Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adult Protective Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutor warns state RFP could end local adult protective services
Summary
Vigo County Chief Deputy Rob Roberts told the council the stateissued RFPs and funding reductions may transfer Adult Protective Services away from prosecuting offices, putting local coverage at risk when the current contract ends June 30.
Rob Roberts, chief deputy with the Vigo County Prosecutor—9s Office, told the Vigo County Council that the state—9s procurement and budget choices could end the county—9s locally run Adult Protective Services (APS) program.
Roberts said APS is currently run by hub prosecutors under a contract with the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) and historically has been funded on two-year cycles. He told the council prosecutors around the state told FSSA they would not renew contracts in 2025 under the then-current funding levels, and the Legislature changed statutes to allow FSSA to contract with other kinds of agencies.
Roberts said prosecutors submitted a proposal to operate APS statewide and initially estimated it would cost about $18 million a year. After back-and-forth requests for best-and-final offers and reduced ceilings, the state asked for proposals capped at $6.5 million per year for three years. Roberts said the prosecuting attorneys—9 council offered to provide services for $18.5 million over two years but that subsequent RFP rounds reduced the available funding, and the deadline for the latest RFP closed last Friday with no announcement yet.
"Our contract ends June thirtieth of this year," Roberts said. "Whoever—9s going to take it over has to train investigators and case managers to handle thousands of cases throughout the state of Indiana. To be able to do that when we—9re already in March seems like a pretty heroic task." He said prosecuting offices already have staff and infrastructure in place and that a change in contractor could disrupt service delivery and require counties to plan for different funding scenarios.
Roberts answered council questions about timing and service scope: he said the state had not given a timeline for a final decision and that the RFP language described the same level of services currently provided. He warned that, depending on the state—9s choice, the county could lose the locally run APS hub and that the county—9s budget committee should plan for contingencies.
Roberts repeatedly emphasized the risk that reduced funding and the RFP structure pose to continuity of services and local staffing.
The discussion was informational; no formal action or vote was taken on APS during the meeting.
