House Bill 391 appropriates recurring General Fund dollars to the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Social Services, to expand Adult Protective Services (APS) staffing in county departments of social services. The bill is aimed at addressing a growing volume of reports involving abuse, neglect, and exploitation of older adults, including physical, sexual, emotional, mental, passive neglect, financial exploitation, confinement, and willful deprivation.
The bill directs $2.178 million in recurring funds for fiscal year 2025-26 and $4.542 million in recurring funds for fiscal year 2026-27 to add at least 25 APS workers in the first year and 25 more in the second year, for a total of 50 additional workers statewide. The Division of Social Services, in consultation with the North Carolina Association of County Directors of Social Services, would distribute the positions to counties with the greatest need based on APS caseloads, staffing needs, the local population age 65 and older, and the volume of elder abuse reports. Funds must be used only for salaries, benefits, and related expenses for the new workers and may not replace other funding sources.
HB391 would change state spending policy by creating a recurring state appropriation for APS staffing, where North Carolina currently does not provide state funds for Adult Protective Services. It would increase state support for county social services departments and likely reduce pressure on county budgets and federal Social Services Block Grant dollars, which the bill notes are often depleted before year-end. The bill does not amend the substantive APS duties in Chapter 108A, but it would materially affect how APS is funded and staffed statewide.
The bill appears to have broadly supportive framing, with the text emphasizing rising elder abuse reports, overwhelmed county APS staff, and unmet local need for additional workers. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no formal recorded debate or roll-call sentiment to measure. The available context suggests the bill is presented as a response to a documented service capacity problem rather than a controversial policy change.
The main policy issue is funding: the bill requires recurring General Fund appropriations, which may raise budget concerns even though no opposition is documented in the provided materials. Another point of potential contention is allocation methodology, since the Division of Social Services would decide which counties receive the new positions based on need factors such as caseloads, older-adult population, and report volume. Counties that do not receive positions, or stakeholders concerned about state versus county responsibility for APS, could view the distribution formula or the shift toward state funding as significant.