The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Financial Abuse of Elderly People vs. Other Forms of Elder Abuse: Assessing Their Dynamics, Risk Factors, and Society’s Response Author: Shelly L. Jackson, Ph.D., Thomas L. Hafemeister, J.D., Ph.D. Document No.: 233613 Date Received: February 2011 Award Number: 2006-WG-BX-0010 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Final Report Presented to the National Institute of Justice Financial Abuse of Elderly People vs. Other Forms of Elder Abuse: Assessing Their Dynamics, Risk Factors, and Society’s Response Shelly L. Jackson, Ph.D. & Thomas L. Hafemeister, J.D., Ph.D. University of Virginia Supported under award No. 2006-WG-BX-0010 from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice August 2010 Points of view in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Acknowledgements We would first like to thank the many elderly people who gave of themselves so freely so that others might suffer less in the future. We learned so much from them and never will forget the chats we had after the interviews were completed. We are very grateful to the Virginia Adult Protective Services (APS) caseworkers, without whose assistance this project would never have occurred. They gave of themselves in terms of knowledge and of their precious time for which we are so appreciative. In addition, we recognize and thank the supervisors of the APS agencies across the Commonwealth of Virginia who provided support and encouragement to their caseworkers and gave them the time to participate in this research. We wish to also commend the regional APS coordinators who freely gave of their time to promote this research by allowing us to periodically attend coordinator’s meetings to recruit agency supervisors. We also sincerely thank Gail Nardi, Program Manager of APS at the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS), for both providing us the initial support necessary to obtain the federal award underwriting this project and for sharing with us her guidance and insights throughout the course of our research. We are especially grateful to Barbara Jenkins, Central Region Coordinator, who was our liaison with the Virginia Department of Social Services and devoted countless hours to shepherding this project through various channels and reviews. We would also like to thank Todd Areson at the VDSS Institutional Review Board for all the time he devoted to ensuring the safety and well-being of the clients the VDSS serves. And our heartfelt appreciation to our consulting statisticians on this 2 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. project, James Peugh, Ph.D., and Kelly Gurka, Ph.D.. We would also like to acknowledge Milena Zimmerman, Ann Emory, and Emma Spielman for their research assistance. We would like to extend a special thanks to Charles Koransky, who was our right hand during the last year of the project, and who has now gone on to bigger and better things. We wish him the best and are confident that elderly people will benefit from his talents in the future. And finally, another special thanks to Sally Mays, Ph.D. candidate, for her assistance with the research as well as providing assistance with manuscript preparation. 3 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Abstract Purpose. Financial exploitation of elderly people is expected to proliferate over the next decade as the elderly population continues to grow rapidly. This study examined financial exploitation of elderly people compared to other forms of elder maltreatment (physical abuse, neglect, and hybrid, i.e., financial exploitation and physical abuse and/or neglect) that occurred in a domestic setting. Method. Using semi-structured interviews, 71 adult protective services (APS) caseworkers in Virginia and their elder client were interviewed separately about incidents of maltreatment that came to the attention of APS. Elderly participants were on average 76 years of age, 83% Caucasian, 76% female, and 84% were living in their own home. Interviews lasting between one and three hours covered a number of domains such as case characteristics, consequences, risk factors associated with the elderly victims and their perpetrators, the nature of the interactions between them, the APS investigation, the criminal justice response, and outcomes. In addition, data derived from the Adult Services Adult Protective Services (ASAPS) database managed by the Virginia Department of Social Services were used to in logistic regressions. Results. Financial exploitation differed from other forms of elder maltreatment, specifically, physical abuse, neglect by other, and hybrid financial exploitation, across a number of important domains. Furthermore, financial exploitation is underreported, underinvestigated and underprosecuted. However, important differences existed among all four forms of elder abuse. An exploration of the dynamics of elder abuse 4 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. facilitated a greater understanding of the different forms of elder abuse under investigation. Results further revealed discrepancies between APS caseworkers’ and elderly persons’ perceptions of the causes of the elder’s abuse. Furthermore, when differences did persist to the close of the case, the abuse was significantly less likely to cease. Discussion. These findings indicate the critical need to separate theoretically and practically different types of elder maltreatment. Additionally, critical to increasing our understanding of elder maltreatment is the need to take into consideration perpetrators when examining, predicting, and explaining elder maltreatment and related interventions. An exclusive focus on elderly people will continue to undermine effective interventions. Implications for theory, research, policy, and intervention are discussed. 5 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................2 Abstract ...............................................................................................................................4 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................6 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................9 Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................22 Chapter 2: Method............................................................................................................38 Design....................................................................................................................38 Agency Participation .............................................................................................40 Participants............................................................................................................41 Instrument: Semi-Structured Interview................................................................46 Interviewers ..........................................................................................................51 Procedure..............................................................................................................51 Institutional Review Board Involvement...............................................................59