By Loree Cook-Daniels

Wisconsin released the report of its year-long Adult Protective Services (APS) Modernization Project to more than 440 participants at its 2001 Elder Abuse and APS Conference held September 12-13, 2001, in Oconomowoc.

The 70-page document reflects the deliberations of a Workgroup of 30 key APS, elder abuse, and related professionals charged by former Department of Health and Family Services Secretary Joe Leean with examining “Wisconsin’s existing adult protective services and elder abuse reporting systems, including all relevant laws and regulations, to recommend ways to better protect and serve vulnerable adults across the life span regardless of where the individuals reside.”

Recipients of the report were encouraged to provide feedback on the report by October 15, which may result in changes. (As of September 2002, the website now also includes comments made by the Waushara County Department of Social Services, a response by the Bureau, and a January 2002 status report, itself updated in March 2002.)

However, as it stands now, the document recommends several key changes to Wisconsin’s system. (Although current DHFS Secretary Phillis Dubé is very supportive of the Workgroup’s work, it should be noted that actual implementation of the recommendations are subject to financial and other constraints.)

Because the current Wisconsin system was found to have only “some protections in place for some individuals in some situations” (emphasis in the original), the Workgroup recommended a redefinition of those who should be covered by the system as every “adult-at-risk.”

Perhaps most controversially, the Work-group recommended changing Wisconsin’s voluntary reporting system to one in which some professionals are mandated to report when the adult meets the “vulnerable adult” definition and is at current risk of immediate or serious bodily harm or death or significant property loss, is unable to make an informed judgment about whether to report, or the potential reporter reasonably believes other adults-at-risk may become or may continue to be victims of the same abuser.

Other key recommendations of the Workgroup include:

• Developing a single, state-wide access point for reporting, obtaining information, and accessing services;
• Mandating every county to have an Interdisciplinary Team (I-Team) that meets at least eight times per year;
• Requiring uniform names and titles for agencies and staff involved in APS work to facilitate public aware-ness and reporting;
• Requiring the signing and renewal of more Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with various related agencies;
• Clarifying rules governing confidentiality and allowing more sharing of report records; and
• Strengthening protections for employees who report suspected abuse.

The Workgroup also came to a “strong group consensus that Adults-at-Risk [W]orkers should serve primarily as advocate[s] for the client, and not as an entry point for law enforcement or to perform the functions of law enforcement.” Therefore, the recommendations carefully clarify what roles both law enforcement and adults-at-risk workers should take with regard to cases. In addition, combining this recommendation with the previous one concerning the mandated reporting of certain kinds of cases, the Workgroup concluded that adults-at-risk should no longer have the right to refuse an investigation, “since, under the modernized system, the Adults-at-Risk worker is not conducting an ‘investigation’ in the traditional (or law enforcement) sense; rather the worker is providing information and a possible referral.”

For more information on the Wisconsin Modernization project, see its website at www.dhfs.state.wi.us/APS/index.htm.