U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Evaluating the Elder Abuse Forensic Center Model

NCJ Number
246428
Author(s)
Kathleen H. Wilber, Ph.D.; Adria E. Navarro, Ph.D.; Zachary D. Gassoumis, Ph.D.
Date Published
April 2014
Length
78 pages
Annotation
Methodology and findings are presented for an evaluation of the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center, a multidisciplinary team intervention (MDT) that prosecutes elder abuse cases, protects vulnerable older adults through conservatorship, and reduces/prevents recurring elder abuse.
Abstract
The evaluation concludes that the elder abuse forensic center has improved outcomes for victims of elder abuse. Findings support the viability of the model introduced nationally through the Elder Justice Act (2010). The evaluation also provides a template for future implementation and a foundation for cost analyses. Elder abuse cases managed by the center had nearly nine times greater odds of being submitted to the district attorney's (DA's) office for review than cases managed by Adult Protective Services (APS). Although the proportion of cases filed by the DA was similar for the center and APS, because the center submitted more cases to the DA, they had greater odds of being filed. Of the cases filed, convictions were similar for the center and APS. Regarding conservatorship, a significantly higher number of center cases were referred to the Office of the Public Guardian (PG). Although the proportion of PG-referred cases determined to need a conservatorship was higher among those cases heard at the center, the difference was not statistically significant. Over twice as many center cases were recurring cases compared to the APS sample. From baseline, recurrence was significantly reduced to 24.6 percent; whereas, recurrence remained the same as baseline for APS cases. A quasi-experimental design was used for the evaluation. The cases reviewed involved victims ages 65 or older, and they were reviewed at the center between April 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009. Center cases (n=287) were compared to a propensity score matched sample of APS cases. 13 tables, 5 figures, 62 references, and appended study instruments

Date Published: April 1, 2014