The Gap between the Reality of Elder Abuse Interventions and Practitioners' Perceptions in South Korea

Background and Purpose: With the rapid aging of the population, the number of vulnerable elderly individuals has been increasing, leading to a rise in elder abuse. The majority of elder abuse perpetrators are family members or caregivers. In cases where caregiving and abuse occur simultaneously, victims often find themselves in complex situations where it is difficult to demand the punishment of the perpetrator. Considering the complex nature of elder abuse, it is crucial to diversify intervention methods. However, in the case of South Korea, intervention strategies for elder abuse remain ambiguous and lack effectiveness. This study examines the differences between perceived importance and actual implementation of intervention methods, as recognized by social workers at specialized elder protection agencies in South Korea. Through this analysis, the study identifies intervention methods that require further reinforcement, as well as those that are unnecessarily provided.

Methods: Survey was conducted targeting social workers at all specialized elder protection agencies with the support of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in South Korea. Out of a total of 333 workers from 37 agencies, 252 individuals responded(75.7%). Elder abuse was categorized into seven types: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, neglect, self-neglect, and abandonment. Intervention methods were divided into 12 categories: criminal punishment for perpetrators, administrative measures for facilities, separation of perpetrators, separation of victims, education and counseling for perpetrators, education and counseling for victims, respect for the victim's wishes, victim protection(shelters), linkage to welfare services, counseling for family, linkage to medical services, and linkage to legal services. Data analysis was conducted using Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA).

Findings: This study focuses on the second quadrant (high importance but low performance) and the fourth quadrant (low importance but high performance) of the IPA matrix. For physical abuse, ‘administrative measures for facilities’ and ‘separation of perpetrators’ were positioned in the second quadrant, while 'separation of victims,' 'respect for the victim's wishes,' and 'separation of victims' were included in the fourth quadrant. For emotional abuse, the second quadrant included ‘separation of perpetrators’, while the fourth quadrant included 'separation of victims.' In the cases of financial abuse and neglect, the second quadrant featured 'administrative measures for facilities,' whereas the fourth quadrant included 'respect for the victim's wishes.' Despite the necessity for active interventions targeting perpetrators, the reality revealed instances where victims were either relocated to shelters or intervention was discontinued based on the victim's wishes.

Conclusion and Implications: Victims often fear the punishment of family members or are anxious about the care gap that might arise after reporting their caregiver for abuse. In such complex situations, intervention methods centered on punishment or victim separation can lead victims to deny the occurrence of elder abuse and refuse intervention. In most types of abuse, 'respect for the victim's wishes' was positioned in the fourth quadrant. This highlights the limitations of failing to intervene under the guise of respecting the elderly's right to self-determination. Diverse intervention methods tailored to complex abuse situations are necessary.