Elder Abuse pp 317-342 | Cite as

Adult Protective Services and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program

  • Joseph SnyderEmail author
  • William F. Benson


Adult Protective Services (APS) and the Long-term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) are present in every American community to respond to allegations or complaints related to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Yet, the two programs have very different and distinct purposes, roles, and structures. For the most part they can collaborate and complement each other. But in some circumstances they can be at odds with each other. APS is the single, dedicated authorized victim service system for elder and vulnerable adult abuse victims who live in community settings (in about half the states, APS also investigates abuse in facility settings). The LTCOP provides long-term care residents with an independent advocate to help them resolve complaints, protect their rights, and seek policy changes to improve systemic problems. This chapter details APS and LTCOP structure and functions, their similarities and differences, and the key issues, recent developments and future directions facing both programs.


Adult protective services Long-term care ombudsman Elder abuse Advocacy Nursing home Financial exploitation Neglect 


  1. 1.
    National Adult Protective Services Association. Adult protective services code of ethics. Accessed 10 Nov 2015.
  2. 2.
    United States. Cong. Senate. Special Committee on Aging. Broken trust: combating financial exploitation of vulnerable seniors. Feb. 4, 2015. 114th Cong. 1st sess. Washington. (statement of Kathleen Quinn, Executive Director, National Adult Protective Services Association).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United States., Mrena C, Weisberg E, United States. Elder justice: stronger federal leadership could enhance national response to elder abuse: report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sedlak AJ, Mettenburg J, Basena M, Petta I, McPherson K, Greene A, Li S. Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4): report to congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 2010.
  5. 5.
    Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Women’s Health. One department: overview of activities on violence against women 2008–2009. Department of Health and Human Services. 2009.
  6. 6.
    Acierno R, Hernandez-Tejada M, Muzzy W, Steve K. National elder mistreatment study. Report. National Institute of Justice. 2009.
  7. 7.
    United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Violent crime rate remained unchanged while theft rate declined in 2008. Press Release. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009.
  8. 8.
    Administration for Children and Families. FY 2010 Congressional justification. 2010.
  9. 9.
    Women’s Policy Inc. FY 2010 appropriations summary. 2009.
  10. 10.
    National Network to End Domestic Violence. Funding and appropriations. 2016.
  11. 11.
    National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators. VOCA funding. 2016.
  12. 12.
    United States. Elder abuse: a national disgrace: a report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Long-Term Care of the Select Committee of the Subcommittee on Aging, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    United States. Elder abuse: a decade of shame and inaction: a report. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lachs M, Williams C, O’Brien S, Pillemer K, Charlson M. The mortality of elder mistreatment. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280(5):428–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    United States. Cong. Senate. Special Committee on Aging. Justice for all: ending elder abuse, neglect and financial exploitation. March 2, 2011. 112th Cong. 1st sess. Washington. (statement of Mark Lachs, Director of Geriatrics, New York Presbyterian Health System, Co-Chief, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koss MP, Heslet L. Somatic consequences of violence against women. Arch Fam Med. 1992;1:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Center on Elder Abuse. The national elder abuse incidence study: final report. Report. Administration for Children and Families and Administration on Aging. 1994.
  18. 18.
    Acierno R, Hernandez M, Amstadter A, Resnick H, Steve K, Muzzy W, Kilpatrick D. Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential neglect in the United States: the national elder mistreatment study. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):292–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Inc., Weill Cornell Medical Center of Cornell University, New York City Department for Aging. Under the radar: New York state elder abuse prevalence study: Self-reported prevalence and documented case surveys. Report. William B, Hoyt Memorial New York State Children and Family Trust Fund, and the New York State office of Children and Family Services. 2011.
  20. 20.
    Gunther J. The Utah cost of financial exploitation. Report. Utah Division of Aging and Adult Services. 2011.
  21. 21.
    MetLife Mature Market Institute, Virginia Tech, National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. The MetLife study of elder financial abuse: Crimes of occasion, desperation, and predation against America’s elders. Report. MetLife Mature Market Institute, Virginia Tech, National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. 2011.
  22. 22.
    True Link Financial. The true link report on elder financial abuse 2015. Report. True Link Financial. 2015.
  23. 23.
    U.S. Government Accountability Office. Elder justice: stronger federal leadership could enhance national response to elder abuse. Report. Government Accountability Office. 2011.
  24. 24.
    Quinn K, Benson B. The states elder abuse victim services: a system still in search of support. Generations. 2012;36(3):66–71.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    BITS, Financial Services Roundtable. Protecting the elderly and vulnerable from financial fraud and exploitation. Report. BITS, Financial Services Roundtable. 2010.
  26. 26.
    Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Financial exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults. Regulatory Notice. FINRA. 2015.
  27. 27.
    North American Securities Administrators Association. Proposed model legislation or regulation to protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation. Model Legislation. NASAA. 2015.
  28. 28.
    Okonkwo O, Wadley V, Griffith H, Ball K, Marson D. Cognitive correlates of financial abilities in mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(11):1745–50. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Denburg N. The orbitofrontal cortex, real-world decision-making, and normal aging. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007;1121:480–98.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Institute of Medicine. Cognitive aging: progress in understanding and opportunities for action. Washington: Institute of Medicine; 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Investor Protection Trust. Elder investment fraud and financial exploitation prevention program. Resource. Investor Protection Trust. 2016.
  32. 32.
    Sec. 712 and following, Older Americans of 1965, as amended.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Final Rule, 45 CFR Parts 1321 and 1327, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, Administration on Aging, Administration for Community Living, HHS, Federal Register, February 11, 2015. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Older Americans Act, Sec. 712 (a)(5).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    National Ombudsman Reporting System. Administration on Aging, Administration for Community Living, USDHHS. 2014.
  36. 36.
    Institute of Medicine. Real people real problems: an evaluation of the long-term care ombudsman programs of the Older Americans Act. Washington: Institute of Medicine; 1995.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities and the National Ombudsman Resource Center at the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care. State long-term care ombudsman programs: a primer for state aging directors and executive staff. Report. NASUAD and Consumer Voice. 2013.
  38. 38.
    Public Law 102-375.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    OAA, Sec. 712(a)(3)(A).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    OAA, Sec. 712 (a)(3)(ii)(I)-(III).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Proposed Rule, 45 CFR Parts 1321 and 1327, RIN 0985-AA08, State Long-Term Care Program, Administration on Aging, Administration for Community Living, HHS, June 18, 2013.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    OAA, Sec. 712 (j)(2).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Administration on Aging. Long-term care ombudsman program.
  44. 44.
    Administration on Aging. Long-term care ombudsman complaint codes.
  45. 45.
    Administration on Aging. 2013 national ombudsman reporting system data tables.
  46. 46.
    OAA Sec. 712 (a)(5)(B)(iv).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    OAA Sec. 712 (h)(1)(F).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hill J. California’s elder abuse investigators: Ombudsman shackled by conflicting laws and duties. Report. California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes. 2009.
  49. 49.
    Final Rule, 45 CFR Parts 1321 and 1327, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, Administration on Aging, Administration for Community Living, HHS, Federal Register, February 11, 2015, pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Correspondence from Becky A. Kurtz, Director, Office of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, AoA/ACL, to Joseph Rodrigues, State LTC Ombudsman, California Department of Aging, October 15, 2015.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Consumer Voice. Locate an ombudsman. Consumer Voice. 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Older Adult Protective ServicesPhiladelphia Corporation for AgingPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.National Adult Protective Services AssociationHealth Benefits ABCsSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations