Protecting Victims of Financial Exploitation: The Forensic Center Effect

Background and Purpose: Reports of elder abuse, due in part to population aging, have increased steadily over the past decade.  While considerable effort has been put toward the creation of intervention programs, almost no systematic evaluations have taken place to determine their efficacy.  Of the few completed studies, none have found significant benefits as a result of an elder abuse intervention program.  This presentation provides information about the demonstrably effective and increasingly popular multidisciplinary elder abuse forensic center model and its outcomes for older victims of financial exploitation, observed in two key areas:  cases sent to the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution and cases referred to the Office of the Public Guardian for guardianship/conservatorship.

Description of the problem: Elder financial exploitation is defined as the taking or misappropriation of an older person’s property, possessions, or financial assets. Cognitive incapacity is a common factor in cases of elder abuse and exploitation. For cases reported to Adult Protective Services (APS), arriving at a remedy can be time-consuming and complex, requiring cooperation from various professionals. Prosecution of the abuser, or conservatorship (or guardianship) of the victim, are sometimes necessary and appropriate interventions to halt or reverse abuse.

Study Objectives:  This study highlights the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center (FC) as a multidisciplinary, tertiary prevention intervention effective in facilitating case remediation and using prosecution and conservatorship.  Using a propensity score-matched sample, the “value added” of the FC for APS cases is assessed.  Are older adult victims of financial exploitation more likely to reach outcomes of prosecution and conservatorship when APS is aided by this multidisciplinary elder abuse forensic center?

Methods:  Alleged victims of financial exploitation, aged 65 years and above, were brought to the FC for review from April 2007-December 2009 (n=241), then matched with unduplicated APS clients served during the same period (n=33,650).  Bivariate analysis showed a closely matched sample for demographics, alleged abuse and referral types.  Logistic regression revealed the effects of the Forensic Center on outcomes of prosecution and conservatorship.  Only anonymous records were used in the study; all identifying information was redacted from files.  The evaluation was approved by the University of Southern California’s institutional review board.

Results:  Compared with usual APS cases, Forensic Center cases were found to have over 10 times greater odds of being presented to the District Attorney for possible prosecution (OR 11.0, CI:4.7-26.0, p<.001), with over nine times greater odds of establishing guilt via plea or conviction (OR=9.52, CI: 3.41-26.57, p<.001).  Conservatorship findings showed over eight times greater odds of being referred to the Public Guardian for possible conservatorship (OR 8.5, CI:4.6-15.9, p<.001), leading to higher rates of conservatorship among FC cases (19.6% vs. 1.7%; χ²=47.9).

Conclusions and Implications: Results point to the FC as a catalyst for increasing access to prosecutors and guardians, which can enhance safety for victims of financial abuse. This study represents one of the first formal evaluations demonstrating evidence of effectiveness of a multidisciplinary FC model.