About Us

The Guardianship Policy Institute exists to inspire policy change and social justice for isolated adults with unmet decisional support needs. We serve as a bridge between the traditional guardianship model and the growing movement toward flexible, rights-based alternatives.
Founded in 2014 as a collaboration between Guardian Community Trust and Greater Boston Legal Services, the Institute provides thought leadership across four core areas: Advocacy, Service, Reform, and Research.

Our Mission

The mission of the Guardianship Policy Institute is to inspire policy change and social justice for isolated adults with unmet decisional support needs in Massachusetts. We are committed to understanding and improving access to guardianship and its alternatives for all persons who, due to functional impairment, are unable to care for themselves or manage their property without help — especially those without the personal or financial resources to seek help privately.

Meet Our Members

Peter M. Macy, Ed.M., J.D.

Executive Director of Guardian Community Trust, Inc.

Wynn A. Gerhard, Esq.

Elder Justice Fellow at Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute and Guardian Community Trust

Heather L. Connors, Ph.D.

Executive Director of The Center for Guardianship Excellence

Scott Harshbarger - Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute
Hon. Gen. Scott Harshbarger

Senior Counsel at Casner & Edwards

John J. Ford, Esq.

Director of the Elder Law Project at the Northeast Justice Center in Lynn, MA

Paul Lanzikos - Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute
Paul Lanzikos

Executive Director of North Shore Elder Services, Inc.

Joanne Tompkins, Ph.D.

Research Associate at the Center for Guardianship Excellence

Jenaya Tucker, DHA, LICSW

Clinical Director of Public Guardian Services

Mariya Kubishyn, J.D.

Operations Manager for Public Guardian Services

Mariana Sousa

Communications Manager for Guardian Community Trust

Our Partners

Scroll to Top

2 While both “unbefriended” and “unrepresented” are commonly used to refer to the population of concern to the Institute, we use the latter in this Report, as being more technically correct and less distracting than the other, more emotive term. In using the term, we do not intend to imply anything about legal representation.

1 Moye, J., et al., Ethical Concerns and Procedure Pathways for Patients Who are Incapacitated and Alone, HEC Forum DOI 10.1007/s10730‐016‐9317‐9 (published online), p. 4 (Jan. 13, 2017.