Seize the Data: An Analysis of Guardianship Annual Reports.

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q2 GERONTOLOGY Journal of Aging & Social Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-05 DOI:10.1080/08959420.2024.2349494
Joanne Tompkins, Heather Connors, Diane Robinson
{"title":"Seize the Data: An Analysis of Guardianship Annual Reports.","authors":"Joanne Tompkins, Heather Connors, Diane Robinson","doi":"10.1080/08959420.2024.2349494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Courts have a legal and ethical duty to monitor adult guardianship cases to protect the rights of individuals with guardians. Aging and disability advocates have been recommending improvements to adult guardianship monitoring for decades. The aim of this study is to examine annual guardianship reporting procedures in each state. Using the National Guardianship Association's (NGA) Standards of Practice as a guide, we summarize what is missing from adult guardianship annual report forms in each state. Since 2000, the NGA Standards have been the benchmark for guiding guardianship best practices, making it a valuable tool for guardianship reporting and monitoring. Results show that most states are not collecting thorough data on adults with guardians, their guardians, or the guardian-client relationship. Additionally, many existing annual report forms may be difficult to complete due to confusing question structure and reading levels that are above the national average, especially since most adult guardians are nonprofessional guardians. Improved reporting procedures would help courts monitor guardianships more effectively, ensure that the rights of individuals with guardians are being protected, and provide meaningful data on the overall state of guardianship. Limitations and plans for future research are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aging & Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aging & Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2024.2349494","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Courts have a legal and ethical duty to monitor adult guardianship cases to protect the rights of individuals with guardians. Aging and disability advocates have been recommending improvements to adult guardianship monitoring for decades. The aim of this study is to examine annual guardianship reporting procedures in each state. Using the National Guardianship Association's (NGA) Standards of Practice as a guide, we summarize what is missing from adult guardianship annual report forms in each state. Since 2000, the NGA Standards have been the benchmark for guiding guardianship best practices, making it a valuable tool for guardianship reporting and monitoring. Results show that most states are not collecting thorough data on adults with guardians, their guardians, or the guardian-client relationship. Additionally, many existing annual report forms may be difficult to complete due to confusing question structure and reading levels that are above the national average, especially since most adult guardians are nonprofessional guardians. Improved reporting procedures would help courts monitor guardianships more effectively, ensure that the rights of individuals with guardians are being protected, and provide meaningful data on the overall state of guardianship. Limitations and plans for future research are also discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抓住数据:监护年度报告分析》。
法院有法律和道德责任监督成人监护案件,以保护监护人的个人权利。几十年来,老龄化和残疾倡导者一直在建议改进成人监护监督。本研究的目的是检查各州的年度监护报告程序。以全国监护协会(NGA)的《实践标准》为指导,我们总结了各州成人监护年度报告表中的缺失。自 2000 年以来,NGA 标准一直是指导监护最佳实践的基准,使其成为监护报告和监督的重要工具。结果表明,大多数州都没有收集有关有监护人的成年人、其监护人或监护人与客户关系的全面数据。此外,由于问题结构混乱和阅读水平高于全国平均水平,许多现有的年度报告表格可能难以完成,尤其是大多数成人监护人都是非专业监护人。改进报告程序将有助于法院更有效地监督监护情况,确保监护人的个人权利得到保护,并就监护的整体状况提供有意义的数据。本文还讨论了未来研究的局限性和计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
3.90%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Journal of Aging & Social Policy offers a platform for insightful contributions from an international and interdisciplinary group of policy analysts and scholars. It provides an in-depth examination and analysis of critical phenomena that impact aging and the development and implementation of programs for the elderly from a global perspective, with a broad scope that encompasses not only the United States but also regions including Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Latin America, Asia, and the Asia-Pacific rim. The journal regularly addresses a wide array of issues such as long-term services and supports, home- and community-based care, nursing-home care, assisted living, long-term care financing, financial security, employment and training, public and private pension coverage, housing, transportation, health care access, financing, and quality, family dynamics, and retirement. These topics are of significant importance to the field of aging and social policy, reflecting the journal's commitment to presenting a comprehensive view of the challenges and solutions related to aging populations around the world.
期刊最新文献
Does Social Support Alleviate the Caregiving Burden of Adult Children? Evidence from Chinese Long-Term Care Insurance Pilot Program. Mass Media Exposure Moderates the Association of Education and Wealth with Enrollment in Health Insurance Among Older Adults Aged 60 Years and Older in India. The Impact of Age-Based COVID-19 Pandemic Regulations on Older People in Turkey: A Capability Approach. Provision of Home & Community Based Services to Veterans by Race, Rurality, and Neighborhood Deprivation Index. Understanding Organizational Resilience of Care Homes for Older People During COVID-19 in China: A Qualitative Study with Post-Pandemic Policy Implications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1