Search results

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

Drawing on the principles of Whole Person Dementia Assessment (Mast, 2011) and Appelbaum and Grisso's (1988) decision-making model, this project developed a tool, the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Rating Scale (LFDRS). The conceptual model for the LFDRS questionnaire integrates the measurement of contextual variables with financial capacity assessment. The purpose of the study was to establish reliability and validity of the LFDRS and to collect data on normative financial decision-making by older adults.

The researchers posited that as financial exploitation of older adults increases, investigation and prosecution of these cases remains difficult for criminal justice professionals who must balance protection of older adults with their right to autonomy; and that both under and over-protection of older adults can lead to damaging consequences. The project goal was to develop a set of new financial decision-making screening and comprehensive measures for criminal justice professionals and non-criminal justice professionals to aid in detecting and prosecuting financial exploitation of older adults. The LFDRS (described above) is meant to be used by mental health professionals, specially trained in assessment of older adults. In addition, the researchers developed a 10-item screening tool, the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale or Short Scale (LFDSS), that was tested by multiple professionals working in diverse settings (e.g., APS workers, elder law attorneys, law enforcement personnel).

Family members are another group that are often aware of an older adult's vulnerability to financial exploitation and therefore, the researchers developed the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Rating Scale -- Family and Friends version (LFDRS - Family and Friends also known as the LFDRS Informant) to allow concerned professionals to interview confidantes of older adults to help measure financial capacity of a loved one. This tool may be particularly useful for Adult Protective Services to interview multiple people regarding their concerns about an older adult.

The collection contains 3 SPSS data files:

• LFDRS-Data-for-ICPSR.sav (200 cases, 109 variables)
• LFDRS_Informant-Data-for-ICPSR.sav (150 cases, 45 variables)
• LFDSS_Screener-Data-for-ICPSR.sav (213 cases, 24 variables)

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The objectives of the study were: (1) To determine the nature, incidence, and prevalence of fraud victimization among elderly consumers in Arizona and Florida; (2) To identify risk and protective factors associated with fraud victimization in this population; and (3) To evaluate the elderly population's awareness and use of state-based programs, including reporting behavior to law enforcement.

The study is comprised of data from telephone surveys of 2,000 aged 60 years and older Arizona (n = 1,000) and Florida (n = 1,000). The survey was obtained via computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) administered by Precision Research in June and July of 2011. Data were collected seven days a week during specific times of the day that had the greatest probability of contacting a respondent. The interviews were primarily conducted in English but a Spanish survey instrument was constructed and used when necessary.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of the Los Angeles Elder Abuse Forensic Center (EAFC) by examining costs associated elder abuse cases processed under a multidisciplinary team approach. Using data collected in Evaluating the Elder Abuse Forensic Center Model in Los Angeles County, California, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 34979) researchers focused on the key components, participants, and processes necessary to operate the Los Angeles EAFC and identified the costs required to process an elder abuse case as well as the outcomes attained by the EAFC. This study also carried out a survey of Adult Protective Service (APS) social workers on time spent on different case process activity and their perception on efficiency of the Los Angeles EAFC, and collected associated costs estimates.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) intervention - the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center to: 1) prosecute elder abuse, 2) protect vulnerable older adults through conservatorship, and 3) reduce or prevent recurring cases of abuse. The study used a quasi-experimental design and focused on elder abuse cases involving victims aged 65 or older reviewed at the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center (the Center) between April 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. These Center cases were compared to a propensity score match sample of Los Angeles County Adult Protective Services (APS) cases. Data were collected from Adult Protective Services case files, District Attorney filings, and Office of the Public Guardian conservatorship records.

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. The cases were explored by obtaining information from a variety of sources including:

• Three different individuals about a given case including (1) the caseworker from APS that managed the reported case, (2) the person who had been reported to have experienced elder abuse and, (3) where they were available, a non-offending third party who knew the elder at the time of the APS response to the report of elder abuse (e.g., the elder's domestic partner, care provider, friend, or family member).
• Data derived from the Virginia Department of Social Services' Adult Services Adult Protective Services (ASAPS) Database which contains information drawn from several sources.
• Prosecutors in four states that were interviewed about their experience prosecuting elder abuse, barriers and facilitators associating with prosecuting such cases, and possible reforms.

The specific goals of this research were to (1) Determine unique aspects of financial exploitation as compared to other forms of elder maltreatment, including risk factors, reporting, investigation, and case outcomes; (2) Determine the degree of congruence between the perceptions of victims of elder maltreatment and APS caseworkers regarding these cases; and (3) Develop recommendations based on these findings for addressing the financial abuse of the elderly.

In partnership with the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, this study analyzed approximately 200 case files of Maine Adult Protective Services (APS) substantiated investigations of financial exploitation that were opened and completed from 2007 through 2012. The case files included detailed information about the types of abuse individuals experienced, their functional limitations, and severity of risk status. The research team linked the case files with the individuals' Medicare and Medicaid claims data from 2006 through 2014 to examine their claims experience one year prior to APS contact, during their APS event year, and two years following their APS event year. Using a quasi-experimental design, the research team established health care use and cost profiles of the APS clients and compared their profiles to matched controls in the general older population. The project aimed to advance knowledge of the financial impact of elder abuse.

Initially funded in 2013 by the National Institute of Justice, the primary purpose of this project was to conduct a randomized-control test of the impact of a victim-focused, forensic collaborative relative to usual care (UC) on older adult victims' health, mental health, and criminal justice outcomes. During the course of the project, researchers responded to enrollment and consent challenges by implementing Arm 2 that focused on collecting caseworker and victim advocate perceptions of cases as well as administrative data from Adult Protective Services (APS).

This collection contains 6 datasets:

• Arm 1 (DS1) contains survey results from victim-focused interviews of 40 older adults who were reported to be victims of abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation over 4 time points. Variables describe victim and case characteristics, service use/needs, risk factors for abuse, consequences of abuse and exploitation, and criminal justice process and outcomes.
• Arm 2 (DS2) includes a survey of APS caseworkers reporting on a case of older adult abuse, such as client (older adult victim) and perpetrator demographics, mistreatment details (verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, and/or housing exploitation), and service use.
• Collateral assessments (DS3) surveyed a trusted individual related to the older adult respondent in Arm 1. This included data on the perceptions of the older adult's functioning and use of services; and the quality of decision-making procedures, desired treatment, and outcomes in the criminal justice system. Of the 40 Arm 1 participants interviewed, 33 gave collateral contact information. Of those 33, 16 could not be reached, one failed the consent quiz, and two declined to participate. Of the 14 who participated in an initial interview, only three participated at the follow-up nine months later.
• Revictimization and Prosecutorial Outcome Data (DS5) includes information on new incidents reported to law enforcement over the nine months following the original incident report and prosecution outcomes, gathered from publicly-accessible police reports and court information for Arm 1 and Arm 2 cases.
• APS administrative data (DS6), such as the demographics of the older adult victim and the primary perpetrator, assessment scores for risk and safety, the alleged mistreatment type, whether mistreatment was substantiated, and APS case status. The data included overall risk/safety scores and summary scores for the domains of physical functioning, environmental context, financial resources, mental health, cognition, medical issues, and mistreatment.

Arm 1 demographic variables includes age, gender, education, employment status, marital status, household size, ethnic minority, and income source. Arm 2 surveys reported ethnicity, gender, age, education, marital status, and employment status; APS data reported age and gender.