The Financial Exploitation and Abuse of the Elderly

Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Honors College at WKU Projects

6-26-2017 The inF ancial Exploitation and Abuse of the Elderly Christopher Hodges Western Kentucky University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses Part of the Economics Commons, Elder Law Commons, and the Gerontology Commons

Recommended Citation Hodges, Christopher, "The inF ancial Exploitation and Abuse of the Elderly" (2017). Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 684. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/684

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College Capstone Experience/ Thesis Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY

A Capstone Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Economics

with Honors College Graduate Distinction, at

Western Kentucky University

By C. Jacob Hodges May 2017

*****

CE/T Committee:

Dr. Cathy Carey, Chair

Dr. Stephen Locke

Mr. Cory L. Dodds J.D.

I dedicate this thesis to my parents, Chris and Beth Hodges, to my siblings, Dalton and Alayna Hodges, and also to my committee without whom I would not be where I am today. Thank you for the inspiration as well as the motivation to press on.

III

ABSTRACT

The criminal industry of elder financial fraud and exploitation (EFFE) is a growing concern among policy makers as well as researchers. This is due to the growing financial impact exploiters are having on their victims. EFFE is defined by the National

Center on Elder Abuse as “the illegal or improper use of an elder’s funds, property, or assets (NCEA, 2017).” Following this definition, the quantity of wealth determined to have been lost due to EFFE is staggering. As the tangible capital loss has grown so has the need for more research into this topic. The research in this paper seeks to accurately define the problem of EFFE through a legislative review and then utilize regression analysis to discover potential variables that could affect its prevalence in specific states.

By correlating data gathered from the Consumer Sentinel Network, released under a

Freedom of Information Act request, and the United States Census Bureau, I hope to generate policy recommendations that will combat EFFE in an efficient and effective manner.

VITA

EDUCATION

Western Kentucky University , Bowling Green, KY May 2017 B.A. in Economics – Mahurin Honors College Graduate Honors Capstone: The Financial Exploitation and Abuse of the Elderly

Monroe County High School, Tompkinsville, KY May 2013

AWARDS & HONORS

Summa Cum Laude, WKU, May 2017 Cherry Presidential Scholarship Awardee WKU May 2013- 2017

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

International Economics Society Omicron Delta Espilon (ODE)

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Toppers at Sea Climate Change Research Study June 2014 Harlaxton College Fall 2014 Semester at Sea Spring 2016

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iv VITA ...... v INTRODUCTION ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 4 RESEARCH ...... 11 REGRESSION ANALYSIS ...... 27 CONCLUSION ...... 31 FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 32 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33 WORKS CITED ...... 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Population Aged 65 and Over as a proportion of Total Population. Source: National Center on Elder abuse ...... 2

Figure 2: Population pyramid for the united states. Source: NCEA, 2017 ...... 3

Figure 3: Method of Contact Source: FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Database ...... 24

Figure 4. Total complaints by age group Source: FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Database ...... 25

Figure 5. Frequency of contact by age group. Source: FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Database ...... 25

VII

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: States with the Best Elder-Abuse Protections ...... 7

TABLE 2: Definition of an Elder by State ...... 12

TABLE 3: EFFE Claims data from the FTC Consumer Sentinel Database as a Percentage of the Population by State ...... 20

TABLE 4: Summary Statistics...... 27

TABLE 5: Regression Results ...... 28

VIII

INTRODUCTION

Elder financial fraud and exploitation, hereafter referred to as EFFE, is defined by the National Center on Elder Abuse as “the illegal or improper use of an elder’s funds, property, or assets (NCEA, 2017).” With the growing population of elderly Americans due the baby boom bubble and to increased life expectancy, the financial exploitation of the elderly has grown into a prominent topic concerning new legislation. This paper seeks to further explore this unique type of fraud and postulate potential policies that might assist in reducing the total amount of funds defrauded from the elderly.

As elders’ physical and mental health deteriorate, it falls to their children, or a trusted advisor, attorney or paid caregiver, to responsibly manage their finances. The challenge of settling an estate can be handled with care and approached with the best interest of the elder at heart, or it can present a lucrative opportunity to those that would seek to profit from individuals who are either incapable of knowing when they are being wronged or unwilling to report those they love to the proper authorities. As much as 55 percent of all EFFE cases occur within families (MetLife Mature Market Institute et al.,

2009). According to Acierno’s report, The National Elder Mistreatment Study, this is a

5.2 percent one-year incidence rate among older adults (Acierno, 2013).”

With improvement in healthcare increasing the life expectancy of an average adult, this task of estate management will be extended out over a longer time period exacerbating this specific brand of fraud. According to the 2010 census, there are over 50 million Americans 62 and older. According to the World Atlas, by the time Americans reach the age of 65, “they can, on average, be expected to live for 17 years more.”

(Dillinger, 2017) These numbers are expected to grow, as shown in Figure 1 and, due in

1 part to the demographic bubble, illustrated in Figure 2 below, generated from the baby boom following World War II.

FIGURE 1: POPULATION AGED 65 AND OVER AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL POPULATION. SOURCE: NATIONAL CENTER ON ELDER ABUSE Figure 1 was retrieved from the National Center on Elder Abuse and illustrates the drastic change in the proportion of society that will be constituted by the elderly in the coming decades. As the proportion of society represented by the elderly grows, so will the amount of wealth concentrated within that age bracket. This will make the elderly a continuing source of profits for criminals who would seek to steal their hard earned money. This is further evidence that not only more legislation but also legislation written with this population trend in mind is necessary to maintain societal balance for the elderly.

With over 75 million members in the baby boomer generation, the sheer size combined with the rise in prevalence of 401(k) plans during their productive years has amassed an incredible amount of wealth in the elderly (WallStreet.org, 2012). Between

2008 and 2011, the aggregate dollar amount defrauded from the elderly increased by 12% to $2.9 billion. As individuals are managing their own retirements at an increasing rate, the elderly will continue to grow more vulnerable to exploitation (WallStreet.org, 2012).

FIGURE 2: POPULATION PYRAMID FOR THE UNITED STATES. SOURCE: NCEA, 2017

BACKGROUND

The recent trend of increased research into EFFE has been motivated by the increase of both national and localized attention regarding this criminal industry. In 2010, under President Barack Obama, the Elder Justice Act was passed as a part of the

Affordable Care Act. The Elder Justice Act is a law that applies to seniors aged 60 years or older. This federal legislation addresses the EFFE at a national level. Although this comprehensive legislation fails to address the problem with the austerity that it requires, it is the federal government’s attempt at creating a unified front to address the lack of coordination and breakdown in communication between state agencies. The Act supports efforts to detect EFFE, but it also seeks to implement preventative measures in order to minimize the amount of cases that occur. The goal of combatting all forms of elder abuse, including EFFE, as defined by the Elder Justice Act, is to, “prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect and exploitation [and] protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their autonomy” (NLRC, 2016).

The Elder Justice Act seeks to arm elders with not only the knowledge, but also the appropriate resources with which to protect themselves from this parasitic form of crime. Though far from adequate, this act also gives law enforcement agencies a greater amount of funding and tools needed to better protect the elderly and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. Some specific provisions of the Elder Justice Act are:

 Creating the Elder Justice Coordination Council

 Creating the Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Advisory Board

 Providing support for Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Centers

 Implementing penalties for any retaliation against individuals reporting

violations

 Expanding the requirements of mandated reporting for long-term care

facilities

 Directing a study on creating a national nursing registry that includes

criminal background checks.

(NLRC, 2016)

The criminal industry of EFFE is a growing concern among state policy makers as well. The Elder Justice Act has resulted in a plethora of state bills that directly reference the financial exploitation of the elderly to be signed into law. This includes an increase in the number of states that have defined who an “elder” is within their jurisdiction in the eyes of the law. This is due to the growing financial impact exploiters are having on victims in their states. The quantity of wealth determined to have been lost due to EFFE is staggering. A localized example of this impact is found in Stiegel’s 2012 study An

Overview of Elder Financial Exploitation in Utah. Residents, businesses, and governments of Utah lost as much as $52 million through EFFE alone. By defining the problem, states can take steps at implementing effective policies.

As the demographic grouping of the elderly continues to grow along with increased regulatory scrutiny at all levels of the government, EFFE has the potential to become a major consumer law issue. Many state legislatures have enacted laws that help victims and law enforcement overcome challenges to bringing financial exploitation cases in civil and criminal court. The rising tide of legislation regarding EFFE has generated interest from third party research institutions such as WalletHub, which has

5 generated a list ranking states on their individual characteristics of providing security for the elderly. Using information regarding the provisions implemented and resources provided by states, WalletHub produced a ranking system of states by overall protections

(of which EFFE is a subset) for elders. This ranking is provided in Table 1 below.

The ranking system was created by a panel of experts in fields such as social welfare and aging in order to quantify the protections given to the elderly. The three variables considered in the study are prevalence, resources, and protection. “Prevalence” is the share of elder-abuse, gross-neglect, and exploitation. This variable held the highest weighted score and was generated by dividing the total number of elder-abuse, gross- neglect, and exploitation complaints by the number of state residents 65 or older. The

“resources” variable was quantified by adding the total expenditures on elder-abuse prevention per elder, total expenditures on legal assistance development per elder, and total long-term Ombudsman Program funding per elder. The final category tested in this study was “protection”. This consists of the presence of financial elder-abuse laws, eldercare organizations and services, elder-abuse forensic centers, frequency of assisted living facilities inspections, and the quality of nursing homes within the state (Bernardo

2016).

This ranking system ranks the District of Columbia as the “State” with the best elder-abuse protections, followed by Nevada, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Missouri. It is not surprising that DC is so highly ranked given that additional penalties for crimes against the elderly have been in place since 1982. Nevada, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and

Missouri also specifically identify elderly individuals in state law as 60 and above in age.

The five states at the bottom of the ranking, South Dakota, Rhode Island, California,

Wyoming and South Carolina all have a high prevalence of claims, even though

California has a high level of legal protections and Rhode Island allocates a large amount of expenditure towards protecting the elderly.

TABLE 1: States with the Best Elder-Abuse Protections Overall Total Prevalence Resources Protection State Rank Score Ranking Ranking Ranking District of 1 71.46 25 2 4 Columbia 2 Nevada 70.92 2 3 27 Massachusett 3 66.62 10 8 12 s 4 Wisconsin 66.14 12 4 33 5 Missouri 65.22 11 15 8 6 Tennessee 60.14 16 16 16 7 Iowa 59.78 8 20 18 8 Louisiana 59.76 1 14 42 9 Vermont 59.59 6 21 19 10 Hawaii 58.78 5 49 3 11 New York 58.44 9 48 1 12 Pennsylvania 58.33 4 32 13 13 Georgia 57.68 19 12 35 14 West Virginia 57.59 28 10 24 15 Maryland 55.56 33 6 21 16 North Carolina 55.25 18 31 9 17 Maine 53.23 23 27 14 18 Kansas 52.59 21 43 11 New 19 51.79 3 36 38 Hampshire 20 Washington 50.63 31 35 10 21 Delaware 50.53 26 30 23 22 Arizona 50.05 36 5 46 23 Texas 50 15 45 29

TABLE 1: States with the Best Elder-Abuse Protections Overall Total Prevalence Resources Protection State Rank Score Ranking Ranking Ranking 24 Indiana 49.85 13 47 28 25 Minnesota 49.08 17 33 36 26 Connecticut 49.03 29 23 32 27 Oregon 48.7 40 11 15 28 Mississippi 48.25 27 18 49 29 Oklahoma 46.06 35 28 17 30 Ohio 45.47 30 24 39 31 Michigan 45.33 7 46 48 32 Montana 45.17 44 1 20 33 Colorado 44.69 34 25 30 34 Arkansas 44.57 38 37 5 35 Utah 43.78 37 13 50 36 Virginia 43.64 22 44 44 37 Alaska 43.62 43 19 6 38 Florida 43.34 14 50 47 39 Illinois 43.09 32 34 31 40 New Mexico 42.76 39 17 41 41 Nebraska 42.23 24 51 40 42 Alabama 41.91 20 41 51 43 Kentucky 39.98 42 9 43 44 Idaho 34.7 41 38 34 45 North Dakota 33.61 47 22 2 46 New Jersey 29.72 45 40 22 47 South Dakota 28.37 46 29 25 48 Rhode Island 28.31 49 7 26 49 California 18.93 50 42 7 50 Wyoming 18.18 48 26 45 51 South Carolina 12.49 50 39 37 Source: Bernardo 2016

One of the most concerning aspects of EFFE is the vast array of perpetrators through which the elderly can be exploited. Beginning with the “who” behind the fraud,

“Instances of fraud perpetrated by strangers comprised 51% of the articles. Reports of

8 elder financial abuse by family, friends, and neighbors came in second, with 34% of the news articles followed by reports of exploitation within the business sector (12%) and

Medicare and Medicaid fraud (4%) (Metlife, 2013).” With so many sources of defrauders, not only can it be difficult for policy makers to nail down effective legislation, but it can also be difficult for investigators to determine who is being exploited and how the exploitation is being carried out.

Equally exacerbating to this legal problem is the multitude of mediums through which the elderly may be exploited. According to the Metlife Study’s rankings of highest average loss to an individual, Medicare and Medicaid fraud is the highest resulting in

($38,263,136) followed by fraud by business and industry ($6,219,496), family, friends, and neighbors ($145,768), and fraud by strangers ($95,156) (Metlife, 2013, Pg. 2). This multitude of mediums can cause law enforcement agencies to run into difficulties protecting elders from those that would seek to exploit them.

The issue of EFFE is not new and not one that is going to go away anytime soon.

As the tangible capital loss has grown so has the need for more research into this topic.

This has been illustrated by the recent, dramatic increase in produced literature regarding

EFFE. When comparing 2008 to 2010, we see an overall increase in articles produced regarding fraud and exploitation with a 10% increase in the number of articles written regarding phone scams or other types of cons (Institute 2011). EFFE as a component of elder abuse in general has been increasing in prevalence. From November 2010 through

January 2011 31% of the 1,128 articles released concerning elder abuse centered around

EFFE (Metlife 2013). This emphasizes the trend of growing national recognition that this topic has gained in recent decades. Only then will effective legislation be able to be

9 enacted to stop this activity. I seek to portray the up-to-date situation of EFFE legislation, consider potential policies that might improve the financial security and minimize the negative economic impact for those deemed elderly, and use regressions to determine state characteristics that correlate with higher or lower EFFE frequency.

RESEARCH

The purpose of my research is to more accurately define the problem of

EFFE and discover potential variables that could affect its prevalence in specific states.

To define the problem, I first present state definitions of “elderly” using data on state legislation that I collected from the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) websites. This information is found in

Table 2. To assess current state legislative focus on the EFFE issue, I present a summary of current state legislative activity that I found using links provided on the NCSL website. While it is believed that a large percentage of EFFE goes unreported (Kevin L.

Petrasic, 2015), the FTC Consumer Sentinel Network database is used by many agencies to report complaints of financial fraud. I use data retrieved under the Freedom of

Information Act to assess the extent that EFFE is publicly reported. Finally, I attempt to assess determinants of these claims by state using regression analysis. Table 2 below was derived from data retrieved from the US DOJ and NCSL websites regarding state criminal codes referencing the abuse of the elderly and/or the exploitation of the elderly.

The criminal codes referencing each law as well as the specific verbiage recorded by each state have been collected. The columns to the right distinguish which age groups are protected by the law for elder abuse. From Table 2, it can be determined that a large amount of variation regarding how an elder is defined is contained within the legislation of each state. Simply defining a generally accepted term to reference the elderly would be a significant step toward unity on the topic. Terms that vary as widely as advanced age, elder person, vulnerable adult, and person who is aged can misconstrue the victimized group. Couple this lack of a consistent definition of EFFE with the obstacle of each state

11 defining which individuals are contained within this group differently and a situation conducive to EFFE results.

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + Alabama Criminal 1) Adult in need of Code of Ala. § 38-9-2 protective services (2016) § 38-9-7 (2016) 2) A person of 18 years or X older whose behavior indicates mental incapability Alaska None

Arizona Criminal 1) Incapacitated Person A.R.S. § 14-5101 2) Vulnerable Adult X

(2015) § 46-451 (2015) Arkansas Endangered Person

California Criminal 1) Elder – Person aged 65 Cal Pen Code § 368 or older. Harsher (2016) punishments if victim is over 70 years of age X X X 2) Dependent Adult – individual that is incapable of taking care of themselves Colorado Criminal 1) At-risk Elder is 70+ C.R.S. 18-6.5-102 years of age (2015) § 18-6.5-103 2) An individual 18 Years X X (2015) or older that has a disability

Connecticut None

Delaware Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adults - 11 Del. C. §1105 person over 18 years of age (2016) §222 (2016) § who is mentally incapable 3902 (2016) § 3913 of taking care of X X

(2016) themselves 2) Elderly Person - any person 62+

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + District of Columbia 1) Senior Citizen - § 22–3601 (1982) individual who is 60 years of age or older X

Florida Criminal 1) Disabled Adult - person Fla. Stat. § 825.101 18+ with disability (2016) § 825.103 2) Elder Persons - person X X

(2016) 60 years or older suffering from cognitive decline Georgia Criminal 1) Disabled Adult - person O.C.G.A. § 16-5-100 18+ with disability (2015) § 16-5-102 2) Elder Persons - person X X (2015) § 17-8-1 (2015) 65 years or older

Hawaii None

Idaho Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adult - any IDAHO CODE ANN. person 18+ unable to X § 18-1505 (2016) protect themselves Illinois Criminal 1) Elder Persons - 60 years 720 ILCS 5/17-56 or older X (2016) Indiana Criminal 1) Endangered Person - IND. CODE ANN. § 18+ person mentally 12-10-3-2 § 35-46-1-12 incapable of resisting X X

(2015) abuse 2) Dependent adult - 60+ Iowa Criminal 1) Dependent Adult - 18+ Iowa Code § 235B.2 but unable to protect (2016) § 235B.20 themselves (2016) and SF 2239 2) Vulnerable elder - a (2014) person sixty years of age or X X older who is unable to protect himself or herself from elder abuse as a result of age or a mental or physical condition.

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + Kansas Criminal 1) Elder Persons - 70+ KAN. CRIM. CODE. 2) Dependent Adult - 18+ X X ANN. § 21-5417 (2016) and unable to protect themselves Kentucky Criminal 1) Adults - 18+ mentally KY. REV. STAT. incapable X ANN. § 209.020 (2016) § 209.990 (2016) Louisiana Criminal 1) Person who is Aged - 60 LA. REV. STAT. years or older ANN. § 14:67.21 2) Disabled Person X X (2016) § 14:93.4 (2016)

Maine None

Maryland Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adult - MD. CODE ANN., Person who lacks the X CRIM. LAW § 3-604 mental or physical capacity (2016) § 8-801 (2016) to provide daily needs Massachusetts 1) ''Elderly person'' - an Chapter 19, Section 14 individual who is sixty X

years of age or over. Michigan Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adult - MICH. COMP. person 18+ who whether LAWS ANN. § 400.11 by age or disability cannot X (2016) § 750.174a live independently (2016) § § 750.145m (2016) Minnesota Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adults - Minn. Stat. § 609.232 Person over 18 years of (2015) § 609.2335 age who is mentally X (2015) incapable of taking care of themselves Mississippi Criminal Vulnerable Persons - MISS. CODE. ANN. Person over 18 years of §43-47-19 (2015) age who is mentally X

incapable of taking care of themselves

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + Missouri Criminal 1) Disabled Adult - person MO. ANN. STAT. § 18+ with disability 570.145 (2016) 2) Elder Persons - person (Effective until Jan. 1, 60 years or older suffering X X 2017) from cognitive decline § 570.145 R.S.Mo. (2016) Montana Criminal 1)Older Person – a person MT SB134 2013 aged 60 years or older X

Nebraska Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adult - Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28- person 18+ who whether 358 (2016) § 28-371 by age or disability cannot X (2016) § 28-386 (2016) live independently

Nevada Criminal 1) Older Persons - Person NEV. REV. STAT. 60 years of age or older ANN. § 200.5092 2) Vulnerable person - X X (2016) § 200.5099 person 18 years of age or (2016) older that is mentally or physically disabled New Hampshire 1) Disabled Adult - person CriminalN.H. Rev. 18+ with disability Stat. § 631:8 (2016) 2) Elder Persons - person X X §631:9 (2016) RSA 60 years or older suffering 631:10 (2016) from cognitive decline

New Jersey None

New Mexico None

New York None

North Carolina 1) Disabled Adult - person Criminal 18+ or emancipated minor N.C. GEN. STAT. with disability X X ANN. § 14-112.2 2) Older Adult - person 60 (2015) years or older suffering from cognitive decline North Dakota 1) Vulnerable Adult - Criminal person 18+ who whether N.D. CENT. CODE by age or disability cannot X ANN. § 12.1-31-07.1 live independently (2015) § 50-25.2-01

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + (2015) Ohio None

Oklahoma Criminal 1) Elderly Person - aged 62 OKLA. STAT. ANN. or older tit. 21, § 843.4 (2016) 2) Disabled Adult - 18 X X

years or older and mentally or physically handicapped Oregon Criminal 1) Elderly Persons - 65 ORS § 163.205 (2016) years or older 2) Dependent Person - person who whether by age X

or disability is dependent upon another for basic needs Pennsylvania None

Rhode Island 1)Elder - person 65 years Criminal or older R.I. Gen. Laws § 11- 2) Monitors financial 68-1 (2016) transfers by adults 60 and (Enhanced penalty, older X X

R.I. Gen. Laws § 11- 41-5 (2016)) § 11-68-2 (2016) § 11-68-3 (2016) South Carolina 1) Vulnerable Adults - Criminal person over 18 years of age S.C. CODE ANN. § who is mentally incapable X 43-35-10 (2015) § 43- of taking care of 35-85 (2015) themselves

South Dakota 1) Elder - person 65 years Criminal or older S.D. CODIFIED 2) Disabled Adult - 18+ LAWS § 22-46-1 who is either mentally or X X (2016) (Effective July physically incapable of 1, 2016) § 22-46-3 protecting themselves from (2013) (Effective July exploitation 1, 2016)

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + Tennessee 1) Advanced Age - Person CriminalTenn. Code aged 60 years or older Ann. § 71-6-102 2) Adult - 18 years or older (2016) § 71-6-117 but mentally or physically X X

(2016) handicapped beyond the point of avoiding exploitation Texas Criminal 1) Elderly Individual - 65 TEX PE. CODE ANN. years or older § 22.04 (2015) § 31.01 2) Disabled Person - X X (2015) § 31.03(3) mentally or physically (2015) § 32.53 (2015) disabled and unable to provide basic needs Utah Criminal 1) Elder Adult - Aged 65 UTAH CODE ANN. § years or older 76-5-111 (2015) 2) Vulnerable Adults - X person over 18 years of age who is mentally incapable of protecting themselves Vermont Criminal 1) Vulnerable Adult - VT. STAT. ANN. tit. person 18+ who whether X 13, § 1375 (2016) § by age or disability cannot 1380 (2016) live independently Virginia None

Washington SB 5600 Sixty years of age or older (2015) who has the functional, mental, X

or physical inability to care for himself or herself West Virginia 1) Elderly Person - aged 65 Criminal or older X W. Va. Code § 61-2- 29b (2016) Wisconsin Elder adult at risk - means Chapter 46.90 any person age 60 or older who has experienced, is currently experiencing, or X is at risk of experiencing abuse, neglect, self- neglect, or financial exploitation.

Table 2: Definition of an Elder by State

State Persons Eligible 70 65 62 60 18- 18 + + + + 64 + Wyoming Criminal 1) Advanced Age - 60 Wyo. Stat. § 35-20-102 years or older X (2015) § 6-2-507 (2015)

This collection of statutes in Table 2 is a representation of the shifting focus of policy makers regarding the EFFE. To obtain an accurate grasp on the current legal situation regarding EFFE, I examined the legislative history of each state regarding bills passed and proposed regarding EFFE in the last five years. The data for this list was retrieved from the National Conference of State Legislatures and has been compiled into an appendix at the end of this paper as a reference. This information was used to supplement information found on the DOJ site to make Table 2 the most comprehensive and current list of state elder definitions. It serves as a testament to the prevalence EFFE has garnered politically in the recent years. Some observations from recent legislation include that

 over 100 bills have been signed into law regarding EFFE,

 eight separate statutes were filed at the state level during the time span between

2012-2016 naming different days and/or months of the year with a title

referencing Elder Abuse Awareness,

 the variation in the verbiage used within the legislation divides the identity of the

elderly into four distinct categories across the nation (60+, 62+, 65+ and 70+),

 and a number of bills proposed in opposition of EFFE were not signed into law.

For example, the states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California have

proposed over 200 bills collectively, but have only passed approximately 10% of

the bills proposed.

At the state level EFFE has been addressed recently through multiple state specific agencies or laws that seek to prohibit elder abuse. Examples include the following:

 Arizona 2013 – Senate Bill 1175 prevents an individual in a position of trust and

confidence from bringing a civil suit against a vulnerable adult unless clear

evidence has been present in favor of this movement.

 California 2016 – AB 381 statute requires the Department of Justice to develop

and distribute an informational notice that warns the public about elder and

dependent adult fraud and provides information regarding how and where to file

complaints. The bill also requires the notice to be made available on the internet

website of the attorney general in order to make the reporting process a simple as

possible for victims.

 Illinois 2012 – SB 3517 provides that no perpetrator of elder financial abuse may

receive a license issued by the Department of Children and family services or be

employed by the Department of Childcare services.

 Maine 2015 – LD 1348 became law without the signature of the governor. This

statute provides continued funding for the state’s Office of Aging and Disability

Services Program furthering the fight against EFFE.

 Massachusetts 2013 – HB 3538 creates a special commission to make an

investigation and study of elder protective services and to make recommendations

to enhance said services where appropriate and necessary.

 New Jersey 2016 – SB 157 and AR 154 statutes established the New Jersey Task

Force on Abuse of Persons who are Elder or Disabled and implemented

provisions against phone scammers who would seek to defraud the elderly.

In order to further explore the correlation between state legislation and the prevalence of EFFE cases, I constructed Table 3 illustrating the relation between the total number of fraud claims and the total number of elder fraud claims reported to the FTC’s

Consumer Sentinel Network Database and a state’s specific population. Table 3 data is sorted by order of lowest to highest EFFE claims as a percentage of total claims per state.

As expected, elder claims increase as total claims and population increase; however, elder claims as a percentage of total claims is only moderately correlated (Pearson coefficient =

.41) to elders as a percentage of the population.

Table 3: EFFE Claims data from the FTC Consumer Sentinel Database as a Percentage of the Population by State

Elder Elder Total Claims as Elder Claims Number of Total % of Elder Pop. as as % Total Claims as Elder Total Elder Elder Cases as % Total Total State State Pop. Claims % Pop. Cases Pop. Pop. % Pop. Pop. Claims

Texas 26,538,614 59810 0.23% 12063 4,295,769 0.28% 0.05% 16.19% 20.17%

Wisconsin 5,742,117 9630 0.17% 2026 1,203,096 0.17% 0.04% 20.95% 21.04%

District of Columbia 647,484 2748 0.44% 580 105,463 0.55% 0.09% 16.29% 21.11%

Utah 2,903,379 5447 0.19% 1195 407,626 0.29% 0.04% 14.04% 21.94%

Georgia 10,006,693 23880 0.24% 5339 1,730,240 0.31% 0.05% 17.29% 22.36%

Illinois 12,873,761 24463 0.19% 5774 2,473,410 0.23% 0.04% 19.21% 23.60%

North Carolina 9,845,333 23028 0.24% 5721 1,975,531 0.29% 0.06% 20.07% 24.84%

South Dakota 843,190 1241 0.15% 314 176,776 0.18% 0.04% 20.97% 25.30%

Table 3: EFFE Claims data from the FTC Consumer Sentinel Database as a Percentage of the Population by State

Missouri 6,045,448 12431 0.21% 3167 1,268,305 0.25% 0.05% 20.98% 25.48%

North Dakota 721,640 886 0.13% 228 144,488 0.16% 0.03% 20.02% 25.73%

New York 19,673,174 39996 0.20% 10379 3,965,446 0.26% 0.05% 20.16% 25.95%

New Jersey 8,904,413 20146 0.23% 5230 1,796,103 0.29% 0.06% 20.17% 25.96%

Kentucky 4,397,353 8279 0.19% 2158 901,866 0.24% 0.05% 20.51% 26.07%

West Virginia 1,851,420 5102 0.28% 1331 452,079 0.29% 0.07% 24.42% 26.09%

Iowa 3,093,526 4779 0.16% 1285 670,646 0.19% 0.04% 21.68% 26.89%

Connecticut 3,593,222 7705 0.21% 2078 761,318 0.27% 0.06% 21.19% 26.97%

Maryland 5,930,538 17349 0.30% 4680 1,139,503 0.41% 0.08% 19.21% 26.98%

Oklahoma 3,849,733 7016 0.18% 1921 765,360 0.25% 0.05% 19.88% 27.38%

Kansas 2,892,987 5971 0.21% 1640 568,859 0.29% 0.06% 19.66% 27.47%

Virginia 8,256,630 20727 0.25% 5703 1,580,771 0.36% 0.07% 19.15% 27.51%

Vermont 626,604 1204 0.19% 333 147,123 0.23% 0.05% 23.48% 27.66%

Colorado 5,278,906 13180 0.26% 3647 951,579 0.38% 0.07% 18.03% 27.67%

California 38,421,464 82744 0.22% 23015 6,834,115 0.34% 0.06% 17.79% 27.81%

Louisiana 4,625,253 8597 0.19% 2394 881,312 0.27% 0.05% 19.05% 27.85%

Tennessee 6,499,615 14728 0.23% 4142 1,344,086 0.31% 0.06% 20.68% 28.12%

Pennsylvania 12,779,559 27820 0.22% 7829 2,894,905 0.27% 0.06% 22.65% 28.14%

Nebraska 1,869,365 3456 0.19% 973 371,599 0.26% 0.05% 19.88% 28.15%

Indiana 6,568,645 11846 0.18% 3389 1,296,896 0.26% 0.05% 19.74% 28.61%

Arkansas 2,958,208 4927 0.17% 1428 627,988 0.23% 0.05% 21.23% 28.98%

Mississippi 2,988,081 4962 0.17% 1449 586,842 0.25% 0.05% 19.64% 29.20%

South Carolina 4,777,576 10641 0.23% 3121 1,028,937 0.30% 0.07% 21.54% 29.33%

Idaho 1,616,547 3643 0.23% 1071 317,788 0.34% 0.07% 19.66% 29.40%

Michigan 9,900,571 17914 0.18% 5323 2,110,101 0.25% 0.05% 21.31% 29.71%

Alabama 4,830,620 9832 0.20% 2923 1,016,623 0.29% 0.06% 21.05% 29.73% New Hampshire 1,324,201 2986 0.23% 888 292,282 0.30% 0.07% 22.07% 29.74%

Minnesota 5,419,171 10653 0.20% 3193 1,071,703 0.30% 0.06% 19.78% 29.97%

Washington 6,985,464 24133 0.35% 7282 1,374,109 0.53% 0.10% 19.67% 30.17%

Florida 19,645,772 53590 0.28% 16285 4,868,465 0.33% 0.08% 24.78% 30.39%

Rhode Island 1,053,661 1777 0.17% 541 226,390 0.24% 0.05% 21.49% 30.44%

Montana 1,014,699 2440 0.24% 743 234,608 0.32% 0.07% 23.12% 30.45%

Table 3: EFFE Claims data from the FTC Consumer Sentinel Database as a Percentage of the Population by State

Wyoming 579,679 1078 0.19% 334 115,340 0.29% 0.06% 19.90% 30.98%

Oregon 3,939,233 9903 0.25% 3140 871,991 0.36% 0.08% 22.14% 31.71%

Nevada 2,798,636 8429 0.31% 2723 542,563 0.50% 0.10% 19.39% 32.31%

Ohio 11,575,977 21335 0.18% 6970 2,472,734 0.28% 0.06% 21.36% 32.67%

New Mexico 2,084,117 4678 0.23% 1532 434,482 0.35% 0.07% 20.85% 32.75%

Massachusetts 6,705,586 13698 0.21% 4583 1,386,681 0.33% 0.07% 20.68% 33.46%

Alaska 733,375 1410 0.19% 472 106,474 0.44% 0.06% 14.52% 33.48%

Hawaii 1,406,299 2547 0.18% 864 305,805 0.28% 0.06% 21.75% 33.92%

Maine 1,329,100 2787 0.21% 967 331,119 0.29% 0.07% 24.91% 34.70%

Delaware 926,454 2685 0.29% 949 205,150 0.46% 0.10% 22.14% 35.34%

Arizona 6,641,928 18023 0.28% 6456 1,398,713 0.46% 0.10% 21.06% 35.82% Source: FTC Consumer Network Database and U.S. Census Bureau Population data is from American Community Survey, 5 year estimates, 2015

Claims data was obtained using data released under a Freedom of Information Act

Request and was collected by the Consumer Sentinel Network1. Table 3 consists of the

1The Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN) is a collection of data on millions of consumer complaints utilized by law enforcement officials to record trends and make policy recommendations to government officials. These complaints originate from a multitude of sources including the Federal Trade Commission, State and Federal Law Enforcement Organizations, Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection, the Montana, North Carolina and Oregon Departments of Justice, the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, the Tennessee Division of Consumer Affairs, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, and the Offices of the Attorneys General for Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, and Washington. Federal agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Internal Revenue Service. Non-governmental contributors to the database include the Council of Better Business Bureaus, consisting of all North American BBBs, a major contributor of complaint data, PrivacyStar, and the National Consumers League. The wide variety of organizations along with their diverse background allow for utilization of this database to produce a comprehensive summation of data regarding Elder Financial Exploitation (CSN 2017).

22 five-year average claims for each state from the years 2012-2016. Population data is from the 2015 American Community Survey. The three states with the highest percentage of cases as a portion of their population are Nevada, Delaware, and Washington. Two of these three states, Nevada and Washington, define an elder as anyone 60 years of age or older. Delaware has a minor discrepancy as an elder is defined by someone aged 62 or older.

Looking at the ratio of elder abuse claims as a percent of total claims we see the correlation that would be expected; a proportion of total claims may be related to more policies being enacted to combat EFFE. The three highest ranking states in this category

Maine, Delaware, and Arizona have each signed legislation into law, within the last five years, that references EFFE is some aspect. We see a similar correlation when examining the states that have the highest proportional number of elder abuse claims. For example, the state of Washington has the highest percentage of its population filing EFFE claims.

In 2015, Washington passed a law defining the age bracket known as the elderly as those of 60 years of age and older according to the NCSL. This implies that Washington’s clarification of the definition of an elder has allowed more victims to be identified correctly.

In order to account for the current advancements in life expectancy and the growing number of elders as proportional to society, policies will need to take into account the method through which the elderly are being approached by potential fraudsters. Policies that specifically address the methods most commonly used to exploit

23 elders will allow law enforcement agencies to be proactive in preventing EFFE instead of reactive in their approach to apprehending perpetrators.

Method used for Contact

16% NOT REPORTED 0% Fax

3% 1% I Initiated Contact In Person Internet Combined Mail 13% Mobile: Text/Email/IM 59% Other

4% Phone Media Combined 2%

Figure 3: Method of Contact Source: FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Database

As noted earlier, it is estimated that just over half of EFFE cases are conducted by strangers. Figure 3 was generated using data from the Consumer Sentinel Network

Database and portrays the preferred method of contact used by fraudsters targeting the elderly. This sample contains only reported incidents of attempted fraud for age brackets

60 and above. A high frequency of phone contact is prevalent in this age group. The internet category combines the distinct categories of Websites, Emails, and a generalized

“Other” to represent other mediums of exploitation on the web. This high proportion is

24 sure to grow since being an elder does not necess!arily correlate with increased technological abilities and may leave the elderly exposed to high tech schemes.

Complaints by Age Group over Time 180,000 12 and Under 160,000 13 - 17 140,000 18 - 19 120,000 20 - 29

100,000 30 - 39

80,000 40 - 49 50 - 59

60,000 TotalComplaints 60 - 64 40,000 65 - 69 20,000 70 - 79 0 80 and Over 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year

FIGURE 4. TOTAL COMPLAINTS BY AGE GROUP SOURCE: FTC CONSUMER SENTINEL NETWORK DATABASE

Figure 4 represents the total number of complaints by age group for the years between 2012 and 2016. This chart is especially concerning for EFFE as there has been a significant growth in the number of total complaints for all groups 65+ years of age.

Percent Contact by Age Group 0% 1% 0%

4% 12 and Under 8% 13% 13 - 17 6% 18 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 11% 18% 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69

21% 70 - 79 18% 80 and Over

FIGURE 5. FREQUENCY OF CONTACT BY AGE GROUP. SOURCE: FTC CONSUMER SENTINEL NETWORK DATABASE Using data gathered form the Consumer Sentinel Network, Figure 5 was constructed to illustrate the frequency with which each age group is contacted by potential perpetrators of fraud. This chart does not reflect that an act of fraud has taken place, but only that contact was made. That can be inferred from this chart is that more that 50% of reported contacts with potential victims happen over the age of 50 with more than two thirds of the victims over 50 falling within the elderly category. This further correlates with the assumption that the elderly are targeted for fraud at an increasing rate.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

I sought to determine the primary variables that determined a higher frequency of

EFFE on a state-by-state basis. Regression results are presented in Table 4. The variables

I chose to include in the regression were selected based on their suspected correlation to the frequency of EFFE. The summary statistics for the variables included in the regressions are as follows:

Table 4. Summary Statistics VARIABLES N mean sd min max

New Law Passed that Year 203 0.345 0.476 0 1 Percent Pop. Married 203 58.92 5.140 29.40 71.90 Percent of Pop. Widowed 203 5.966 0.822 3.600 8.100 Total Cases 203 3,630 4,225 131 27,780 Cases Per Capita 203 0.000603 0.000191 0.000190 0.00139 Percent of Pop. HS Grad 203 29.03 4.165 18 40.90 Avg Social Security Income 203 17,198 987.5 13,733 19,387 Elder Pop. In 1000s 203 1,180 1,263 91.74 6,801 Percent of Elders Affected 203 0.309 0.0998 0.0954 0.649 TABLE 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF REGRESSION DATA First I included the percent of the population that achieved a high school degree as a measure of educational attainment in each state, Percent of Pop. HS Grad. Next I included the average social security income as a measure of incentive to select certain states over others, denoted Avg Social Security Income. The variable percent of Pop.

Widowed represents the percent of the population per state that is represented by widows.

I also included a dummy variable denoting whether there was a law passed in that year or prior to that year in the time frame referencing EFFE to account for the legislation’s effectiveness, denoted New Law Passed that Year. In both regressions, I accounted for time fixed effects in order to control for general trends that might exist within the five

27 year period. I also included the variable Elder Pop. in 1000s to depict the actual number of elders that is affected for every increase of 1000 elders contained within each state.

Table 5. VARIABLES Total Cases Percent Elders Affected

Percent of Pop. HS Grad -589.6* 0.00100 (322.4) (0.00409) Avg Social Security Income 0.665 3.42e-05** (0.805) (1.64e-05) Percent of Pop. Widowed 2,145* -0.0703*** (1,128) (0.0203) New Law Passed that Year -418.8 -0.0144 (917.0) (0.0199) Percent of Pop. Married 39.21 -0.0110*** (168.7) (0.00274) 2013.year -58.13 -0.0134 (385.9) (0.0112) 2014.year 622.2 0.0310** (799.1) (0.0152) 2015.year 639.3 0.0215 (937.8) (0.0189) Elder Pop. in 1000s -5,878 0.757*** (11,248) (0.186)

Observations 204 204 R-squared 0.176 0.515 Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

TABLE 5. REGRESSION RESULTS CORRELATING CSN DATA WITH CENSUS DATA In the first regression, I examined the total cases contained within each state as my dependent variable. This variable refers to just the reported EFFE per state. I hold constant the Percent of Pop. HS Grad, Avg. Social Security Income, Percent of Pop.

Widowed, include the dummy variable New Law Passed that Year, the Percent of Pop.

Married, and Elder Pop. In 1000s. Time fixed effects have been included for the five years being examined, denoted 흀풕, which allows us to account for the general trends

28 existing from year to year causing fluctuations independent from the variables included.

The empirical model for the regression was as follows:

푇표푡푎푙 퐶푎푠푒푠 = 훽1 (푷풆풓풄풆풏풕 풐풇 푷풐풑. 푯푺 푮풓풂풅) + 훽2(푨풗품 푺풐풄풊풂풍 푺풆풄풖풓풊풕풚 푰풏풄풐풎풆) + 훽3(푷풆풓풄풆풏풕 풐풇 푷풐풑. 푾풊풅풐풘풆풅) + 훽4(푵풆풘 푳풂풘 푷풂풔풔풆풅 풕풉풂풕 풀풆풂풓) + 훽5(푷풆풓풄풆풏풕 풐풇 푷풐풑풖풍풂풕풊풐풏 푴풂풓풓풊풆풅) + 훽6(푬풍풅풆풓 푷풐풑. 풊풏 ퟏퟎퟎퟎ풔) + 흀풕 + µ

This regression produced two variables that were significant at the 90% significance level all other variables held constant. These variables were Percent of Pop.

HS Grad with a coefficient of -589.6 and Percent of Pop. Widowed with a coefficient of

2,145. We see the percent of high school graduates has a substantial impact on the Total

Cases per state reducing the incidents by nearly 590 cases with every increase in Percent of Pop. HS Grad. This negative coefficient allows us to infer an increase in educational attainment will result in fewer EFFE cases. The Percent of the Pop. Widowed has a positive coefficient telling us that an increase in this percentage with raise total cases in the state by 2145.

The second regression seeks to determine the effect of these variables with the

Percent Elders Affected being held as the independent variable. The dependent variable is the percent of the elder population contained within each state that is affected by elder abuse. The empirical model is as follows:

푃푒푟푐푒푛푡 퐸푙푑푒푟푠 퐴푓푓푒푐푡푒푑 = 훽0 + 훽1 (푷풆풓풄풆풏풕 풐풇 푷풐풑. 푯푺 푮풓풂풅) + 훽2(푨풗품 푺풐풄풊풂풍 푺풆풄풖풓풊풕풚 푰풏풄풐풎풆) + 훽3(푷풆풓풄풆풏풕 풐풇 푷풐풑. 푾풊풅풐풘풆풅) + 훽4(푵풆풘 푳풂풘 푷풂풔풔풆풔 풕풉풂풕 풀풆풂풓) + 훽5(푷풆풓풄풆풏풕 풐풇 푷풐풑. 푴풂풓풓풊풆풅) + 흀풕 + µ

This regression produced the three significant variables of Avg Social Security

Income, Percent of Pop. Married, and the Percent of Pop. Widowed. Time fixed effects have been included for the five years being examined, denoted 흀풕, which allows us to account for the general trends existing from year to year causing fluctuations independent from the variables included. After examining the positive signs associated with each of these coefficients we can see that, apart from 2013, the trend of elder cases has increased with every passing year. This solidifies the prediction that as more elders are present and living in society the problem of EFFE will continue to grow in frequency.

Four variables are statistically significant after running this regression: Percent of

Pop. Widowed and Percent of Pop. Married were significant at the highest significance level while Avg. Social Security Income and Elder Pop. In 1000s were significant at the

90% significance level. In this regression, Percent of Pop. Widowed and Percent of Pop.

Married have negative coefficients. This implies that an increase in either of these percentages will result in a smaller Percent of Elders Affected. Avg Social Security

Income and Elder Pop. In 1000s both have positive coefficients. For ever unit increase in

Avg Social Security Income we can expect an increase of 3.42e-05 in the Percent of

Elders Affects. For every additional1000 elders in the population we can expect an increase of 0.757 in the Percent Elders Affected.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I feel that beneficial information has been added to the literature regarding EFFE. I thoroughly examined the legislation the has been passed over the last five years and found that EFFE is a growing concern amongst policy makers. I also recorded the discrepancies in the definitions used by each state to emphasize the lack of unity surrounding this issue.

In conjunction with a legislation review, I aggregated claims data from the

Consumer Sentinel Network into tables relaying the prevalence of EFFE cases and the methods fraudsters use to target elders. This determined that the number of reported

EFFE cases are consistently increasing and that the contact method most prevalently utilized is the phone. I used a population pyramid of the United States to infer on the source of the increase in EFFE cases. This showed that, as the baby boomer population bubble moves further into retirement, we can expect more EFFE cases sans effective legislation.

Finally, I used regression analysis to examine the correlation of population characteristics with the frequency of EFFE cases. I determine that average social security income, the percent of the population widowed, and the percent of the population that is a married couple were statistically significant across all three regressions. Having a higher proportion of married couples and widows both lowered the amount of EFFE cases we can expect to occur. However, as the average social security income, the total amount of

EFFE cases increased.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Continued research into EFFE and the motivation behind those who commit it will help legislators to adapt laws that will target the source of this illegal activity.

Factors regarding specific cases need to be included in future research in order to pinpoint the characteristics that make individuals more likely to be targeted. The reverse is also true that identifying characteristics linking the perpetrators of this crime together would be invaluable to investigators. Armed with information on both sides of this conflict will allow law enforcement to not only prevent EFFE cases for individuals who may find themselves especially susceptible, but to also target suspects that fit the profiles generated by prior cases with similar characteristics.

This study could be improved by conducting an economic impact assessment for each state and by aggregating the totals in order to project a nationwide EFFE impact assessment. Specific case data or data regarding the dollar amount of loss by state, even in an anonymous format, was denied to be released for this study and thus an accurate impact assessment for an individual state could not be generated. However, following the same methodology created by Gunther (2011) future research should gather case specific data through a survey in order to project each states individual impact assessment.

The pursuit of more knowledge regarding this topic is paramount to solving this issue and protecting the elderly. With the advancement of medical technology and the upward trend of life expectancy, we can only predict the total number of elderly to continue increasing. Without the proper research into both sides, victim and perpetrator, the who, where, and how of EFFE will remain shrouded in mystery.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the opinion of the researcher that a national registry for offenders of EFFE needs to be put in place. This will allow the elderly access to a database logging and flagging individuals who would seek to do them harm if given the opportunity. It would function in a similar way to the Sex Offender Registry. This system would also carry with it the added social stigma of being labeled as a criminal that seeks to inflict harm on those made vulnerable by age related mental degradations. By having this potential punishment, potential fraudsters would be further incentivized to avoid exploiting the elderly lessening the financial burden this age-demographic experiences.

Another recommendation would be increasing the amount of education that is not only available to financial professionals but also what is required to maintain a license as a financial advisor. Greater awareness of the individuals who are responsible for protecting the elderly from potential fraudsters will equate to new policies having a greater effect. The implementation of consistent education requirements for all financial services workers across the United States would increase confidence in the system as a whole. Some potential requirements or changes could be:

 Training for individuals at all levels of management on the signs of elder financial

abuse in order to increase the total number of Mandated reporters

 Allowing for streamlined products, such as investment bundles, to be offered to

the elderly that make the signs of exploitation glaringly obvious to advisors

 Requiring that passing a test over the signs and dangers of Elder Financial

Exploitation be part of licensing

 Declaring specific divisions of financial institutions oversee detecting and dealing

with elder fraud

The final recommendation is that the federal government address the definition and policy of EFFE at a national level. One of the greatest weaknesses found in the legislation referencing EFFE is that its definition varies across state lines. To be more effective in the enforcement of policies, a general rule or set of guidelines should be instituted at the federal level in order to promote unity across the nation. One factor in particular that should be generalized is the definition of when an individual becomes an elder. Ages recorded in legislation across the country vary from a 60-year cutoff all the way up to a 70-year threshold with multiple variations between these two extremes.

Many states do not define an age crimes that constitute elder abuse. This ineffective system of varying age brackets for who is considered an elder, in regards to EFFE, can cause issues for law enforcement agencies tackling a criminal industry that can very easily find itself crossing state lines.

These recommendations would be a solid start toward creating an EFFE prevention strategy. They would provide state governments with more tools and a unified platform with which to approach future cases. These assets would allow a safer financial environment for the elderly and allow them to live the rest of their lives with their hard- earned wealth intact.

WORKS CITED

Acierno, R. (2013). The National Elder Mistreatment Study. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 24(4), 281-293.

Bernardo, R. (2016, December 7). 2016’s States with the Best Elder-Abuse Protections. Retrieved April 1, 2017, from WalletHub: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-best-elder-abuse- protection/28754/#main-findings

Bureau, C. (2015). United States Census. Federal Government. United States Government.

CSN. (2017). Consumer Sentinel Netwok Report. Federal Trade Commission. United States Government.

Dillinger, J. (2017, March 21). States With The Largest Elderly Population. World Atlas. Retrieved April 22, 2017, from http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-us-states-with-the-oldest- population.html

Gunther, J. (2011). The 2011 Utah Economic Cost of Elder Financial Exploitation. (S. Bertlesen, Ed.) Utah Division of Aging and Adult Services, 1-26.

Institute, M. M. (2011). The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse. Virginia Tech. National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse.

Kevin L. Petrasic, G. S. (2015, January/February). Elder Financial Expoitation: An Increasing Compliance Concern. Journal of Taxation & Regulation of Financial Institutions, 28(3).

Legislatures, N. C. (2016, December). National Conference of State Legislatures. (N. C. Legislatures, Producer, & United States Government) Retrieved March 26, 2017, from National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and- commerce/financial-crimes-against-the-elderly-2016-legislation.aspx

Metlife. (2013). The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America’s Elders. Virginia Tech. New York: National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse.

Morton, H. (2016, December). National Conference of State Legislatures. (N. C. Legislatures, Producer, & United States Government) Retrieved March 26, 2017 , from National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and- commerce/financial-crimes-against-the-elderly-2016-legislation.aspx

NCEA. (2017). Research/Statistics. (N. C. Abuse, Producer) Retrieved April 5, 2017, from National Center for Elder Abuse: https://ncea.acl.gov/whatwedo/research/statistics.html

NCSL. (2016, December). Financial Crimes Against the Elderly 2012-2016. (U. S. Government, Producer) Retrieved March 28, 2017, from National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/financial-crimes-against- the-elderly-2013-legis.aspx

NLRC. (2016). Elder Justice Act Legislation. (N. L. Center, Producer) Retrieved March 27, 2017, from National Legal Research Center: https://nlrc.acl.gov/Legal_Issues/Elder_Abuse/Elder_Justice_Act.aspx

Stiegel, L. A. (2012). An Overview of Elder Financial Exploitation. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 36(2).

WallStreet.org. (2012, August). Shining a Light on Elder Abuse. Retrieved 2017, from Wall Street.

APPENDIX: CHANGES IN STATE LEGISLATION 2012-2016

Alabama • 2012 o H.B. 411 o S.B. 427 • 2013 o H.B. 45 – Passed House o S.B. 29 – Signed by Governor . Created crime of Elder Abuse in first second and Third Degree o S.J.R. 86 – Signed by Governor . Established long range plan to combat elder abuse • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o H.B. 211 – Substituted by SB 220 o SB 220 – Signed by Governor . Required reporting by individuals aware of financial exploitation of vulnerable adults Alaska • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o None Arizona • 2012 o HB 2560 – Signed by Governor . Awards reasonable costs and attorney fees to financially exploited vulnerable adults o HB 2696 – Vetoed by Governor o HB2714 • 2013 o HB 2162 o SB 1175 – Signed by Governor . Creates presumption against petitioner in a position of trust from bringing civil action against a vulnerable adult o AB 1200 o SB 1341 – Signed by Governor

. Specifies that a vulnerable adult is not exploited by a transfer of assets for the primary purpose of obtaining or maintaining eligibility for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System • 2014 o SB 1263 • 2015 o None • 2016 o HB 2394 California • 2012 o AB 1525 – Signed by Governor . Money transmission licensees must provide agents with elder abuse training o AB 2149 – Signed by Governor . Prevents exclusion of County protective agencies o SB 717 – Returned to Senate • 2013 o AB 140 – Signed by Governor . Defines Financial Abuse of Elder o AB 381 – Signed by Governor . Perpetrators are liable for twice the property exploited o AB 477 – Vetoed by Governor o ACR 81 – Passed Assembly o SB 541 o SB 803 • 2014 o ACR 146 – Adopted . Proclaims May 15, 2014 as Senior Fraud Awareness Day o SB 541 o SB 847 o SB 1233 o SB 1302 o SB 1343 • 2015 o AB 441 o AB 1382 o ACR 71 - Adopted . Establishes June as Elder and Vulnerable Adult Awareness Month o AB 338 o AB 352 – Signed by Governor . Existing law further delineating the forms of Elder Abuse o AB 426 – Signed by Governor . Protection for annuities and insurance contracts o AB 473 • 2016

o AB 441 o AB 1382 o AB 1718 o AB 1754 – Passed Assembly o AB 2295 – Signed by Governor . Existing law stating that perpetrators must pay restitution o AB 2721 – Signed by Governor . Requires Department of Justice to distribute informational notice to public o SB 338 o SB 473 o SB 648 Colorado • 2012 o SB 78 – Signed by Governor . Amends provisions concerning elder abuse and creates the at-risk adult protection services task force • 2013 o SB 111 – Signed by Governor . Establishes mandatory reporting law for elder financial abuse • 2014 o None • 2015 o HB 1018 – Passed House • 2016 o HB 1394 – Signed by Governor . Clarifies definitions of at-risk persons Connecticut • 2012 o None • 2013 o SB 886 – Signed by Governor . Changes statutes to help seniors stay in homes and expands mandated reporters • 2014 o None • 2015 o SB 896 – Signed by Governor . Modifies law affecting protective services for victims and investigators of Elder Abuse o SB 1005 – Signed by Governor . Multiple changes and clarifications to laws regarding elder abuse • 2016 o HB 5289 – Signed by Governor . Broadened circumstances where Department of Social Services commissioner must disclose the results of investigations

Delaware • 2012 o HB 240 – Signed by Governor . Creates additional penalties for crimes against elders • 2013 o HJR 9 – Passed House o SCR 23 – Adopted . Recognizes June 15 as “Delaware Elder Abuse Awareness Day” • 2014 o HB 417 – Signed by Governor . Provides mechanism for freezing financial transactions that are suspect to exploitation o HCR – 59 – Adopted . Recognizes June 15 as “Delaware Elder Abuse Awareness Day” o HJR 9 – Passed House • 2015 o HB 17 – Signed by Governor . Expands ability to freeze financial assets o SCR 24 – Adopted . Recognizes June 15 as “Delaware Elder Abuse Awareness Day” • 2016 o HB 158 o HCR 88 – Adopted . Recognizes June 15 as “Delaware Elder Abuse Awareness Day” Florida • 2012 o HB 687 o SB 1216 • 2013 o HB 253 o SB 1222 • 2014 o HB 409 – Signed by Governor . Revised when out of court statements by elders are admissible o HB 1029 – Passed House o HB 588 – Replaced by HB 409 o SB 1472 • 2015 o None • 2016 o HB 557 . Provides for cause of action against exploitation of vulnerable adults Georgia • 2012 o None

• 2013 o HB 78 – Signed by Governor . Relates to crimes and offenses regarding elders by expanding the development of training programs • 2014 o HR 1101 • 2015 o HB 72 – Signed by Governor . Expands and clarifies protection of disabled adults and elder persons • 2016 o HR 1366 o SR 1175 Hawaii • 2012 o HB 770 o HB 2098 o HB 2190 o HB 2192 o SB 2314 – Passed Senate o HB 2195 o SB 2313 o HB 2545 o SB 2807 o HCR 156 o HR 120 o SB 2450 • 2013 o HB 3 and SB 102 – Signed by Governor . Required reporting by financial institutions o HB 7 o SB 107 o HB 303 o HB 382 o HB 391 o HB 867 o SB 1098 o HCR 118 – Adopted o HR 89 – Adopted . Request of a progress report on efforts to improve Adult Protective Services • 2014 o HB 1715 o SB 2507 • 2015 o SB 276 – Passed Senate

• 2016 o None Idaho • 2012 o None • 2013 o HB 154 • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o SB 1327 – Signed by Governor . Revised definition of neglect to include exploitation Illinois • 2012 o HB 3986 – Signed by Governor . Provides the Department on Aging receive mandate reports of elder abuse o HB 5266 – Signed by Governor . Expands list of person that agencies have access to records generated as a result of Elder abuse o HB 5653 . Clarified and Expanded criminal code of 1961 to contain elder abuse and exploitation o HB 6175 o SB 3517 – Signed by Governor . No perpetrator of Elder Abuse may receive an Illinois license unless reviewed and approved o SB 3703 – Passed Senate • 2013 o HB 948 – Signed by Governor . Created Statewide Hotline o HB 1942 o HB 2749 o HB 2914 o HB 3382 o HJR 18 o SB 1009 o SB 1164 • 2014 o HB 4109 o HB 5729 o SB 2955 – Signed by Governor . Changed definition of ‘Financial Exploitation” to match Criminal Code of 2012

• 2015 o HB 1156 o HB 1201 o HB 1588 – Signed by Governor . Amends civil liability portion of Criminal Code of 2012 o HB 3529 – Passed House o HB 3752 o HB 4109 • 2016 o HB 1156 o HB 1201 o HB 3529 – Passed House o HB 3752 o HB 4109 o HB 4552 – Signed by Governor ?? o HB 5440 o HB 5805 – Signed by Governor ?? o HB 6079 o HB 175 o HB 6176 o HR 932 o SB 2879 o SB 3081 o SB 3180 – Passed Senate o SB 12 – Passed Senate Indiana • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o SB 137 – Passed Senate • 2015 o SB 182 • 2016 o SB 12 – Passed Senate o SB 221 – Signed by Governor . Defines “financial endangered adult” Iowa • 2012 o HF 2305 – Signed by Governor . Amended definitions based on federal Older Americans Act o HSB 589 o SF 2111 o SSB 3035 o SSB 3055

• 2013 o HF 278 – Passed house o HSB 46 o HF 409 o HF 416 o SF 184 – Signed by Governor . Includes provisions relating to programs and services under the purview of the Department on Aging • 2014 o HF 2003 o HF 2106 o SF 2177 o SF 2145 o SF 2239 – Signed by Governor . Defines “Older Individual” • 2015 o HF 85 o HF 184 o HF 328 o SF 109 • 2016 o None Kansas • 2012 o HB 2504 • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o SB 219 • 2016 o SB 219 Kentucky • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o None Louisiana • 2012

o HB 744 – Passed House • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o HB 668 o SB 338 – Signed by Governor . Includes vulnerable adults in Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 Maine • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o LD 1348 – Became Law without Governor’s signature . Provides ongoing funding to the office of aging and disability services program • 2016 o LD 1620 Maryland • 2012 o HB 1257 – Signed by Governor o SB 941 – Signed by Governor . Mandated reporting by fiduciary institutions • 2013 o HB 1396 – SBG . Harshens penalties for Elder Abuse • 2014 o HB 375 and SB 177 o HB 723 – SBG . Required training by licensee of financial workers • 2015 o HB 20 and SB 411 • 2016 o HB 718 . Authorizes the Division of Consumer Protection of the Office of the Attorney General to bring a civil action for damages against a specified person who violates specified provisions of law Did this get signed by the governor? Massachusetts • 2012

o HB 403 o HB 1965 • 2013 o HB 3401 o HB 3538 – SBG . Created special commission for elder abuse investigation • 2014 o HB 4001 – SBG . Fiscal Allocations for departments o HB 4077 • 2015 o HB 517 o HB 1366 • 2016 o HB 514 o HB 517 o HB 1366 Michigan • 2012 o SB 455 – SBG . Amends Code of Criminal Procedure o SB 459 – SBG . Enhanced felony penalties for crimes against vulnerable adults o SB 465 – SBG . Included penalties in amendment

• 2013 o None • 2014 o SB 866 – Passed Senate o SB 867 – Passed Senate • 2015 o None • 2016 o None Minnesota • 2012 o HF 2498 o SF 2209 • 2013 o HF 90 - SBG o SF 187 • 2014 o HF 2003 o SF 1878 • 2015

o HF 104 o SF 239 – Passed Senate o HF 843 – Passed House o HF 1068 o Sf 1614 o SF 2041 • 2016 o HF 843 – Passed House o HF 2958 o SF 2537 o HF 3064 o SF 2655 o HF 3454 o SF 3222 o HF 3536 Mississippi • 2012 o SB 2086 • 2013 o SB 2166 • 2014 o SB 2451 • 2015 o None • 2016 o HB 608 Missouri • 2012 o HB 1515 – Passed house • 2013 o HB 210 – Passed House o SB 253 • 2014 o HB 1371 – SBG . Changed Criminal Code to include elder abuse o SB 491 – Became law without Governor’s signature . Exempts religious affiliates from being mandated reporters • 2015 o HB 636 – Passed House o HB 645 o SB 244 – SBG . Gives witnesses the right to report elder abuse • 2016 o None Montana • 2012

o None • 2013 o SB 134 – SBG . Clarifies definition of “older person” • 2014 o None • 2015 o HB 57 - SBG . Enhances securities fraud protection for elders • 2016 o None Nebraska • 2012 o LB 1051 – SBG . Changed registry provisions for elders • 2013 o LR 328 – SBG . Revises definition of “older person” • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o LB 934 – SBG . Revised statutes to include elder abuse o LB 953 o LB 956 – SBG . Allocated funds for forensic accountants o LB 1006 o LB 1007 Nevada • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o AB 51 – SBG . Defines “older person’ and sets provisions to protect them o AB 223 – SBG . Defines abandonment and punishments • 2016 o None New Hampshire • 2012

o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o HB 1555 – SBG . Established crime of Elderly financial exploitation • 2015 o None • 2016 o HB 1165 – Signed by Governor . Changed terminology from incapacitated to vulnerable New Jersey • 2012 o AB 632 o AB 635 o SB 1048 o AB 2272 o SB 1047 o SB 1543 • 2013 o None • 2014 o AB 736 o SB 2015 o AB 738 o SB 925 o AB 2461 o SB 203 o AB 3948 • 2015 o AB 736 o SB 205 o AB 738 o SB 925 o AB 2461 o SB 203 o AB 3948 – Passed Assembly o SB 3182 • 2016 o AB 309 o AB 590 o AB 988 o SB 268 o AB 990 o SB 906 o AB 1120

o SB 157 – SBG . Established New Jersey Task Force on Abuse of Persons who are Elderly or Disabled o AR 154 – Adopted . Provisions against telephone scammers o SB 266 o SB 1725 o SB 1823 o AB 83 o SB 852 – Passed Senate New York • 2012 o AB 546 o SB 1040 o AB 1010 o AB 2374 o SB 4725 o AB 3838 o SB 737 o AB 4045 o SB 956 o AB 4541 o SB 6756 o AB 8646 o AB 8984 o SB 5515 o AB 10456 o SB 6712 o SB 5389 o SB 6051 • 2013 o AB 133 o SB 720 o AB 589 o AB 591 o SB 2323 o AB 1783 o SB 5675 o AB 2207 o AB 2898 o SB 373 o AB 3555 o AB 3737 o SB 2337 o AB 4316 o SB 102

o AB 4655 o SB 143 o AB 5590 o AB 5604 o SB 2162 o AB 7345 o AB 7400 o SB 5821 o AB 7612 o AB 7892 o SB 5707 – Passed Senate o SB 218 – Passed Senate o SB 2171 o SB 5478 o SB 5779 – Passed Senate • 2014 o AB 133 o SB 720 o AB 591 o SB 2323 – Passed Senate o AB 1783 o SB 5675 o AB 2898 o SB 373 – Passed Senate o AB 4655 o SB 143 o AB 7345 o SB 6927 o SB 218 – Passed Senate o SB 6221 – Passed Senate o SB 6291 o SB 6451 • 2015 o AB 83 o SB 852 – Passed Senate o AB 2176 o ABB 2325 o SB 262 o AB 2481 o AB 3305 o AB 3743 o AB 4467 o SB 1417 o AB 5336 o SB 639 – Passed Senate o AB 5969

o SB 148 – Passed Senate o AB 6555 o SB 239 o AB 6665 o AB 7612 o SB 530 o SB 2289 • 2016 o AB 83 o SB 852 – Passed Senate o AB 2176 o AB 2325 o SB 262 – Passed Senate o AB 2481 o AB 3305 o AB 3743 o AB 4037 o AB 4467 o SB 1417 o AB 5336 o SB 639 – Passed Senate o AB 5349 o AB 5969 o SB 148 – Passed Senate o AB 6555 o AB 9143 – Passed Senate o SB 6923 o AB 9275 o AB 9974 o SB 1417 o SB 530 o SB 2289 o SB 2564 o SB 2806 o SB 6243 o SB 6922 – Passed Senate o SB 8033 – Passed Senate North Carolina • 2012 o None • 2013 o HB 891 – SBG . Allows DA to petition court to freeze assets of defendant o SB 140 – SBG . Increases the recognition, reporting, and prosecution of those who would defraud or financially exploit disabled or older adults

• 2014 o None • 2015 o HB 397 – SBG . Clarifies how exploitation will be repaid o SB 653 o SB 2072 • 2016 o None North Dakota • 2012 o None • 2013 o SB 2323 – SBG . Mandatory reporting o SB 2345 – SBG . States penalties for exploiting • 2014 o None • 2015 o SB 2072 • 2016 o None Ohio • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o HB 49 – Passed House o SCR 36 – Passed Senate • 2015 o None • 2016 o None Oklahoma • 2012 o None • 2013 o SB 370 • 2014 o None • 2015 o HB 1031 o SB 218 – Passed Senate • 2016

o None Oregon • 2012 o HB 4084 – SBG . Provides scope, time frame, and details of elder financial abuse cases o HB 4085 • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o HB 2225 – SBG . Gives authority to execute search to circuit judge o HB 2350 – SBG . Updates and clarifies portions of Bank Act o HB 2780 o SB 622 - SBG . Expands list of mandated reporters • 2016 o None Pennsylvania • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o HB 2014 o HB 2057 o HR 929 – Adopted . Budgeting for conducting study into elder abuse o HR 1014 – Adopted . Names October 2014 as “Senior Bully Awareness Month” • 2015 o HB 786 • 2016 o HB 299 – Passed House o HB 786 Rhode Island • 2012 o HB 7734 o SB 2286 • 2013 o HB 5538 o SB 461 • 2014

o HB 7442 o HB 7868 o HB 7938 o SB 2665 o SB 2884 – SBG o Creates rebuttable presumption that any donative transfers to certain individuals by persons age 60 years of age or older and any dependent persons of any age for whom a conservator, guardian or trustee has been appointed by a probate court of this state are a product of fraud or undue influence. • 2015 o HB 5498 o SB 578 • 2016 o HB 7361 o SB 2643 South Carolina • 2012 o None • 2013 o SB 764 • 2014 o SB 764 –SBG . Created vulnerable adult guardian ad litem program • 2015 o HB 3721 • 2016 o HB 4827 o SB 778 – SBG . Adds article 8 to title 62 so as to enact the South Carolina Uniform Power of Attorney Act. South Dakota • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o SB 168 – SBG . Establishes a task force to study elder abuse in South Dakota. • 2016 o SB 54 – SBG . Adopts the Elder Abuse Task Force's statutory recommendations in order to protect South Dakota seniors and adults with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

Tennessee • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o HJR 645 – Passed House • 2015 o HB 736 o SB 147 – SBG . Classifies the financial exploitation by a caretaker of an adult as a Class D felony; requires the district attorney to freeze the assets of anyone charged with taking property valued at $5,000 or more until the criminal proceedings are complete. o 2016 o HB 1825 o SB 1848 – SBG . Revises requirements for criminal background checks in certain health care facilities; convenes working groups on elder abuse; revises other provisions relative to abuse of certain vulnerable persons. o SJR 678 – SBG . Directs the Tennessee Commission on Aging and Disability to conduct a study on the financial exploitation of vulnerable adults Texas • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o None Utah • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o HB 267 – SBG . This bill clarifies and modifies the powers and duties of Adult Protective Services; and makes the vulnerable adult database and the adult protection case file available to city attorneys. • 2015

o None • 2016 o None Vermont • 2012 o HB 413 – SBG . This bill allows the attorney general to file a civil action against a person or caregiver who abuses, neglects, or exploits a vulnerable adult or against a person or caregiver who negligently allows another person or caregiver to abuse, neglect, or exploit a vulnerable adult. • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o HB 112 • 2016 o HB 112 – SBG . This act directs financial institutions in Vermont to make a vulnerable adult’s financial information available to an adult protective services investigator upon receipt of a court order or the investigator’s written request. It allows the investigative report of an investigation into allegations of financial exploitation to be disclosed to the commissioner of Financial Regulation when the commissioner of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living deems it appropriate to do so. Virginia • 2012 o HB 409 o HB 690 o HB 700 o HB 882 o HB 982 o HB 987 o SB 222 SB 285 o SB 431 o SB 443 o SJR 53 • 2013 o HB 1682 – SBG o SB 706 – SBG . Provides that it is unlawful for any person who knows or should know that another person suffers from mental incapacity to, through the use of that other person's mental incapacity, take, obtain, or convert money or other thing of value belonging to that

other person with the intent to permanently deprive him thereof. A violation is punishable as larceny o HB 1781 o SB 1258 • 2014 o HB 627 • 2015 o None • 2016 o HB 612 o HB 620 o HB 676 – SBG . Directs the commissioner of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services (DARS), together with the Director of the Department for Planning and Budget or his designee, representatives of DARS' Adult Protective Services Unit and local department of social services' adult protective services units, law- enforcement agencies, financial institutions in the commonwealth to determine the cost of financial exploitation of adults in the commonwealth and develop recommendations for improving. Washington • 2012 o HB 2314 – SBG . Requires the Department of Health to establish, by rule, a state registry which contains identifying information about long-term care workers identified under this chapter who have final substantiated findings of abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, or abandonment of a vulnerable adult as defined in RCW 74.34.020. • 2013 o HB 1003 – SBG . Requires the Department of Health or health professions board or commission to summarily suspend the license of any health care provider who is prohibited from employment in the care of vulnerable adults o HB 1523 o SB 5510 . Modifies the definition of neglect to clarify that the act or omission that demonstrates a clear and present danger to a vulnerable adult must be an act or omission of a person with a duty of care to the vulnerable adult. • 2014 o HB 2633 o SB 6420 o SB 6095 – SBG

. Provides that any person whose criminal history would otherwise disqualify the person under this section from a position which will or may have unsupervised access to children, vulnerable adults • 2015 o HB 1499 o HB 1726 o SB 5600 – SBG . Modifies definitions concerning vulnerable adults, including the definitions of abuse and sexual abuse. Includes improper use of a restraint, personal exploitation, mental abuse, chemical restraints, hospitals and mechanical restraints. o SB 5788 o SB 5945 o SB 6091 • 2016 o HB 2379 o SB 6091 – SBG . Revises the definition of "slayer," for purposes of chapter 11.84 RCW (inheritance rights of slayers or abusers). o SB 6585 West Virginia • 2012 o HB 4516 o SB 498 – SBG . Relates to adult protective services and reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of vulnerable adults; permits distribution of adult protective services records to certain individuals and entities o SB 548 • 2013 o HCR 130 – Passed House o SCR 44 • 2014 o HB 3108 – SBG . Prohibits employment by a nursing home of a person convicted of certain crimes, including felony or misdemeanor involving financial exploitation of a minor or elderly person, unless a variance has been granted by the secretary o SB 397 – SBG . Clarifies definition of “financial exploitation” of the elderly or certain other protected persons • 2015 o HCR 130 – Passed House • 2016 o HB 4308 – Passed House o HB 4309 – SBG

. Adds a new article, designated §55-7I-1, §55-7I-2, §55-7I-3, §55- 7I-4, §55-7I-5 and §55-7I-6; and to amend and reenact §61-2-29b of said code, all relating generally to protections against financial exploitation of elderly persons, protected persons and incapacitated adults. o HB 4555 o HCR 99 – Passed House o SB 362 Wisconsin • 2012 o None • 2013 o None • 2014 o None • 2015 o None • 2016 o AB 789 – Passed Assembly o AB 917 o SB 671 o SB 705 Wyoming • 2012 o HB 56 • 2013 o HB 39 o SB 56 – Passed House • 2014 o SF 37 • 2015 o None • 2016 o None