scholarly journals Closing the Loop: An Environmental Scan of APS-Reporter Feedback Policies and Practices

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 939-939
Author(s):  
Olanike Ojelabi ◽  
Randi Campetti ◽  
Kathy Greenlee ◽  
Kristin Lees Haggerty

Abstract Abuse, neglect, and exploitation of older adults are prevalent and underreported in the United States. Pathways to identifying and resolving cases of abuse against older adults depend on mandated and non-mandated reporters bringing attention to these cases through reports to Adult Protective Services (APS). However, existing research points to several barriers to reporting. One significant barrier is a lack of communication from APS to reporters about reports they have made (e.g., whether the report is appropriate for APS, the investigation outcome, and services provided by APS). This lack of reciprocal communication likely serves as a disincentive for future reporting. This study aims to promote improved communication between APS and reporters by examining the legal, ethical, and practical barriers and facilitators to communication at key points in the reporting and response pathways. In this first phase of the project, we conducted an environmental scan of policies and practices related to reporting, investigation, and feedback. Early results from the environmental scan suggest most APS agencies (81%) do not currently provide feedback to reporters. Among those providing feedback, 20% provide feedback only to mandated reporters, and 50% provide only procedural feedback, which focuses on the process of receiving and screening reports for investigation and not on the outcome of the investigation. In the next phase of this study, we will supplement these findings through interviews with APS leaders across the U.S. These early results will begin to fill an important gap in the understanding of feedback loops between APS and reporters.

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 86-86
Author(s):  
Pamela Teaster ◽  
Cory Bolkan

Abstract Beginning in the United States in 2020, SARS-CoV-2 lead to unprecedented changes in the lives of both younger and older people. Efforts to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus, which included physical distancing and self-quarantine not only upended the lives of many people but also created natural laboratory conditions for the mistreatment of older adults. Exploring the mistreatment of older adults during the pandemic presented an unprecedented opportunity to examine perspectives of service providers and affected older adults. This symposium offers four perspectives on this subject. Dr. Karen Roberto and colleagues will present changes and challenges that COVID-19 brought for Adult Protectives Service staff and the vulnerable adults whom they serve. Ms. Lori Smetanka and colleagues will present changes and challenges that COVID-19 created for state and local Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Dr. Holly Ramsey-Klawsnik and Ms. Tammy Seaver will report on how the pandemic affected Nevada Adult Protective Services clients, casework, and staff. Finally, Dr. Pamela Teaster and colleagues will discuss how older adults experienced exploitation attempts during the early months of the pandemic. Dr. Cory Bolkan will begin the discussion, highlighting how conditions brought about by COVID-19 both enabled and thwarted efforts to address elder abuse.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S843-S844
Author(s):  
Pi-Ju ( Liu ◽  
Zachary Hass ◽  
Kendon Conrad ◽  
Karen Conrad ◽  
Jarmin C Yeh ◽  
...  

Abstract Adult Protective Services (APS) is responsible for investigating reports of abuse, exploitation, and neglect among vulnerable adults. California’s APS program investigates approximately 15% of all abuse, neglect, and exploitation reports in the country. Once abuse or neglect is substantiated, caseworkers design and implement a service plan for clients to reduce future risk; however, APS intervention effectiveness have not been extensively investigated. In partnership with San Francisco and Napa APS, risk and harm of abuse were measured by type using standardized items from the Identification, Services, and Outcomes Matrix, which is derived from the validated Elder Abuse Decision Support Short Form during case investigation (before APS interventions) and at case closure (after APS interventions). Data from 1,472 older adults’ (on average 78 years old; 57% females) served by APS during the six-month pilot demonstration showed the reduction of risk/harm in self-neglect (p<.001), neglect (p<.001), emotional abuse (p<.001), physical abuse (p=.002), and financial abuse (p<.001) after APS interventions. Effective interventions differ by type of abuse such that caregiver support (b=-.98, p<.10), emergency assistance (b=-1.14, p<.05), and client engagement (b=-1.85, p<.05) decreased self-neglect risk/harm; client engagement (b=-2.24, p<.05) decreased neglect by others risk/harm; case management services (b=-1.17, p<.05) decreased physical abuse risk/harm; and financial planning services (b=-3.99, p<.05) decreased financial abuse risk/harm. No services were identified as effective for emotional abuse. Since effective services differed by type of abuse, it is important to consider the etiology of abuse before implementing the services needed by older adults to effectively decrease harm/risk.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 323-324
Author(s):  
Stephanie Skees

Abstract Elder financial exploitation (EFE), defined by the National Center for Elder Abuse (2021) as “the misappropriation of an older person’s money or property,” is a continuing public health crisis shown to cost individuals at least $2.9 billion a year (MetLife Mature Market Institute, 2011). Many believe this impact will increase exponentially due to the effects of COVID-19. In fact, a recent study conducted by Chang & Levy (2021) found that the prevalence of elder abuse as a whole increased from 1 in 10 older adults to 1 in 5 in the past year. Although increased collaboration between state attorneys general, Adult Protective Services, and financial institutions has driven progress in the field; there is still little known regarding EFE interventions. To address this issue, this study conducts a scoping review of the EFE intervention literature. This approach was chosen over a systematic review primarily due to the lack of a universal definition of EFE, as well as the limited number of studies available delineating between EFE and elder abuse as a whole. The main findings of the review reveal that current EFE intervention practices are focused on preventing abuse before it occurs by addressing risk factors for abuse in older adults; and are largely reliant on Adult Protective Services and the legal system. This finding is significant because state policies differ in their qualifications of EFE, thus leaving many older adults vulnerable and unprotected. Further interventions that address EFE while it is occurring and alignment across governing bodies are needed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S383-S383
Author(s):  
Cory Bolkan ◽  
Pamela Teaster ◽  
Holly Ramsey-Klawsnik ◽  
Kenneth Gerow

Abstract Vulnerable older adults needing surrogate decision makers typically rely upon others for care and are unable to advocate for themselves. The issue of EFFE perpetrated by family members designated as surrogates has become highly visible nationally, yet no reliable, empirical documentation exists on the nature or extent of exploitation by surrogate perpetrators. In collaboration with the National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA), we prospectively gathered APS data from six geographically diverse counties on 450 substantiated cases of abuse by POAs, representative payees, and guardians of vulnerable adults 65+ living in community settings. This presentation will highlight how family member surrogates perpetuated abuse and the outcomes on elder victims. These findings elucidate person and process-level factors (e.g., characteristics of victims, perpetrators, and their relationships) within the context of the APS system and can inform practice and policy recommendations for better prevention, detection, investigation, and intervention in these challenging cases.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 876-876
Author(s):  
P Liu ◽  
K Conrad ◽  
K Conrad ◽  
M Iris

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document