Adult Protection Service Laws: A Comparison of State Statutes from Definition to Case Closure

Abstract

While legislative efforts at the federal and state levels have represented a dramatic change in the last three decades, there is a great range and variations in the laws addressing elder abuse, leading to difficulty in generating comparison data, and coordinating program creation and implementation across state lines. This article examines the legislative variations on the topics of definitional issues, reporting statutes, investigative methods, temporary and permanent court interventions, and protective services provided under the laws of all fifty of the United States and the District of Columbia. Further, it examines the current elder abuse literature and makes suggestions toward legislation compatible with it.

Implications of divergences in adult protection legislation

“…Federal funding grants influenced development of protective service systems in all states: eight states have laws specifically addressing elder abuse, 14 have laws which address protection of both vulnerable (or disabled) adults and older people and 29 have more generic adult protection laws. Growing awareness and concern about elder abuse led to enactment of the federal Elder Justice Act (2009), providing an opportunity for nationalised reporting and, thus, greater consistency in approaches; however, implementation has not been fully funded and state funding is often inadequate to provide timely support for at-risk individuals, with criminal sanctions of abusers an inadequate remedy (Jirik and Sanders, 2014;Pearson and Cowart, 2011;Roby and Sullivan, 2001). …”

Analysis of Elder Abuse Statutes Across the United States, 2011–2012

“…This analysis will build on the work of Daly and Jogerst (2001) and Roby and Sullivan (2000) by examining the following key elements: definition of who is included as protected population, mandated reporting requirements and consequences for failure to report, definition of types of abuse identified, agency who receives and investigates allegations, use of non-emergency protective services, and training requirements for investigators and other professionals addressing elder abuse.…”

“…Research is also needed to determine if making statutes more similar would enhance the protection of older adults and help to standardize issues associated with competency versus self-determination, reporting, and the investigative process. Roby and Sullivan (2000) stated that the standardization of elder abuse legislation is possible in today's society because of the prevalent use of technology and the "interstate nature of American life" (p. 44). Daly and Jogerst (2001) disagreed, stating that legislation to change all statute definitions is unlikely to be implemented, but at least researchers should come to an agreement on abuse definitions to make comparisons possible among elder abuse studies.…”

“…Thus, between states, there is great variety in the definitions of abuse, investigative agencies, training, and intervention approaches, all of which impact the way that professionals, such as social workers, respond to potential abuse. The current state of elder abuse statutes has been described by Roby and Sullivan (2000) as "a patchwork quilt of individually tailored laws creating difficulties for both practitioners and the protected population" (p. 18). This patchwork of policies was created in the image of child abuse laws (Barber, 2008); however, this has created challenges, as elder abuse is more similar to domestic violence than child abuse.…”

How Do Abused Elderly Persons and Their Adult Protective Services Caseworkers View Law Enforcement Involvement and Criminal Prosecution, and What Impact Do These Views Have on Case Processing?

“…The two agencies primarily responsible for fielding and responding to reports of elder maltreatment are law enforcement and adult protective services (APS). All states have in place an APS system for receiving reports of maltreatment, investigating these reports, and providing protection and assistance to abused elderly persons (Moskowitz, 1998;Otto, 2000;Roby & Sullivan, 2000). However, responsibility for apprehending and punishing a perpetrator of this abuse is the exclusive domain of law enforcement (Roby & Sullivan, 2000).…”