Guardianship is not a homelessness policy | OPINION

By Amelia McKeon

The federal government’s proposal to expand guardianship for homeless veterans is being framed as compassionate. It is anything but. It is a dangerous shift toward using one of the most restrictive legal tools we have as a substitute for real solutions — and it risks turning guardianship into a mechanism for forced institutionalization.

In Colorado, we already have a system designed for exactly that purpose. It is called civil commitment. And that distinction matters.

But that is not what this proposal risks creating.

Consider a different scenario — one that is already playing out in systems across the country. A man experiencing homelessness cycles in and out of emergency rooms. He has untreated mental illness and often leaves against medical advice. He is difficult to engage. Under an expanded guardianship approach, he could be deemed incapacitated and placed under guardianship — not because all alternatives were exhausted, but because the system does not have the resources to support him in the community.

Once under guardianship, the path of least resistance becomes clear: placement in an institutional setting whe

This is where Colorado offers a critical lesson.

If someone truly cannot make decisions due to mental illness and poses a risk to themselves or others, Colorado law already provides a structured, rights-protective process: a mental health hold, followed by short-term certification, and, if necessary, longer-term commitment.

Guardianship is one of the most serious interventions a court can impose. It transfers decision-making authority from an individual to another person because the court has determined that the individual cannot safely make certain decisions on their own. But even under guardianship, the person does not disappear. A guardian does not override a person’s life — they support it. They honor the individual’s preferences and values, use the least restrictive options available, and make decisions with the person, not for them.

I have worked with individuals under guardianship who refused certain medications but were open to therapy and stable housing. Instead of forcing compliance, we built a plan around what they would accept. Over time, their stability improved — not because we overrode them, but because we respected them. That is what good guardianship looks like.

Let’s be clear: guardianship itself is not the problem. The misuse of it is.

That process includes medical evaluation, legal standards, court oversight, and defined timelines. It is designed specifically for involuntary treatment and placement.

Guardianship is not.

When guardianship is used to force people into institutional care — especially in systems that have historically been costly, restrictive, and misaligned with individual preference — it stops being protective and starts being coercive. We have seen this before. Institutional systems have long prioritized placement over people, efficiency over autonomy, and liability reduction over dignity. Guardianship should never be the legal justification that makes that easier.

I have seen individuals placed in higher levels of care simply because there was nowhere else for them to go — despite clearly expressing that they wanted something different. In those moments, guardianship was not empowering. It was a legal pathway to override preference in the name of system convenience.

There is a fundamental principle in guardianship practice that every good guardian understands: you do not substitute your judgment for the person’s life — you carry it forward. That means respecting expressed wishes, even when they are complicated. It means balancing safety with autonomy, not replacing one with the other. It means avoiding unnecessary institutionalization at all costs. This is first and most important in the National Guardianship Association’s Standards of Practice.

The proposal also risks conflating homelessness with incapacity. A person can be unhoused, struggling, and still capable of making decisions about their life. I have seen individuals stabilize once given access to housing and consistent support without ever needing guardianship. What they lacked was not capacity. It was access.

If guardianship becomes the entry point to services, rather than the last resort after all else fails, we have inverted the system.

And that is what this is really about. We need improved access to supportive housing. We need support and access for behavioral health resources. We do not have enough community-based services. So instead of building those systems, we are reaching for control. Guardianship becomes the workaround.

But in a state like Colorado, where a legal pathway for involuntary care already exists, using guardianship this way is not just inappropriate — it is redundant and dangerous. It blurs legal standards, attempts to bypass safeguards, and expands a tool that was never meant to carry that weight.

If guardianship is expanded in any context, the standard must be unwavering: it must remain a true last resort, it must be individualized, it must prioritize the person’s will and preferences, and it must never be used to justify unnecessary institutionalization. Anything less is not guardianship — it is control disguised as care.

We owe veterans more than safety at any cost. We owe them dignity, autonomy, and real options — not forced ones.

Guardianship has a role to play. But it cannot — and must not — become a shortcut to manage people when we have failed to support them. Because the moment we use it that way, we are no longer protecting rights.

We are taking them.

Full Article & Source:
Guardianship is not a homelessness policy | OPINION 

See Also:
VA-DOJ Memorandum of Understanding on Guardianship Threatens to Strip Rights from Homeless Veterans

A New Push to Put Homeless Veterans Under Legal Guardianship

Paralyzed Veterans of America Issues Statement Following VA-DOJ Agreement Allowing Guardianship Proceedings for Veterans with Catastrophic Disabilities

V.A. Begins Drive to Put Homeless Veterans Into Guardianship

V.A. Begins Drive to Put Homeless Veterans Into Guardianship

A joint effort with the Justice Department creates new authority to compel veterans into institutional or involuntary care. 

By Ellen Barry and Jason DeParle

The Trump administration on Wednesday announced a new effort to initiate legal guardianships for homeless veterans, which could be used to force more of them into involuntary or institutional care.

The new system, carried out in partnership with the Justice Department, will invest Veterans Affairs Department attorneys with expanded powers that would allow them to initiate and take part in guardianship proceedings for veterans who have no family and are “unable to make their own health care decisions.”

The initiative represents the Trump administration’s most concrete action to advance its goal of compelling more homeless people into involuntary treatment for mental illness and drug addiction.

President Trump identified the issue as a priority during the 2024 presidential campaign and promoted it last July in an executive order that called on agencies to use civil commitment to move homeless people into “long-term institutional settings.”

Critics say the policy shift raises significant civil liberties concerns, noting that in earlier generations, people with severe mental illness were routinely stripped of their legal rights and confined to state hospitals.

The V.A. says the guardianship initiative would affect “hundreds” of veterans who are currently in V.A. facilities but need “a legal decision maker” to transition to a new setting. Some are homeless, and others are “at risk of homelessness” upon discharge, the agency said in a press statement.

“Our new partnership with the Justice Department reflects our ongoing commitment to ensuring that every veteran receives timely, appropriate care,” said Doug Collins, the V.A. secretary.

Guardianship powers are broader and longer lasting than civil commitment, which is used to compel someone to accept medical treatment.

Guardianship proceedings are typically initiated by family members, friends or health care providers, and are argued before state or probate judges, with the subject entitled to legal representation. If a court finds that the person is not able to make basic decisions about health and safety, a guardian is appointed.

Guardians can control a person’s assets, where the person lives and whom he or she sees. They can also require the person to accept medical treatment. Unlike civil commitment rulings, which expire after a specific time period, guardianships are intended to be durable, though they are revisited periodically and can be terminated or dissolved.

Michael Figlioli, the director of the National Veterans Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, commended the change, which he said recognizes “that some of our nation’s most vulnerable veterans must be approached through a public health and social services framework.”

If thoughtfully carried out, he said, guardianships could provide more “structured support” for vulnerable veterans, though he noted “important considerations regarding veterans’ privacy, potential implementation gaps and the need for sufficient resources.”

Rights advocates said they were alarmed by the proposal, which they saw as part of a drive by the administration to place homeless people in institutional settings against their will.

“My speculation is that they are seeking to have people placed under guardianship so they can have a person appointed who will force them into congregate or institutional settings when there isn’t anything else available,” said Jennifer Mathis, the deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

If there are veterans “sitting in V.A. hospitals” unable to be discharged, as the V.A. says, she said, it is “almost certainly” because there are long waits for intensive community services or independent housing. She added that it is highly unusual for the Justice Department to take a role in guardianship proceedings, which are governed by state laws.

“I don’t know what their authority is,” Ms. Mathis said. The federal government, she added, “has very little to do with guardianship.”

Stephen Eide, who studies homelessness at the Manhattan Institute, welcomed the Trump administration’s efforts to expand guardianship, which he said could protect people at risk of “slow-motion suicide.”

“More use of involuntary treatment is essential to solving street homelessness,” he said.

But he cautioned that successful implementation could be challenging, since it requires coordinated efforts among police officers, social workers, clinicians and lawyers, often employed by different levels of government. “It’s hard to change big systems,” he said.

A pilot project to expand guardianships at the V.A. has been under discussion for months.

The pilot, called “Project Safe Harbor,” identified five V.A. hubs that had been selected to test a “guardianship model for veterans experiencing homelessness” who lack capacity to make “appropriate medical and social decisions for themselves,” according to an internal memo shared with The New York Times. The sites were asked to refer veterans and take legal steps for “placement into appropriate care sites.”

There are about 33,000 homeless veterans in the United States, about 14,000 of whom live on the streets. Veterans make up around 5 percent of the unsheltered homeless population. 

Full Article & Source:
V.A. Begins Drive to Put Homeless Veterans Into Guardianship