|
GUARDIANSHIP
STATISTICS
Aging
Trends:
- In
2003, 12 percent of the total population of the
United States
, almost 36 million people, was 65 years of age and over.
- Over
the 20th century, the older population grew from 3 million to 35
million. The seriously old population (age 85 and older)
grew from just over 100,000 in 1900 to 4.2 million in 2000.
- The
Baby Boomers (those citizens born between 1946 and 1964) will start turning
65 in 2011, and the number of older people will increase dramatically during
the 2010-2030 period.
- The
older population in the year 2030 is projected to be twice as large as in
the year 2000, growing from 35 million to 71.5 million and representing 20
percent of the total
U.S.
population.
(Federal
Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics.
Washington
,
DC
:
U.S.
Government Printing Office. November 2004)
The
United States Census Bureau has declared that by the year 2020, the sixty-five
and above group will be the largest segment in
America
. By the year 2030 there will be more elderly Americans than young ones.
In terms of percentage of growth, the “seriously old” – individuals
over the age of eighty-five – currently form the fasted growing population
group in the
United States
.
It
stands to reason that the increasing elder population as well as the increased
disbursement of families across the globe will lead to increased need for
guardianships.
Guardianship
Statistics:
Basic
data on guardianship is scarce. This scarcity makes reform more difficult.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the dearth of
statistical data limits oversight and reform efforts. The demographic
trends noted above highlight the need for uniform consistent guardianship data,
as those trends will account for an increased number of guardianships in coming
years.
The Center for Social Gerontology reported to the U.S. Administration on
Aging in 1992 its estimate of court imposed guardians to be between 500,000 and
1,250,000. Since then, it is widely believed that the number of adult
guardianships has doubled, if not quadrupled. The numbers are impossible
to quantify because individual states themselves do not know how many aging
adults they have agreed to “protect.”
The
National
Center
on Elder Abuse charged the American Bar Association
Commission
on Law and Aging to conduct an exploratory survey of adult guardianship.
They found the following:
1. Over
one-third of responding state court administrative offices (34 percent) receive
from trial courts reports on filings and dispositions for adult guardianship of
the person and/or property as a distinct case type, but close to two-thirds (66
percent) do not.
2. Less
than a fifth of responding state court administrative offices receive from trial
courts reports of filings and dispositions for guardianship of the person only
(19.1 percent); and just over a quarter of the offices receive reports for
guardianship of the property (conservatorship) only (25.5 percent).
3.
State
court administrative offices do not receive from trial courts information on
adult guardianship beyond the number of filings and dispositions.
4. Only
five states reported that elder abuse is a distinct case type reported by trial
courts to state court administrative offices, and a few additional states may
receive such data in the future.
5. Over
two-fifths (44.7 percent) of responding state court administrative offices
indicated that they are interested in compiling data—or additional data—on
adult guardianship, conservatorship, and elder abuse, but named substantial
barriers.
6.
A few
local courts are planning for or demonstrating data collection practices that
may assist other courts grappling with data collection issues.
They
concluded the following:
There
is no state-level guardianship data for the majority of the reporting states.
For states that do receive such data, comparison may be limited by differing
definitions and coding.
Data
reported to state court administrative offices is limited to filings and
dispositions. There is no data on a range of elements that would be critical for
guardianship research and reform efforts. Whether, and to what extent, such data
is maintained at the local court level is not known.
Additional
data beyond filings and dispositions may have two related purposes:
(1)
enhancing case processing
and strengthening oversight of guardians; and (2) supporting broader
guardianship research and reform efforts. Courts may be more apt to collect data
for the former than the latter.
There
is almost no data on elder abuse as a distinct case type, reflecting a larger
lack of elder abuse data nationally.
While
many states express interest in collecting additional information on
guardianship and elder abuse, the burden to local courts, the need for
standardized definitions, and the cost of technology are significant barriers.
Isolated
promising practices in some areas offer potential.
Major
investment in court technology, training, and standardized definitions is
required to secure data for effective guardianship case management, as well as
enabling courts, policymakers, and practitioners to move toward strengthening
the guardianship system and preventing elder abuse.
Those who find themselves in the hands of unwanted guardians or
conservators are not criminal, they are not mentally ill, they are not
incompetent. They are asset-rich and old.
George Alexander and Travis Lewin, authors of The Aged and the Need for
Surrogate Management put it this way:
…The
fault lies with the system created by the law. We define the
condition of incompetency in a way in which psychiatrists can give no meaningful
assistance and then abrogate the decision-making power to medicine. We
devise a system which operates only at the initiation of those who stand to gain
by imposition of the procedure and then ignore competing interests which
causally follow. We draft a procedure that insures a speedy
institution of incompetency but fails to provide an equally expeditious method
for restoration. We design a system of surrogate management
in the belief that mischief wi ll befall the unmanaged assets of the so-called
mentally ill. Then we leave the determination of inauguration
of incompetency in the hands of those benefiting from its continuation,
magically believing that the basic beneficence of man will overcome his self
interest and greed.
|