Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elder Protective Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates ask committee to close oversight gap for elders in custodial and nontraditional settings
Summary
Prisoners Legal Services told the committee H.786/S.466 would expand the Executive Office of Elder Affairs’ investigatory jurisdiction so elders in custodial, group‑home and certain treatment settings are not left without adult‑protective oversight.
The executive director of Prisoners Legal Services told the Joint Committee on Elder Affairs that current adult‑protective statutory boundaries leave a gap for elders living in custodial or “nontraditional” settings and urged passage of H.786/S.466 to expand elder affairs’ investigatory authority.
David Rainey said the Commonwealth’s adult protective services system currently divides jurisdiction among several agencies, and the way the statutes have been interpreted leaves elders in jails, prisons, certain treatment facilities, sober living homes and some group homes without a clear investigator when allegations of abuse or neglect arise. “If someone is 59 years old and being held in prison and is abused or neglected… DPPC has the authority to do an investigation. The moment they turn 1 year older, DPPC loses that authority, and now there is no entity that can do that same investigation,” Rainey said.
Rainey said mandated reporters (such as hospital staff or crisis centers) sometimes must break confidentiality to report suspected abuse, but there is no follow‑up investigatory authority for certain custodial settings. The bill would expand the Executive Office of Elder Affairs’ jurisdiction to investigate negligence or abuse in those nontraditional custodial settings so vulnerable elders have access to protective services and oversight.
Committee members requested clarification about what counts as “nontraditional settings”; Rainey listed examples including prisons and jails, certain Department of Mental Health facilities, homeless shelters, sober living facilities with custodial elements and similar group homes. He characterized the gap as an unintended consequence of how jurisdictions were allocated when the protective services framework was organized.
The committee did not take a vote; witness testimony asked lawmakers to report the bill favorably so statutory language can be refined to ensure investigatory authority and mandated‑reporter pathways are clear.
