ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Adult protective services represents the constellation of interventions used to promote safety and well-being for older persons (or other vulnerable adults) whose health or circumstances subject them to harm or threat of harm. Protective services have evolved since their origins, with current focus on elder abuse broadly defined. Most of the work, however, is directed at the needs of older persons suffering from self-neglect or neglect by a caregiver.

All states have laws mandating the protection of vulnerable older persons. Law implementation is handled by public departments of social services or state units on aging. These agencies function in four major ways to provide adult protective services: (1) receive and investigate reports or referrals; (2) assess client status and service needs; (3) arrange and coordinate or offer services to prevent or treat harm; and (4) seek legal intervention in the form of surrogate decision-making authority for the incapacitated older person or criminal penalty for the abuser, if indicated.

History

The evolution of adult protective services is both long and complicated. The original protection of adults was narrowly confined to legal intervention. It grew out of concern for the property of mentally incapacitated persons.

Adult protection began with the Law of Twelve Tables, established nearly twenty-five hundred years ago in Rome under the reign of Cicero. This law provided family surrogates with the right to manage the property of adults with severe mental illness. Fourteenth-century English common law gave the king responsibility for handling the property of those without the capacity to reason. Three hundred years later, colonial America adopted a policy of a protective nature.

Prior to the twentieth century the primary means of protecting older Americans was through institutional placement or guardianship appointment. Public benefits expanded in the 1950s enabling more older persons to reside in the community. As the numbers of older persons who lived outside of institutions grew, often without nearby family members, it became apparent that many were unable to provide for their own care or protection without assistance.

Discussions on the need for adult protective services began occurring nationally among such organizations as the Social Security Administration, Veterans Administration, and American Public Welfare Association. Emerging from these discussions were two important forums: the 1960 Arden House Conference on Aging and the 1963 National Council on the Aging's National Seminar on Protective Services for Older People. The latter led to the first definitive book on the subject, Guardianship and Protective Services for Older People by Gertrude Hall and Geneva Mathiasen.

The conferences served to define protective services and stimulate communities to develop related programs. In addition, during the late 1960s, seven research and demonstration projects in adult protective services were conducted in such places as Cleveland, Chicago, and San Diego. Their results suggested: (1) protective clients are those adults with reduced mental or physical capabilities who could not protect themselves or their interests; (2) between 7 and 20 percent of older persons are in need of protective services; (3) the concept of protective services must include access to a wide range of services and potential use of legal authority; and (4) protective services should be provided through a single auspice with a generous and flexible budget as well as the availability of multiple professional disciplines, with social work assuming the leadership role in case consultation.

Evaluation of the demonstration projects made adult protective services a subject of national concern. The findings suggested that few cases were closed because of successful intervention. Moreover, those findings from the Cleveland project at the Benjamin Rose Institute indicated that protective services increased the likelihood of institutionalization and the possible risk of death.

Nevertheless, the conferences and demonstration projects provided a momentum for adult protective services expansion during the early 1970s. This momentum was fueled by passage of Title XX of the Social Security Act in 1974, which provided funding for states to create and enlarge adult protective services as one of only two universal public welfare programs.

The discontent arising out of the demonstration projects grew stronger during the mid-to-late 1970s as a result of three factors: (1) the civil rights movement's concern that protective services abridged individual liberties; (2) the voices of various scholars, including law professor John Regan, on ethical dilemmas associated with protective intervention; and (3) the preference of social workers in public agencies to work with children rather than adults.

It may seem curious that adult protective services spread in light of negative program evaluation results and ethical concerns arising from the demonstration projects. There are at least two likely explanations for this. First, the spread of adult protective services occurred within the public sector while many of the demonstration projects took place within the voluntary sector. Because of differences between the two sectors, it was possible to infer that negative evaluation findings from one did not necessarily reflect upon the other. Second, a few states, such as Wisconsin and the Carolinas, were early leaders in adult protective services. They either obtained federal demonstration project grants or secured local public funding to run their own adult protective services programs. As a result, they helped to interest other states in adult protective services. However, most other states developed "protective services to qualify for Federal funds under title XX" (U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, pp. 10–11).

There were few publications on adult protective services during the late 1970s. John Regan and Georgia Singer presented Congress with a working paper on the topic, which included proposed model legislation. By 1980, twenty-five states had adopted some type of adult protective services law. Moreover, about as many had legislation pending or in draft.

It was at this time that the evolution of adult protective services detoured slightly, embracing elder abuse as the focus for intervention. The effect of the departure reestablished direction and offered legitimacy to protective services once again.

Characteristics on the part of adult protective services made elder abuse an easy problem area to embrace. First, the history of protective intervention always included concern for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In addition, protective services has shown an ability to expand its targeted population when called upon to do so. Finally, the legal authority interest of protective services is mirrored in the potential needs of abused elders.

Elder abuse emerged as a subject of scholarly concern in the late 1970s and as a publicly recognized problem affecting older Americans during the 1980s. Although it has no universally accepted definition, generally elder abuse is regarded as a broad concept that has three basic categories: domestic elder abuse, institutional elder abuse, and self-neglect or self-abuse. Domestic elder abuse is inflicted by someone who has a special relationship with the older person, such as a family member. Institutional elder abuse occurs in residential facilities, like nursing homes. The various forms of elder abuse include physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation.

Current status

Adult protective services begins the new millennium reflecting both its historic base and recent influences. Without a federally enforced model, states developed their own laws, regulations, and service delivery systems. As a result, protective services vary across the country. This diversity is particularly evident in problem definition, program scope, services provided, state funding appropriated, and staff credentials. Nonetheless, nationwide adult protective services show notable consistency in their general approach and philosophical underpinnings.

Typically adult protective services are provided by public service agencies. Occasionally the responsibility is shared with private nonprofit organizations as well, usually through contract or formal agreement. Social work remains the dominant discipline involved in protective services. However, interdisciplinary and interagency coordination is routine, especially with health care, law enforcement, and since the early 1990s, domestic violence programming. Seventy percent of adult protective services laws give a single agency authority for investigating abuse and neglect reports of victims in both domestic and institutional settings. Sometimes the investigation is done in cooperation with long-term care ombudsman or other public agencies.

Ninety percent of states provide protective services to adults under age sixty, but 70 percent of adult protective services cases involve older persons as victims. Although the definitions for problems targeted by protective services differ by state law, everywhere the intent is to address forms of elder abuse, with the following forms covered by 85 percent or more states: physical abuse, financial exploitation, physical neglect, sexual abuse, self-neglect, and emotional abuse. Nearly 60 percent of reports received by protective services involve self-neglect or neglect by a caregiver. Twenty-four percent concern abuse, and just 12 percent represent exploitation.

Funding for adult protective services comes from various sources, including the Social Services Block Grant (descendant of Title XX), Older Americans Act, and state and local revenues. States differ in the scope of protective services, but certain activities are standard, including: report receipt, investigation, and substantiation; risk assessment and client evaluation; care planning, case management, service monitoring, and client advocacy; referral or provision of emergency, supportive, rehabilitative, or preventative services; possible use of legal intervention; and removal of the victim or perpetrator from the home, if needed. In addition, all protective services agencies have staff and professional training, public awareness, and data collection functions.

The principles of adult protective services emphasize individual autonomy above all else. This means that when intervening with adults freedom is more important than safety. Autonomy is never compromised simply because older adults live under circumstances of risk or danger. Unless determined incompetent or incapacitated, or infringing on the rights of others, they are supported in their choice of lifestyle. This perspective is in fundamental contrast with protective services during the 1960s and early 1970s, which was more paternalistic in nature. Other important principles of adult protective services include: self-determination, participation of the adult in decision making, use of least restrictive service alternatives, primacy of the adult in care planning, ensuring confidentiality, and avoidance of causing harm or placing blame.

Issues and trends

Adult protective services have a long history of controversy and periods of unpopularity with the public. This pattern is no less true in the twenty-first century. Moreover, its sources remain the same as those delineated by Mildred Barry in her remarks at the 1963 Arden House Seminar on Protective Services for Older People: "One of our major problems in this field of protective care has been that our goals have not been clear, nor generally acceptable; nor the problem clearly defined, nor its extent and complexity known; nor have there been norms or standards upon which to base program objectives" (Barry, 1963, p. 1).

At the start of the new millennium adult protective services still suffer from vagueness of problem definition as evident both in law and through research. There is no consensus on the meaning of elder abuse as the target for protective intervention. Consequently, state laws and research studies differ in the definitions they use, making generalizations across jurisdictions or study findings very difficult. Also, without national prevalence data, it remains impossible to know the scope of the problem it addresses. Although national forums, including workshops held by the National Institute on Aging and National Center on Elder Abuse, have prioritized initiatives in these areas, they have yet to occur. Moreover, public skepticism regarding protective services continues to rest on questions surrounding its effectiveness along with ethical dilemmas that accompany its implementation, such as the appropriateness of mandatory reporting or the use of costly interventions for older persons whose situations represent repeated abuse or neglect.

Evaluative research on adult protective services since the 1970s is rare. Reason for case closure remains the primary outcome measure, although some states are employing risk assessment instruments to standardize it. An analysis of Illinois protective services clients indicated significant movement to low-risk status at case closure for the majority of cases. Among high-risk clients, the reasons usually given for case closure were institutionalization, death, service refusal, or relocation to another community (not unlike findings from the Benjamin Rose Institute in the early 1970s). The Three Models Project on Elder Abuse evaluated various interventions and found public protective services the least effective, in part because they lacked the resources to go beyond simple report receipt and investigation. In fact, adult protective services in most states are inadequately funded, particularly due to cuts and shifting in federal Social Services Block Grant revenues beginning in the 1980s.

A growing older population and increasing reports of elder abuse in both domestic and institutional settings have led to adult protective services becoming an established part of public welfare systems nationwide in spite of the controversy and skepticism that continue to plague them. Since the late 1980s there also has been a growth in professionalism among protective services workers, largely because of training opportunities and credentialing in some locales. Furthermore, networking through such organizations as the National Association of Adult Protective Services Administrators has helped decrease the historic isolation of protective services workers, improve protective standards, and enhance the knowledge base of the field.

GEORGIA J. ANETZBERGER

See also AUTONOMY; ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT; GUARDIANSHIP; SOCIAL SERVICES.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANETZBERGER, G. J. "Protective Services and Long-Term Care." In Matching People with Services in Long-Term Care. Edited by Z. Harel and R. E. Dunkle. New York: Springer, 1995. Pages 261–281.

BARRY, M. C. "Responsibility of the Social Welfare Profession in Providing Guardianship and Protecting Services." Paper presented at the Arden House Seminar on Protective Services for Older People, Harriman, New York, 10–15 March 1963.

BERGERON, L. R. "Decision-Making and Adult Protective Services Workers: Identifying Critical Factors." Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 10, nos. 3/4 (1999): 87–113.

BLENKNER, M.; BLOOM, M.; WASSER, E.; and NIELSON, M. "Protective Services for Older People: Findings from the Benjamin Rose Institute Study." Social Casework 52, no. 8 (1971): 483–522.

BURR, J. J. Protective Services for Adults: A Guide to Exemplary Practice in States Providing Protective Services to Adults in OHDS Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services, 1982.

BYERS, B., and HENDRICKS, J. E., eds. Adult Protective Services: Research and Practice. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1993.

CALLENDER, W. D., JR. Improving Protective Services for Older Americans: A National Guide Series. Portland, Me.: University of Southern Maine, Center for Research and Advanced Study, 1982.

FERGUSON, E. J. Protecting the Vulnerable Adult: A Perspective on Policy and Program Issues in Adult Protective Services. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan–Wayne State University, The Institute of Gerontology, 1978.

GOODRICH, C. S. "Results of a National Survey of State Protective Services Programs: Assessing Risk and Defining Victim Outcomes." Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 9, no. 1 (1997): 69–86.

MIXSON, P. M. "An Adult Protective Services Perspective." Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 7, nos. 2/3 (1995): 69–87.

OTTO, J. M. "The Role of Adult Protective Services in Addressing Abuse." Generations 24, no. 11 (2000): 33–38.

REYNOLDS, S. L. "Shedding New Light on Old Dilemmas: A Critical Approach to Protective Interventions." Journal of Ethics, Law, and Aging 1, no. 2 (1995): 107–119.

TATARA, T. An Analysis of State Laws Addressing Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. Washington, D.C.: National Center on Elder Abuse, 1995.

TATARA, T. Elder Abuse: Questions and Answers, 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Center on Elder Abuse, 1996.

U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. Protective Services for the Elderly: A Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

WOLF, R. S. "Major Findings from Three Model Projects on Elderly Abuse." In Elder Abuse: Conflict in the Family. Edited by K. A. Pillemer and R. S. Wolf. Dover, Mass.: Auburn House, 1986. Pages 218–238.

ZBOROWSKY, E. "Developments in Protective Services: A Challenge for Social Workers." Journal of Gerontological Social Work 8, nos. 3/4 (1985): 71–83.