Bill
SB 114
Counties may form voluntary Vulnerable Adult Multidisciplinary Teams to coordinate prevention, investigation, prosecution, and services for abuse and financial exploitation.
Status & subject
- Introduced: Jan 23, 2025
- Current status (per materials provided): Referred to the Committee on Judiciary
- Subject areas: Disabilities; health; elder & vulnerable adult protection
- What the bill would do: Authorize counties or regions to create voluntary "vulnerable adult multidisciplinary teams" (VAMTs) to coordinate prevention, investigation, prosecution, and services for vulnerable adults.
Purpose / intent
- Create a formal, multi‑agency team framework at the county or regional level to (a) prevent and respond to elder and vulnerable‑adult abuse and financial exploitation, (b) coordinate medical, social, and legal services, (c) develop prevention/detection programs, and (d) raise public awareness and provide outreach/education.
Key provisions
- Local option to create teams: A county or a contiguous multi‑county region may establish a VAMT; establishment is permissive (local decision).
- Team composition: Teams should include public, private, and “represented” professionals. Example members listed include:
- law enforcement;
- adult protective services (APS);
- county prosecutor/assistant prosecutor;
- the Attorney General (or representative);
- long‑term care ombudsman;
- local health department / DHHS representatives;
- Area Agencies on Aging;
- healthcare professionals with elder/vulnerable adult expertise;
- Michigan Legal Services;
- public administrators;
- community mental health program representatives;
- individuals with finance/forensic accounting expertise.
- Scope of work: prevent/investigate/prosecute abuse and financial exploitation; coordinate services for victims and families; develop detection/prevention programs; promote community education and awareness.
- Confidentiality and records use:
- Teams are explicitly bound by confidentiality and must execute sworn statements to that effect.
- Teams may share information among members to perform duties, but may disclose records only to specified entities (e.g., APS, long‑term care ombudsman, Attorney General, county prosecutor, law enforcement, other team members), and only when not prohibited by other laws.
- Records and information produced/obtained by a team are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- Teams are not considered “public bodies” for purposes of the Open Meetings Act; their meetings are not subject to open‑meetings requirements.
- Definitions: “Vulnerable adult” defined to cover adults (18+) who, due to age, developmental disability, mental illness, or physical disability, need supervision/personal care or lack skills to live independently; includes cross‑references to relevant licensing/social welfare definitions.
- Regional definition: “Region” defined as an area consisting of more than one contiguous county.
Who would be affected
- Primary: counties and regional governments (may choose to form teams); agencies and professionals who would serve on teams (law enforcement, APS, prosecutors, health providers, ombudsmen, aging agencies, legal services, forensic accountants, etc.).
- Indirect: vulnerable adults and their families — potentially faster coordination of investigations, service referrals, and prosecutions; providers subject to team confidentiality protocols.
Fiscal & administrative impacts
- No direct state fiscal impact anticipated from establishing the authority; creation and operation costs would fall to counties/regions that choose to form teams.
- Local costs are unknown and would depend on member participation levels and whether new staff are hired. Committee materials note average social worker salary (~$55,000/year) as an example of potential local staffing cost if positions are created.
Notable legal/transparency tradeoffs
- The bill emphasizes confidentiality and limits FOIA/Open Meetings Act applicability for team records/meetings—this aims to protect sensitive victim information but reduces public transparency of team activities and records.
- Information sharing is intentionally narrow (to specified agencies) and conditioned on other legal constraints.
Practical effect / anticipated benefits
- Intended to improve multi‑disciplinary coordination, speed investigations/prosecutions of abuse and financial exploitation, and strengthen victim services and prevention efforts at the local level.
- Success depends on local buy‑in, funding, and sufficient participation from key agencies (especially prosecutors, APS, and law enforcement).
Related context
- SB 111–113 in the same package address complementary elder/vulnerable‑adult protections (e.g., specialized personal protection orders and criminal penalties for exploitation), illustrating a broader legislative effort focused on elder and vulnerable adult protection.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
