Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Adult Protective Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Marquette County DHS hears Adult Protective Services presentation highlighting self‑neglect and financial exploitation

Marquette County Department of Human Services Board · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Marquette County Department of Human Services board heard a presentation on Adult Protective Services noting self‑neglect and financial exploitation as the county’s most common APS issues and stressing the importance of Power of Attorney documentation under Wisconsin law.

Judy Bolar and Jan Krueger presented an overview of Adult Protective Services (APS) to the Marquette County Department of Human Services board on June 9, emphasizing that the most common APS issues in the county are self‑neglect and financial exploitation.

Bolar and Krueger summarized APS categories and the statutory framework, citing Wisconsin statutes and the Administrative Code that govern intake and investigation. The presenters described workload pressures, contributing factors for vulnerable adults and elders (age 60 and older), and county data used to track cases and resource needs. "The most common issue for APS in Marquette County is self‑neglect and financial exploitation," the presentation said, and staff noted frequent challenges in verifying authority and documentation for decision‑making.

Jan Krueger stressed the practical importance of Power of Attorney documentation in Wisconsin for managing adults’ affairs and facilitating appropriate interventions. The presentation included data reports and county population context to show demand for APS services and highlighted provider training and documentation best practices aimed at reducing financial exploitation risks.

Board members asked clarification questions about case categories and meal‑site impacts during the discussion. The presentation did not include a request for new county funding or a formal motion; it was presented for information and to inform ongoing workload and policy discussions. The board scheduled follow‑up information as part of regular agenda items.