Guardians care for some of Minnesota’s most vulnerable adults. But they lack proper oversight and training.

The lives and care of nearly 35,000 vulnerable adults in Minnesota have been put in the hands of court-appointed guardians who often wield broad powers over their lives.

Yet, there is inadequate oversight, nonexistent training, limited accountability and few consequences when any of the state’s 41,000 guardians fail to meet their responsibilities, according to a new report released Wednesday by the state Legislative Auditor.

Minnesota also doesn’t adequately ensure that guardians are appointed only when appropriate, said Caitlin Badger, who managed the evaluation for the Office of the Legislative Auditor, a nonpartisan office that audits state government.

The result, she said, is a system in dire need of increased attention and improvement.

“Given the magnitude of issues we identified throughout our research, we believe that it’s time for the Legislature to take some substantial steps to bolster the administration and oversight of adult guardianship in the state,” Badger told members of the Legislative Audit Commission in St. Paul.

First, Badger said, the Legislature should establish a centralized “entity” to administer and monitor guardianships. Currently, such work falls to each of 10 judicial districts, which take different approaches and dedicate varying amounts of staff time.

“Moving guardianships under a single entity will help the state to unify the responsibility for ensuring the proper performance of staff,” she said. “It’ll help reduce the number of staff working on guardianship and hopefully improve accountability and consistency within the system overall.”

For example, she said, the Legislature could consider centralizing this work within the state court administrator’s office. One way to do this is setting up a separate board within the judicial branch.

Or, Badger said, the Legislature, could consider moving the work to the Executive Branch through something like a licensing board.

Currently, she said, the system relies on the people subject to guardianship to file complaints when they believe guardians are not acting in their best interests.

“That’s flawed,” she said. “People subject to guardianship are often vulnerable individuals, and it’s important, we think, that the state ensure their safety and well-being.”

The Legislative Auditor’s Office is also recommending a process for systematically reviewing adult guardianships, she said.

“Guardians right now have significant authority and latitude to act with little guidance or oversight,” she said. “And we think a system to review guardianships would help the court to receive accurate, objective and sufficiently thorough information about the person subject to guardianship and the extent to which the guardians are fulfilling their duties.”

The evaluation’s extensive list of recommendations also included:

Currently, Badger said, training is not required for someone to be named a guardian. The Judicial Branch has just a 23-minute video that guardians can watch, she said.

“It’s optional. You know, 23 minutes is a pretty low barrier to entry,” she said. “And so we think they should be required to receive at least some level of training.”

After Badger’s presentation, Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, said it seems that the issues relating to guardianship are not only legal in nature —requiring a court to rule someone incapable of making their own decisions — but carry a human services function as well.

The courts, too, acknowledged fixing the flaws in guardianship require legislative action.

In a 10-page response attached to the end of the evaluation, Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba wrote that the judicial branch has already taken steps to improve data collection, record-keeping and complaint investigations. A more comprehensive system needs legislative funding and support, they said.

The Office of the Legislature Auditor has been reviewing how guardianship training, complaints and oversight are handled as part of an increasing emphasis on the system. That includes a task force that will look at ways to increase qualified guardians, establish licensure or certifications and expand less-restrictive alternatives.

Last year, guardians lost their immunity from personal or financial liability if something goes wrong with someone under their charge.

The change stemmed from the sexual assault of 77-year-old Jean Krause by an assisted living facility employee in 2016. Her family sued, saying the guardian did not tell them about the assault. But the courts determined guardians are immune from liability for negligence.

Legislators said Minnesota was the only state with that level of protection for guardians.