianship be the 
protective arrangement of last resort.
    Fourth, ensure protections for the civil rights of people 
with disabilities and older adults who are being considered for 
or under guardianship arrangements.
    Fifth, establish data collection systems that allow for a 
clear picture of the use and outcomes of guardianship supported 
decision-making and other protective arrangements and 
alternatives. To close, there are existing research-based tools 
and programs to enable supported decision-making.
    Courts and State statutes are increasingly recognizing 
supported decision-making and other alternatives to 
guardianship. We are learning that supported decision-making is 
feasible to implement, that people feel more supported and able 
to make decisions, and that establishing a network of trusted 
supporters can reduce risk.
    Further, we know that more opportunities to make decisions 
is linked with other important outcomes, including health and 
well-being, accessing preferred living arrangements, and living 
a self-determined life.
    It is an opportune time to remove societal and 
institutional barriers to supported decision-making and 
alternatives to guardianship, using research on the lived 
experience of people with disabilities to enhance protection 
and empowerment. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today.
    The Chairman. Doctor, thanks very much. As many of you know 
at our hearing, especially on Thursdays, Senators are in and 
out of this hearing and other hearings and meetings, so I 
wanted to make note of those who have been here o some may be 
asking questions, some may not.
    Senator Rick Scott of Florida has been part of our hearing. 
Senator Gillibrand of New York. I will cede my question time to 
Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut.
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you, and the Ranking Member for having this hearing. I am sure 
as everybody in this hearing room knows, Senator Casey has been 
a champion.
    That word is often used in the U.S. Senate, but he has been 
a true champion of the interests and values that you are here 
to represent, and not just in words, but in the legislation 
that he has advanced to provide, for example, more 
compensation, more care for the caregivers.
    We are talking here about guardianship, people who care for 
other people. Nothing is more important in our society than 
that kind of caregiving guardianship. It is a legal term. I am 
a lawyer. I know what it means in the abstract, but you know 
what it means in the day-to-day performance of that trust 
responsibility.
    I want to thank everybody who is here, both at the witness 
table and in the audience, for your caring about this issue. In 
Connecticut, the probate courts receive 600 new petitions for 
guardianship of adults with intellectual disabilities every 
year.
    At the same time, reported rates of elder abuse are rising 
in Connecticut and across the country. Abuse is intolerable. I 
fought it when I was Attorney General of Connecticut, and I am 
proud to say that I worked with Senator Casey and others in the 
Senate to fight it here.
    This abuse can take many forms, as you know, including 
financial exploitation, emotional and physical abuse, and we 
need to do more to protect it, as we have started to do in 
2017, passing the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act. I 
was proud to work on that measure.
    It authorizes certain court appointed guardianship 
oversight activities under the Adult Protective Services 
Demonstration Grant Program, and we need to appropriate the 
money that is necessary to implement it, as well as to 
investigate through the Department of Justice the kinds of 
abuse that have been mentioned here.
    I want to ask Dr. Shogren, in your testimony, you mentioned 
the variety of terminology to describe guardianship 
arrangements, which sometimes limits our understanding of the 
circumstances that lead to the outcome of such arrangements, 
and you offered that a guardianship is a legal arrangement 
under which an adult's decision-making authority is granted to 
another person based on a determination of impaired decision-
making capacity.
    This determination doesn't require consideration of less 
restrictive kinds of alternatives such as supported decision-
making. Do you think implementing a national definition, a 
model definition, a standard such as you describe it, it would 
aid in combating elder abuse--and obviously, states bear a 
major responsibility here. Do you think it would provide 
guidance to states and be a positive development?
    Dr. Shogren. Yes, thank you for that question, and yes, I 
do think so. I think establishing a foundation for the 
definition, the standards for implementation is critically 
important.
    As you noted, we have very little clarity even on how many 
states are implementing supported decision-making arrangements 
in the same ways because of that lack of consistency.
    Having a base level of understanding of what we are talking 
about in talking about supported decision-making, how 
agreements are set up, and how protections will be put in place 
is very important to provide that base level of understanding 
of what we are talking about, and to allow data to be collected 
to inform our understanding.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Dr. Paone, I have been very 
disturbed about your description of what you went through, what 
your family have experienced in your attempts to ensure your 
mother's well-being.
    Your family situation describes a system where the courts, 
professional guardians, psychologists, health care providers, 
and others seem to be connected and have an interest in 
charging estates for their services.
    You said that we need to provide recourse for families who 
experience medical and financial exploitation to prevent their 
future exploitation. I totally agree.
    I am wondering if you could tell us whether you think a 
dedicated advisory board would be helpful to facilitate 
progress in combating this kind of abuse?
    Dr. Paone. Thank you for the question. Yes, I believe that 
an advisory board would be helpful as we determine these types 
of abuse.
    I also believe that having systems or recourse in place for 
families similar to that of Elder Line or Childline where 
professionals are reported if they are exploiting the elderly. 
At this point, that is not what those national hotlines are 
for.
    They will send you back to the courts, which are part of 
the system that I have found my own problems with. As far as a 
council, as long as it was an equitable council that took into 
consideration the background of the individuals who sit on a 
council.
    I think it would be very effective. Hearing voices from 
families who have experienced this exploitation may be helpful 
as members of this council.
    Senator Blumenthal. I thank you very much. Thank you again 
to the experts who are here, and the champions and advocates, 
and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding your time. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. We will turn 
next to Ranking Member Braun.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. First question will be for Mr. 
Parker and Dr. Shogren. On supported decision-making again, 
each in your own ways, tell me what is important. I believe 
that freedom and choice are, you know, so important in any of 
this, and Indiana's 2019 supported decision-making law open new 
opportunities for protection law allowing for more individual 
choice and freedom, so each of you tell me why it is so 
important. We will start with you, Mr. Parker.
    Mr. Parker. Thank you, Senator. The 2019 law change in 
Indiana was really groundbreaking because it was just like a 
next step in person center planning, so I was excited to have 
been part of that task force that got that accomplished for our 
State.
    The law created a new paradigm for how courts view a 
guardianship petition and review, so what it did is it showed 
that there have to be efforts to utilize something else or 
considered it before guardianship is granted. Before in 2019, 
that was not necessarily the case.
    This shifted the dialog from guardianship as kind of a 
binary system of help versus no help, and it turned it into a 
last resort system, so that if somebody has other resources or 
supports available, they are to try those and to make sure that 
if those aren't available, that is the only way that a 
guardianship moves forward.
    As a practitioner, I helped clients with supported 
decision-making, so we were either taking preexisting cases and 
trying to find less restrictive alternatives after 2019, or 
more often we were talking about alternatives before any 
petition was filed.
    First I could see my clients just being able to take 
control of their case and take control that conversation, it 
was a huge shift, but also many people who otherwise would have 
maybe served as guardians before 2019, they were more than 
willing to pursue less restrictive alternatives. In fact, many 
didn't even realize there were other options.
    The 2019 law gave us education, but it also gave us a new 
way to look at these cases, and though there is still work to 
be done. I think this is a resource, and my office links people 
to resources, so supported decision-making being a part of our 
law really allows us to be focused on independence and what 
people can do rather than a restriction under a guardianship.
    Senator Braun. Dr. Shogren.
    Dr. Shogren. Thanks for the question. I agree with 
everything that Mr. Parker just said, and I will build on that 
in terms of the importance, that I believe it was Senator Casey 
that said in his opening remarks that guardianship is often 
used as a blunt legal tool, and that is not how most people 
interact with making decisions in their day to day lives about 
multiple domains of life.
    Using a blunt tool to address the range of decisions that 
have to be made and the range of support needs that people 
have, doesn't allow us to individualize, doesn't allow us to 
deal with the realities of people living and interacting in 
their community.
    As we heard from Mr. King, he talks about how we all need 
supports in some areas of our lives, but we should have the 
right to choose those supporters, to access those resources and 
still be decision-making.
    Supported decision-making presumes competence. It presumes 
the ability to make decisions, and really requires us to 
disprove that before moving on to more restrictive 
alternatives.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. Mr. Parker, yes, Indiana's done 
some things, I think, that has kind of been trailblazing, so to 
speak. Let's look at the guardianship registry. This system 
makes information about guardianship more transparent. Other 
states have adopted similar changes. Why are the states, you 
think, best positioned to handle guardianship issues, and how 
are they learning from each other's policies?
    Mr. Parker. Thank you, Senator Braun, for that question. I 
started with the courts a year ago, a year ago last week, and I 
was just amazed at how quickly states were contacting me to 
talk. Since that time, I have met with 15 other states and all 
over the country.
    There are groups like the National Center for State Courts 
that can help make connections with states, and then there is a 
lot of conferences and trainings out there, so people in my 
position with different states are talking to each other. They 
are doing that in kind of two ways. Some of it is geographic.
    We are meeting with other Midwest states and looking at 
what they are doing, and then sometimes it's based on how 
courts are structured, so Indiana has a strong amount of local 
control called a non-unified court system.
    I have been meeting with other states like that. Sometimes 
courts will kind of meet based on factors like whether they 
have supported decision-making yet in their State law or what 
they want out of innovations such as technology like the 
guardianship registry you mentioned.
    What I am seeing in my first year is that there are clear 
commonalities, that less restrictive alternatives are positive 
changes, keeping guardianship as a last resort, and an emphasis 
on education and the use of technology, but outside of that, 
there is not really a lot of consensus on what we should do 
because everyone is trying something slightly different right 
now. I call this kind of the innovation stage. We are looking 
at like picking and choosing what might work for a State and 
what might not work for our State, and what have other states 
learned and done.
    Right now, if we picked a set of rules for everyone to go 
with, it might disrupt some of these discussions and it might 
have good ideas go unnoticed, frankly, so there is not a one 
size fits all solution for guardianship, but I do think states 
are best equipped to address the needs of their communities and 
find these solutions in both inside their State or from other 
states that they are talking with.
    Community level partnerships have worked for Indiana in the 
past, and I think that states will drive those effective 
changes and innovations in the future.
    Senator Braun. Thank you all. I have a couple other 
questions. I will save that for a second round.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Braun, and I will 
take my question time now. Dr. Paone, I will start with you. As 
you highlight in your testimony, your mother's stroke 
necessitated a guardianship due to her being incapacitated.
    However, your story emphasizes a critical need for these 
guardrails that we spoke of earlier, guardrails to ensure that 
even while in guardianships, individuals in their basic rights 
are protected.
    The Bill that I am introducing today, the Guardianship Bill 
of Rights Act, will direct the Attorney General to create 
standards for protecting the civil rights of people living 
under guardianships. Can you describe how legislation like this 
would be helpful, especially in the context of your own 
family's experience with your mom?
    Dr. Paone. Yes. The legislation, after I read it, there are 
four points that I find would be very helpful or would have 
been very helpful. An alternative arrangement for my mother 
would have been helpful.
    Family members are less restrictive than court appointed 
personnel and cost incapacitated people $0. A guaranteed 
procedure for the modification or discontinuation of 
restrictive protective arrangements would have been helpful.
    Regulatory and--or regular and consistent background checks 
on court appointed personnel would have been helpful, and 
finally, the ability to report and investigate abuse of 
guardianship would have been helpful, so all four points of the 
legislation would be helpful moving forward.
    The Chairman. Well, your own story gives a foundation for 
legislation like that, and I am grateful that you are willing 
to talk about it and bring that to the Committee. I will move 
next to Mr. King.
    We heard in your recorded statement, Ryan, that you have 
and we know from your story that you have multiple 
disabilities, but you are very capable of making your own 
decisions, decisions that you make with support.
    I was looking at the written version of your statement, 
which is basically exactly the same as what you did by way of 
video, and you said in the first line, I have disabilities and 
I am independent. Kind of sums it all up in one sentence.
    I have disabilities and I am independent. Then right after 
that, in the next paragraph, you say, ``I can do many things on 
my own, but sometimes I need help.'' That would apply to me 
too. Most of us, all of us, really. This idea of independence 
and making sure that we are not just aware of that as a 
concept, but that we are putting in place policy that would 
effectuate it, is critically important.
    The process of supported decision-making relies on family 
and friends to create a team to support you. We have a number 
of states that have addressed this. Pennsylvania, the State I 
represent, currently has a grant to help families, courts, and 
other entities address, or I should say understand, how to 
implement supported decision-making, in order to both protect 
people who need help making decisions, and to ensure that their 
rights are, in fact, honored.
    While not a new procedure, it seems that supported 
decision-making in other arrangements that are less restrictive 
than guardianship are not that well known, even frankly, by 
people who should know in our system in Government.
    I ask you, Mr. King, how do you--how did you put in place 
the supports that you needed while you were developing your 
supported decision-making arrangements?
    Mr. King. First of all, I know that everybody needs to be 
aware of everything, because if you are not aware of 
everything, then you lost, you lost in the sauce, and people 
need to know, if people don't want to be on the guardianship, 
they don't have to be. Do you hear me?
    The Chairman. Yes. Well said.
    That about sums it all up. Now, because we have witness--or 
because we have Senators that have busy schedules in and out, I 
was going to go a little longer to kind of give us some more 
time, but Senator Vance is here, so he will be next.
    Senator Vance. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 
Member. You know, Mr. Parker, I want to start with you, and I 
am obviously a little biased here, but I understand the Ohio 
model has a lot to recommend it in terms of addressing some of 
these guardianship issues. What specifically about the Ohio 
model do you think could serve as a model for other legislation 
in other states or here federally?
    Mr. Parker. Thank you, Senator. When I first started with 
the court last year, I almost immediately met with Ohio. It was 
a little easy for me to do, I am from Ohio but moved to 
Indiana. What I was really fascinated with at Ohio is that they 
have a system of guardian education set up.
    I really think it is a great system because it allows for 
local communities to submit trainings to having an online data 
base, and it allows people to kind of watch those at their 
leisure, guardians and others, but they have to take those 
credits.
    When a court orders a guardianship, they, as I understand 
it, have a system where they take certain amounts of ongoing 
education about their roles. I really saw for Indiana that this 
could be a model to have trainings on there about less 
restrictive alternatives, but also about financial management 
and other things that go into the day to day of a guardianship.
    I think Ohio could serve as a model for other states that 
don't have an education system because not all states have one 
and Ohio has done it very effectively, so that is what I am 
talking about with the State kind of coalitions and learning 
from each other.
    I took that back to my role and I requested something like 
that in a Federal grant. We unfortunately didn't get the grant, 
but we are looking into implementation of a system like that, 
and I look forward to speaking with my counterpart in your 
State very soon.
    Senator Vance. Sure. Thank you, and you know, I guess one 
just basic factual question. Of the current guardianship 
situation that we have in our country, do we have a good sense 
of how many of those are family guardians versus, you know, 
some sort of professional guardian?
    Mr. Parker. In general, counting guardianships is 
incredibly difficult because of a lot of different challenges, 
not only with finding cases that might have predated court 
technology like registries, but also just generally because it 
is a fluid arrangement that can change, and sometimes people 
will have a guardianship terminated only to possibly have it 
reinstated at a later date.
    For those and many other reasons that have been stated here 
today, it is difficult to count adequate guardianship numbers. 
I do think states like Indiana have created a good guardianship 
registry that integrates directly with county courts to help 
with that.
    I think counting is a first step, and then the second step 
is looking at review of those cases, and saying this might have 
been a case where guardianship was granted.
    Senator Vance. What is a good guess in Indiana for how many 
are family guardians versus non-family?
    Mr. Parker. I unfortunately don't have that data, but I can 
look into it. We have a court technology team that I could try 
to get some numbers----
    Senator Vance. Yes, yes, we will followup maybe off the 
record and just trying to understand a little bit better. The 
reason that I ask here is, you know, for obvious reasons, you 
might expect a family guardian to take the responsibility a 
little bit differently than a professional guardian.
    You know, not to implicate or cast any judgment on 
professional guardians. I am sure many of them do a very, very 
good job, but as the country gets older and as fewer and fewer 
people have children, what I do worry about a little bit, of 
course, is that you have this growing class of professional 
guardians who maybe don't have the same interests, the same 
emotional attachments to their loved ones, and, you know, that 
is obviously something we are going to have to think about 
here, and I know that we are all very focused on--I am running 
short on time here, so let me just close before I yield here.
    You know, Dr. Paone, has that--am I pronouncing it right? 
You know, your story was very illuminating to me, and I know I 
want to echo Senator Casey. I know it took a lot of courage to 
share it, but I appreciate it. I am sorry it happened, but I 
appreciate your willingness to actually illuminate this 
Committee.
    It helps us as we figure out what to do. Mr. King, I want 
to appreciate--offer my gratitude to you for being here and 
offering your insights, and Ms. Shogren--Dr. Shogren and Mr. 
Parker, thank you both for being here as well. Thank you. I 
yield.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Vance. We will now move to 
a second round of questions. I will start and then I will turn 
to Ranking Member Braun. I wanted to get back to this question 
of supported decision-making.
    Although we don't have anywhere near the adequate data that 
we need, the Council of State Legislatures estimates that there 
are about, as we said earlier, 1.3 million people under 
guardianships across the country, but we have to bolster that 
with additional data.
    We know that many of these are not working well, that is 
obvious, but there are hundreds of instances of abuse, neglect 
and exploitation of people under guardianship arrangements. We 
also know that guardianship removes the rights of people to 
make their own decisions, such as where to live and with whom 
to interact.
    I would ask this of a number of our witnesses, what is the 
benefit of making guardianship a choice of last resort? It 
seems like in our system today, it has become the first resort 
or what courts and others turn to immediately.
    How do we make that the guardianships, the choice of last 
resort, and make alternatives like supported decision-making, 
the default position instead of the other way around? Anyone 
who wants to answer. Maybe I will start with Dr. Paone.
    Dr. Paone. Alternative arrangements would allow willing and 
able family members to care for their loved ones, supporting, 
in my case, incapacitated person with decisions that are 
aligned with the wishes that she had prior to incapacitation, 
so alternative arrangements would be ideal as opposed to 
guardianship.
    The Chairman. Anyone else? Dr. Shogren.
    Dr. Shogren. Yes. I will just add that really, to make this 
a reality, to flip that default, and having clear standards and 
guidelines. I do think that the points that have been raised, 
especially about looking at variation across states, looking at 
variation and implementation can provide useful data.
    We need a baseline standard to make sure that everyone has 
access to these less restrictive options. I think it is also 
really important to think about education, outreach, and 
training on supported decision-making and other alternatives. 
There really are multiple systems.
    For example, we talk about pipelines to guardianship. For 
example, the National Council on Disability has talked about 
the school to guardianship pipeline, whereas students are 
transitioning from their kindergarten through 12th grade public 
education, families are being told about guardianship at that 
transfer of the age of majority, and again, it is viewed as the 
default option.
    Instead, we need to build resources and supports for 
decision-making, and that is largely because people aren't 
aware of and do not have access to the education and training 
on these options. Systems need to empower families and people 
with disabilities to access these options.
    The Chairman. Mr. Parker, I know you have had to wrestle 
with the legal and policy implications of this. What advice do 
you have for how do we flip the--in essence, flip the default 
to supported decision-making?
    Mr. Parker. I think some states do have a structural 
guardianship as last resort built into their law.
    I am fortunate to be in a State where because of the 
protections and the things that are required in a petition for 
guardianship, that it is a last resort. I think the next steps, 
though, and working with that paradigm, are education about 
these less restrictive alternatives, and just to echo what 
everyone has said on the panel today.
    I would also say review and empowering courts to have 
review of guardianship is very important. I am looking forward 
to going back to my State and working with courts to implement 
review processes in line with national standards with the 
National Center for State Courts.
    The Chairman. Ryan King, I noticed in your testimony that 
you were not willing to accept the default of guardianship. You 
had to take two cracks at it, right? You had--you said toward 
the end of the first page of your testimony, you said, "the 
lawyer said I needed to stay under guardianship, the judge 
agreed I did not win my case," but then later, when you read 
about Jenny Hatch and her story, the first person to use 
supported decision-making, and then obviously at the very end 
of your statement, you say "that we went back to court in 2016, 
the judge said he read about everything I can do," again, 
emphasizing your independence. Then you go on to say, "He was 
ending guardianship. I won, that was a good win. I won. I know 
I can do some things by myself, I know I need help sometimes. 
Everybody needs help sometimes."
    You had to try to win a second time, and I think your 
perseverance is inspirational, but what kept you going to say, 
I am not going to accept guardianship as the default?
    Mr. King. If you don't fight and win and do everything that 
you need to do for you, nothing gets done.
    The Chairman. Well said. I will turn to Ranking member 
Braun.
    Senator Braun. I agree. Very well said. My last two 
questions are going to be for Mr. Parker. In any kind of 
challenge, when you can get volunteers to help, it spreads the 
burden, and I was intrigued by the Volunteer Advocates for 
Seniors or Incapacitated Adults, that now we have 92 counties 
in Indiana, and this is there in 52 of them.
    Tell us how that is actually working and is it a real way 
to engage folks that are willing to give time where it looks 
like in many cases it is hard to find the professional help 
that hits it on the mark. How has it been working in Indiana?
    Mr. Parker. Thank you, so the Volunteer Advocates Program 
began around 2014. It was based on things that were happening 
in the State, but the model was codified in our State law about 
10 years ago.
    What is really unique about this model is the volunteer 
aspect. It's important to note who this program is for, so, the 
program is for people who have been determined to need a 
guardianship and then not having anybody suitable that could 
serve in that role.
    That first prong is important here today because these 
programs are implementing a lot of ways to look at that and say 
maybe a guardianship is not going to serve the interests of 
this person. Let's try to find a less restrictive alternative.
    They are able to directly advocate for those clients and 
send them to legal services and protection and advocacy 
organizations, so this has to be for people who absolutely need 
a guardianship as a last resort option, and then after that, 
these programs are uniquely situated, because you read the 
statement of Sarah Walker with Southern Indiana Adult 
Guardianship Services.
    They are in their local communities. They are working 
directly with organizations in their communities, and they are 
extremely ethical organizations. I am very impressed going 
around the State.
    I went on a tour of our programs, and though I knew all of 
the legal aspects of a guardianship, it was eye opening to see 
what these programs are doing to serve the needs of people who 
truly would have no other options.
    I have seen this program work in Indiana, and I know that 
other states are looking at volunteer models, so I look forward 
to talking with those states about our experiences and 
potentially having this as an option in other states.
    Senator Braun. The last question for me will be in regard 
to the Bill that we are dropping, the Guardianship Grant 
Flexibility Act, another way not only with volunteers, but this 
would be with law students.
    It seems like there is a real interest among them to help, 
maybe knowing that they are going to engage in this once they 
get their law degree, so it is a very simple kind of idea. Tell 
me how you think that will help, and if we can get momentum 
behind it because it is a good idea and that we need it.
    Mr. Parker. When I was a practitioner, I had the honor of 
supervising law students at a legal aid society in a variety of 
areas of law. I got to see firsthand law students. They are 
eager to learn. Relatively mobile.
    I mean, Indiana is a large State. They are putting in time 
on research and they want to gain experiences that are going to 
help them in their future legal careers. I had worked actually 
with my predecessor in this role to go down to the law school 
in Bloomington, Indiana, to train a group of students on how to 
serve their local courts.
    This was to train them on guardian ad litem work, which is 
an independent third-party officer, and following a best 
interest standard to determine if guardianship is even 
necessary, they are writing reports to the court.
    Last year, we kind of took that, you know, that solution 
and took it a step further. When we applied for a grant, we 
wanted to create a model that links law students to these 
courts and all different kinds of Indiana communities. There 
are a lot of issues with workforce and staffing. Courts want to 
have guardian ad litem.
    They want to have direct advocates and attorneys serving 
for people who are at risk of guardianship, but sometimes there 
are difficulties in recruiting all of the necessary parties 
into the courtroom, so when we proposed this model, we were 
hoping that law students could help fill that gap, and that in 
the process they would gain an appreciation for public interest 
work and get practical experience.
    I think this is an idea that is a perfect example of the 
type of partnerships that I was talking about, and I look 
forward to seeking support for such a program in the future.
    Senator Braun. Thank you for that, and anybody listening 
out there, get with your respective Senators within your states 
and support that idea, because a lot of times you can take 
something practical like this, which I think Senator Casey and 
I try to specialize on, and got to get others interested in it, 
and sometimes that is something that can get accomplished in 
one Congress. I think it would be a good thing to aspire to. I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. I want to thank Ranking Member Braun, and 
thanks for the legislation. I think we can have a lot of 
benefit from having an alliance with law students. They can be 
great advocates for what we are talking about here today.
    With that, we will begin to close, and I do want to again 
reiterate our thanks to the witnesses for their testimony, 
bringing your personal experiences here, and indeed your 
expertise. Today's hearing highlighted both concerns with 
guardianship, but also solutions.
    We don't want to just curse the darkness, so to speak. We 
want to offer solutions. It should be--I think the hearing has 
shown that there are commonsense alternatives to guardianship 
and the current guardianship system.
    As Mr. King said, we should not judge people before we know 
them or their ability to make decisions about their lives. By 
taking a person-centered approach and creating supported, 
supportive, a supportive, trusted team around that person.
    We can help people participate in their life decisions and 
retain their rights and to retain as well, their autonomy to 
both protect and empower older adults and people with 
disabilities, a continuum of support should be available to 
every person.
    The legislation I have introduced is one strategy to 
promote that protection and empowerment. I am grateful for the 
work of Ranking Member Braun and the legislation we have 
introduced together.
    I look forward to working with the Committee and our 
witnesses to find out and implement even more strategies, maybe 
ideas that we haven't explored today. I will turn next to 
Ranking Member Braun.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. You know, when you listen to a 
hearing like this and you hear the story of Dr. Paone and 
Ryan's story, it is shameful that, you know, in that part of 
life, when you are going through that issue, that you would 
have unscrupulous folks get involved and work the system.
    I think if there is one responsibility that we have, 
especially at this level and even within our own states, is to 
make sure that does not occur. I am really glad that we had 
this hearing to bring it to this level of attention. It is sad 
that you need to do that.
    I think this is the kind of clarion for everyone out there 
that is listening and paying attention, and especially within 
all the states where it looks like we are getting that proper 
attention. I am proud of what we are doing in Indiana.
    At this stage of your life, you shouldn't have to be 
worried about a guardianship that does the exact opposite of 
what it implies, so glad we had the hearing. I think we 
accomplished some valuable stuff here and that hopefully we 
parlay it through states in here into a better way for those in 
the future. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Braun. I appreciate 
working with you on this and your work on this hearing, so we 
want to thank, again our witnesses, Dr. Paone, Mr. Ryan King, 
Mr. Nick Parker, and Dr. Shogren for bringing their wisdom and 
expertise to help us figure this out.
    If any Senators have additional questions for the witnesses 
or statements to be added to the record, the hearing record 
will be kept open for seven days until next Thursday, April the 
6th. Thank you all for participating today, both at the witness 
table and in the audience. This concludes our hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
=======================================================================


                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================



    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
=======================================================================


                      Prepared Witness Statements

=======================================================================


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
=======================================================================


                        Questions for the Record

=======================================================================
   
   
   
   
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
=======================================================================


                       Statements for the Record

=======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
                                 [all]