State WINGS

ACL Project Wings

Alabama

Building on an existing Alabama Interagency Council for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts will establish a WINGS partnership to address issues such as lack of training for guardians and guardians ad litem, lack of persons willing to serve as guardians, inadequate use of limited guardianship, and need for data systems tracking cases.  Contact Bob Maddox.

Alaska

Building on an Elder Task Force created in 2014 by the former Chief Justice, the Alaska Supreme Court will establish a WINGS partnership to address issues such as need for improved monitoring, data collection, and education of guardians and conservators. Contact Stacey Marz and Lisa Wawrzonek.

Florida

Seeking to coordinate efforts of many existing entities addressing guardianship issues, including a work group established by the Chief Justice, the Florida Supreme Court will conduct an issues survey, convene stakeholders, and draw from the experience and findings of the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice. Contact Nathan Moon.

Idaho

Building on an existing interdisciplinary judicial Guardianship and Conservatorship Committee, the Supreme Court will evaluate and expand the Committee’s efforts as a WINGS, focusing especially on court monitoring and supported decision-making. Contact Nanci Thaemert.

Indiana

The Indiana Adult Guardianship State Task Force, which has engaged in guardianship reform since 2008, became a WINGS in 2015.  Under the ACL grant, the Indiana Supreme Court will continue, evaluate and expand the WINGS/Task Force strategies. Additionally, the Indiana WINGS/Task Force will serve as a “Focus WINGS” to devote an intensive, targeted effort in supported decision-making.  Contact Erica Costello.

Oregon

With the experience of the Oregon WINGS launched in 2013, the Oregon Judicial Department will bolster coordination and support for the earlier efforts.  Additionally, Oregon WINGS will serve as a “Focus WINGS” with an intensive, targeted strategy of “mapping” the state’s practices and gaps concerning less restrictive options and decision-making supports. Contact Bryan Marsh.

Utah

With the experience of the Utah WINGS launched in 2013, the Administrative Office of the Courts will reinforce and stabilize the earlier efforts.  Additionally, Utah WINGS will serve as a “Focus WINGS” with intensive, targeted strategies addressing use of limited guardianship, and court oversight to reduce guardian abuse, neglect and exploitation. Contact Karolina Abuzyarova.

SJI-Supported WINGS

Prior to the ACL WINGS demonstration project, 17 states had initiated WINGS. Learn more.

WINGS launched in 2013 with support from the State Justice Institute

New York

The New York Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration, convened a WINGS Summit in March 2014. Contact Michele Gartner or Jean Callahan. 

Oregon

Oregon WINGS convened in August 2013 following a statewide priority-setting survey, and developed work groups on training; support services for family, lay and prospective guardians; and protected persons systems advocacy and access. In 2017, the Oregon Judicial Department launched an ACL Project WINGS (see above).

Texas

The Texas Office of Court Administration convened WINGS in November 2013, following a statewide priority-setting survey. It reports to the Texas Supreme Court’s Elder Law Task Force. It created work groups on alternatives to guardianship, support for lay guardians, and person-centered assessments. Contact David Slayton.

Utah

WINGS was convened in April 2013 by the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts.  Contact Karolina Abuzyarova.

WINGS launched in 2015 with Support from the State Justice Institute & Other Sources

District of Columbia

WINGS was convened by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in August 2015, and developed three work groups on training, public education and guardianship improvement.  Contact Anne Meister.

Indiana

The longstanding Indiana Adult Guardianship State Task Force became a WINGS group in 2015. It is supported through the Adult Guardianship Office of the Supreme Court of Indiana.  In 2017, the Supreme Court launched an ACL Project WINGS (see above).

Minnesota

The Minnesota Judicial Branch convened WINGS in September 2015, following a priority-setting survey.  In 2016, ACL awarded Minnesota funds to strengthen WINGS and establish a supported decision-making model. Contact Anita Raymond, Volunteers of America.

Mississippi

The Mississippi Administrative Office of the Courts convened WINGS in September 2015, with committees on reformed court procedures, capacity determinations, data, less restrictive options, monitoring and training.  Contact
Desiree Hensley.

Washington

Following a statewide priority-setting survey, the Administrative Office of the Courts convened a meeting of over 200 stakeholders in August 2015. WINGS formed work groups on legislation, long-range/strategic planning, standards and best practice, and information and training.  Contact Stacey Johnson.

Additional WINGS

Some states have created guardianship stakeholder partnerships on their own:

Georgia

A Steering Committee launched Georgia WINGS in December 2015.  Contact Aimee Stowe, Department of Human Services.

Guam

The State Justice Institute directly funded a Guam WINGS, which convened an initial meeting in February 2016. Contact Sonia Suobiron.

Kentucky

State legislation in 2018 recommended that the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the Administrative Office of the Courts create a pilot WINGS. Contact Karen Waugh.  

Maryland

The Guardianship/Vulnerable Adults Workgroup of the Maryland Judicial Council’s Domestic Law Committee is working to implement its twenty-five recommendations for improving guardianship practices statewide.  This multidisciplinary group also monitors emerging issues that affect individuals under guardianship and other vulnerable adults. Contact Nisa C. Subasinghe.

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute began in 2015, and has convened four statewide Colloquia bringing together the network of guardianship stakeholders. Contact Wynn Gerhard.

Missouri

WINGS grew out of a broadly inclusive task force convened by the Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council. It has worked on a revision of the state guardianship code. Contact Dolores Sparks.

Montana

State legislation in Montana in 2017 created and funded a WINGS consisting of nine members appointed by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Contact To Be Determined

North Carolina

The state’s Rethinking Guardianship: Building a Case for Less Restrictive Alternatives initiative grew out of a grant awarded to the Division of Aging and Adult Services by the North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities.  The Jordan Institute for Families within the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is facilitating the stakeholder group. Contact Linda Kendall Fields and Alison Climo. 

Ohio

The Ohio Interdisciplinary Guardianship Committee is a permanent subcommittee of the state Supreme Court. Contact David Edelblute.

Pennsylvania

In November 2014, the PA Supreme Court created the Office of Elder Justice in the Courts to assist with implementation of the Elder Law Task Force’s recommendations, support the work of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts, and foster collaboration with elder justice entities. Contact Cherstin Hamel.

West Virginia

Legal Aid organized a broad-based Roundtable focused on adult guardianship reform. Contact Jeremiah Underhill and Jennifer Taylor.      

Wisconsin

WINGS was convened by the Chief Justice in May 2015.  Contact Andrew Bissonnette.

Virginia

The Virginia Supreme Court convened WINGS in November 2016, and created four working groups on data, resources, monitoring and training.  Contact Paul DeLosh.

This web page is supported, in part, by a grant No. 90EJIG0007-01-00  from the Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Grantees carrying out projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and conclusions. Therefore, points of view or opinions do not necessarily represent official Administration for Community Living or DHHS policy.