Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS)

Page 7

APS
Adult protective Services In-Home Overview

The mission of Adult Protective Services is to protect people age 65 and older and adults with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation by investigating and providing or arranging for services necessary to alleviate or prevent further maltreatment.

APS serves persons who are reported to be abused, neglected, or financially exploited, and are age 65 or older or age 18-64 with a disability.

Total Average Filled Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff*

Caseworkers	537.7
Supervisors	85.5
Other Staff	135.4
APS Program Support	73.2
Total APS In-Home Staff	831.8

Worker demographic

Demographic	Subcategory	Number or Percent
Turnover Rate	n/a	24.1%
Agency Tenure	Less than 1 Year	20.3%
	1-3 Years	25.1%
	Greater than 3 Years	54.5%
Entry Salary*	n/a	$31,144
Average Age	n/a	40.3
Race/Ethnicity	African American	37.0%
	Anglo	33.8%
	Hispanic	27.5%
	Other	1.7%

Supervisor Demographics

Demographic	Subcategory	Number or Percent
Turnover Rate	n/a	13.5%
Tenure as Supervisor	Less than 1 Year	16.1%
	1-3 Years	33.3%
	Greater than 3 Years	50.6%
Entry Salary*	n/a	$42,244
Average Age	n/a	45.7
Race/Ethnicity	African American	36.8%
	Anglo	36.8%
	Hispanic	25.3%
	Other	1.1%

APS Expenditures*

APS In-Home Staff	$49,938,554
Purchased Client Services	$9,149,797
Total APS Expenditures	$59,088,351

*Source: DFPS Office of Finance and FY 2016 Operating Budget (plus benefit replacement pay).

Description of the Report Investigation Process

Step 1: Report Assigned for Investigation

Step 2: Investigation Process/Assessment

24 hour initiation
Immediate intervention
Initial face-to-face visit
Safety Assessment
Collateral contacts
Evidence collection
Referral to law enforcement
Emergency Services

Step 3: Investigation Findings/Assessment

Validity of allegations
Risk of Recidivism Assessment
Determine level of services needed
Referral for guardianship or legal services under Chapter 48, Human Resources Code

Step 4: Case Closed or

Step 5: Service Delivery/Assessment

Strengths and Needs Assessment
Intensive Care Services
Maintenance services

Note: The chart is for reference only and does not necessarily represent the flow of a case.

APS In-Home Statistics FY 2015

Completed In-Home Investigations:78,180
Validated Investigations: 43,759
Validated Investigations with Services Provided: 12,876
Completed Service Delivery Stages**: 16,566

**Counts cannot be compared to those from prior Data Books due to changes in APS In-Home casework practice model. Cases with services provided during the investigation may not have a separate service stage.

Most Common...

Person reporting abuse/neglect/exploitation:

Medical Personnel (21.8%)
Allegation validated: Physical Neglect (72.4%)
Validated perpetrator:
- Relationship: Adult Children (38.0%),
- Gender: Female (52.5 %)
- Age: 46-55 (24.1%)
Characteristic of client:
- Gender: Female (58.9%)
- Age: 65 and Older (62.6%)

Page 8

Legal Responsibility for Adult Protective Services

Statutory References

Federal: Title XX, Social Security Act
State: Human Resources Code, Chapters 40 and 48
Texas Family Code, Title V
Health and Safety Code, Chapter 532 and Chapters 591-595

Major Provision

Mandatory reporting of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of adults who are age 65 or older or adults with disabilities
Receipt and investigation of all reports (unless patently false); initiation of investigations within 24 hours of receipt of report
Responsibility for referring reports to other state agencies when DFPS is not the appropriate investigating agency
Provision or arrangement of services needed to prevent or alleviate abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation
Enhancing and developing community resources in an effort to increase awareness of abuse, neglect and financial exploitation, and address increasing needs of APS clients
Responsibility for referring adult victims of abuse, neglect and/or financial exploitation to the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) for guardianship services when these persons appear to lack the capacity to consent to services, there is no other potential guardian available and guardianship is the least restrictive alternative that will ensure the person's safety and well-being
Assessment of factors that may indicate an adult's possible lack of capacity to consent to services and pursuit of a medical or mental health evaluation, if indicated
Using the least restrictive alternative in the provision of protective services
Authority to seek court orders when necessary to gain access to the individual, to prevent interference with the provision of voluntary protective services, to access records or documents, and to initiate and provide emergency protective services (e.g., a removal), including after-hours and on holidays, without a court order
Requirement to notify law enforcement if APS removes a person from their home under a court order and their home will be left unattended
Requirement to notify law enforcement if APS suspects that a person has been abused, neglected, or financially exploited in a manner that constitutes a criminal offense
Confidentiality of case records
Requirement to make referrals to the Employee Misconduct Registry for certain validated perpetrators

Other Programmatic Information:

Factors Contributing to Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation:

Rapidly growing population of older adults
Growing number of younger adults with disabilities
Alcohol and drug dependency
Poverty
Lack of affordable housing and high costs of utility bills
Inadequate access to health care and costly medications
Toxic family relationships
Dependence of family or others on the income of older
adults and adults with disabilities
Violence as a coping mechanism in society
Physical and mental stress of caregiving in traditionally nonviolent,
caring households
Denial of benefits, such as SSI and Medicaid, to some
immigrants

Challenges:

Affordable and safe housing
Waiting lists and other limitations in the availability of in-home
care and home health care
Shortage of resources to serve persons denied long-term
care and other benefits
Gaps in surrogate decision-making processes for
incapacitated persons in hospitals, nursing homes, and
community-based settings
Inadequate community services for persons with a mental
illness, including those discharged from state hospitals
Lack of statewide access to preventative or early
intervention services such as long-term case management
for older adults and adults with disabilities who are at risk,
but not yet experiencing abuse, neglect, or exploitation
Hiring and maintaining skilled frontline caseworkers and
supervisors
Specialized geriatric social work training is not keeping pace
with the ever-increasing number of older Americans

Page 9

Texas Adult Population
Age 65 and Over
Fiscal Year 2014

Region	Population Age 65 and Older
1 Lubbock	117,058
2 Abilene	96,178
3 Arlington	785,494
4 Tyler	202,857
5 Beaumont	129,485
6 Houston	683,562
7 Austin	375,070
8 San Antonio	379,885
9 Midland	81,241
10 El Paso	102,758
11 Edinburg	272,026
Statewide	3,225,614

Population Data Source: Population Estimates and Projections Program, Texas State Data Center, Office of the State Demographer and the Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Current Population Estimates and Projections Data as of December 2015.

Texas Adult Population Ages 65 and Over by County

Page 10

TexasPopulation with a Disability
Ages 18 to 64 years
Fiscal Year 2015

State Total: 1,703,522

Region	Disabled Population Ages 18-64 Years
1 Lubbock	58,809
2 Abilene	47,111
3 Arlington	391,089
4 Tyler	94,278
5 Beaumont	73,730
6 Houston	356,830
7 Austin	201,736
8 San Antonio	209,736
9 Midland	42,524
10 El Paso	61,923
11 Edinburg	165,756
Statewide	1,703,522

Texas Disabled Adult population ages 18 to 64 years by County

Page 11

APS In-Home Intake Reports* by Priority
Fiscal Year 2015

Priority	Intakes	Percent
Priority 1	18,244	16.5%
Priority 2	65,447	59.3%
Priority 3	19,611	17.8%
Priority 4	6,975	6.3%
Total	110,277	100%

Note: Refer to the definitions section for priority definitions.
* Inclusion based on intake closure date.

Source of APS In-Home Intake* Reports
Fiscal Year 2015

Sources	Count	Percent
Medical Personnel	24,445	21.8%
Relative	18,441	16.4%
Community Agency	15,438	13.7%
Victim	13,233	11.8%
Other	8,196	7.3%
Provider	7,622	6.8%
Friend-Neighbor	6,370	5.7%
Law Enforcement	5,597	5.0%
Anonymous	3,078	2.7%
Financial Institution	2,650	2.4%
Blank/Unknown	1,481	1.3%
Parent	1,453	1.3%
DFPS Staff	1,071	1.0%
State Agency	822	0.7%
School	727	0.6%
Unrelated Home Member	495	0.4%
Legal/Court	423	0.4%
Institutional Personnel	365	0.3%
Day Care Provider	174	0.2%
Religious Entity	201	0.2%
Parent's Paramour	28	0.0%
24 Hour Care Provider	17	0.0%
Statewide	112,327	100.0%

Note: A report of abuse/neglect/financial exploitation may come from multiple sources making the source total higher than the total number of intakes.
* Inclusion based on intake closure date.

APS In-home Intake Reports* by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Intakes
1 Lubbock	6,342
2 Abilene	6,203
3 Arlington	22,867
4 Tyler	6,092
5 Beaumont	5,075
6 Houston	20,437
7 Austin	12,522
8 San Antonio	13,299
9 Midland	3,438
10 El Paso	3,739
11 Edinburg	10,189
Unknown	74
State Total	110,277

Note: 74 reports did not have a region identified.
*Inclusion based on intake closure date.

Page 12

APS In-Home Intakes, Completed and Validated Cases
by Fiscal Year

	2012	2013	2014	2015
Intakes*	107,203	87,260	103,024	110,277
Completed Investigations	87,487	69,383	81,681	78,180
Validated Investigations	59,595	48,392	54,731	43,759

*Inclusion based on intake closure date.

Maltreatment per 1,000 Adults in Texas Adult Population by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Maltreatment per 1,000 Adults
1 Lubbock	20.0
2 Abilene	22.4
3 Arlington	7.9
4 Tyler	9.1
5 Beaumont	11.3
6 Houston	8.0
7 Austin	6.7
8 San Antonio	6.5
9 Midland	12.3
10 El Paso	10.1
11 Edinburg	8.1
Statewide	8.9

Note: Calculations are based on the percent of validated APS in-home investigations.
Unreported incidences are not reflected.

Page 13

Adult Protective Services Validated In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Validated In-Home Investigations
1 Lubbock	3,499
2 Abilene	3,191
3 Arlington	9,242
4 Tyler	2,744
5 Beaumont	2,312
6 Houston	8,268
7 Austin	3,864
8 San Antonio	3,831
9 Midland	1,537
10 El Paso	1,647
11 Edinburg	3,599
Unknown	25
Statewide	43,759

Note: 25 validated investigations did not have a county designated.

Page 14

Completed APS In-home Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Totals	Validated	Invalid	Unable to Determine	Other*
1 Lubbock	5,000	3,499	1,120	263	118
2 Abilene	4,279	3,191	816	194	78
3 Arlington	16,416	9,242	4,643	2,089	442
4 Tyler	4,436	2,744	1,187	379	126
5 Beaumont	3,582	2,312	856	262	152
6 Houston	15,043	8,268	4,408	1,840	527
7 Austin	7,943	3,864	2,937	784	358
8 San Antonio	8,804	3,831	3,688	643	642
9 Midland	2,274	1,537	534	152	51
10 El Paso	2,884	1,647	818	308	111
11 Edinburg	7,484	3,599	2,933	689	263
Unknown	35	25	4	2	4
Statewide	78,180	43,759	23,944	7,605	2,872

Note: 35 investigations had an "unknown" region. Of those, 25 were Validated, 4 were Invalid, 2 were Unable to Determine, and 4 were listed as Other.

* "Other" category refers to those investigations that workers could not complete for some reason, e.g. clients died or cases were misclassified.

Page 15

Completed APS In-Home Investigations by Region and Disposition
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Total Completed Investigations	Average Length (Days)	Invalid	Valid Progressed*	Valid Services Provided in Investigation**	Valid No Services Provided	Unable to Determine	Other***
1 Lubbock	5,000	38.3	1,120	1,682	1,244	573	263	118
2 Abilene	4,279	35.2	816	1,692	797	702	194	78
3 Arlington	16,416	37.3	4,643	3,193	2,634	3,415	2,089	442
4 Tyler	4,436	41.7	1,187	1,540	603	601	379	126
5 Beaumont	3,582	48.9	856	1,144	633	535	262	152
6 Houston	15,043	47.9	4,408	3,414	2,322	2,532	1,840	527
7 Austin	7,943	47.8	2,937	848	1,510	1,506	784	358
8 San Antonio	8,804	68.7	3,688	1,221	1,438	1,172	643	642
9 Midland	2,274	50.9	534	887	317	333	152	51
10 El Paso	2,884	53.8	818	299	464	884	308	111
11 Edinburg	7,484	54.1	2,933	1,649	907	1,043	689	263
Unknown	35	49.1	4	3	7	15	2	4
Statewide	78,180	47.3	23,944	17,572	12,876	13,311	7,605	2,872

*A valid investigation may be "progressed" into intensive or maintenance service delivery stage, based on risk level.
**Beginning FY15, services provided during the investigation are documented in the investigation stage and not in a separate service stage.
***"Other" category refers to those investigations that workers could not complete, e.g. clients died or cases were misclassified.

APS In-Home Average Daily Caseload
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Caseload
1 Lubbock	24.0
2 Abilene	26.4
3 Arlington	26.3
4 Tyler	22.7
5 Beaumont	24.2
6 Houston	33.4
7 Austin	31.6
8 San Antonio	39.1
9 Midland	31.2
10 El Paso	35.8
11 Edinburg	32.9
Statewide Daily Average	30.1

Note: Counts cannot be compared to those from prior Data Books due to changes in APS In-Home casework practice model.

Page 16

Recidivism* of APS In-Home Cases
By Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Percent	15.2%	15.2%	14.2%	15.3%	15.7%

*Recidivism is a measure of the percentage of APS clients with investigations closed during the fiscal year who had a second investigation opened during the same fiscal year, including clients who refused services.

NOTE: In past Data Books, a slightly different calculation was used for this chart.

Recidivism* of APS In-Home Cases by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Percent Recidivism
1 Lubbock	19.8%
2 Abilene	19.3%
3 Arlington	15.0%
4 Tyler	13.6%
5 Beaumont	16.9%
6 Houston	14.8%
7 Austin	15.7%
8 San Antonio	15.3%
9 Midland	17.2%
10 El Paso	15.8%
11 Edinburg	15.8%
Statewide	15.7%

Page 17

Characteristics of Validated APS Victims* in Completed In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2015

Validated APS Victims by Age	Age Totals	Percent of Total**	Female	Percent of Total**	Male	Percent of Total**	Unknown	Percent of Total**
65 and Older	27,385	62.6%	16,725	38.2%	10,617	24.3%	43	0.1%
18-64 with Disability	16,374	37.4%	9,064	20.7%	7,284	16.6%	26	0.1%

Validated APS Victims by Race/Ethnicity***	Race/Ethnicity Totals	Percent of Total**	Female	Percent of Total**	Male	Percent of Total**	Unknown	Percent of Total**
Anglo	23,008	52.6%	13,575	31.0%	9,409	21.5%	24	0.1%
African American	9,649	22.1%	5,986	13.7%	3,640	8.3%	23	0.1%
Hispanic	9,595	21.9%	5,322	12.2%	4,252	9.7%	21	0.0%
Other	1,106	2.5%	654	1.5%	451	1.0%	1	0.0%
Asian	290	0.7%	176	0.4%	114	0.3%	0	0.0%
Native American	111	0.3%	76	0.2%	35	0.1%	0	0.0%

Validated Victims by Gender	All	Percent of Total	Female	Percent of Total	Male	Percent of Total	Unknown	Percent of Total
Total Validated Victims	43,759	100%	25,789	58.9%	17,901	40.9%	69	0.2%

*Includes self as perpetrator (i.e. a finding of self-neglect).
**Percent of Total Validated Victims.
***As recommended by the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to ensure consistency across all HHSC agencies, in 2012, the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) adopted the HHSC methodology on how to categorize race and ethnicity. As a result, data broken down by race/ethnicity in 2012 and after is not directly comparable to race/ethnicity data in 2011 and before.

"Perpetrator Characteristics In Validated APS In-Home Investigations " Characteristics of Perpetrators* in Validated APS In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2015

Perpetrator Characteristic: Age

Age	Age Total	Percent of Total**	Female	Percent of Total**	Male	Percent of Total**	Unknown	Percent of Total**
Under 18	168	4.7%	59	1.6%	109	3.0%	0	0.0%
18-25	271	7.5%	125	3.5%	143	4.0%	3	0.1%
26-35	489	13.5%	261	7.2%	225	6.2%	3	0.1%
36-45	686	19.0%	399	11.1%	281	7.8%	6	0.2%
46-55	873	24.2%	471	13.0%	395	10.9%	7	0.2%
56-65	598	16.6%	320	8.9%	273	7.6%	5	0.1%
Over 65	525	14.5%	259	7.2%	264	7.3%	2	0.1%

Perpetrator Characteristic: Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity	Race/Ethnicity Total	Percent of Total**	Female	Percent of Total**	Male	Percent of Total**	Unknown	Percent of Total**
Anglo	1,731	48.0%	839	23.2%	883	24.5%	9	0.2%
Hispanic	982	27.2%	544	15.1%	433	12.0%	5	0.1%
African American	615	17.0%	371	10.3%	243	6.7%	1	0.0%
Other	255	7.1%	128	3.5%	116	3.2%	11	0.3%
Asian	22	0.6%	10	0.3%	12	0.3%	0	0.0%
Native American	5	0.1%	2	0.1%	3	0.1%	0	0.0%

Perpetrator Characteristic: Gender

	Perpetrator Total	Percent of Total**	Total Female	Percent of Total**	Total Male	Percent of Total**	Unknown Gender	Percent of Total**
Confirmed Perpetrators	3,610	0.0%	1,894	52.5%	1,690	46.8%	26	0.7%

Note: Each victim may have more than one perpetrator at the end of an investigation.

*Does not include self as perpetrator (i.e. a finding of self-neglect).

**Percent of Total Validated Perpetrators. .

Page 18

Perpetrators* in Validated APS In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2015

Perpetrator Type	Count	Percent
Adult Children	1,373	38.0%
Spouse	563	15.6%
Grandchildren	408	11.3%
Service Provider	319	8.8%
Parent	242	6.7%
Other Relatives	209	5.8%
Sibling	155	4.3%
Other	136	3.8%
No Relationship	110	3.0%
Friend-Neighbor	67	1.9%
Unknown	18	0.5%
Facility-Institutional Staff	10	0.3%
Statewide	3,610	100.0%

Note: Each victim may have more than one perpetrator at the end of an investigation.
*Does not include self as perpetrator investigations (i.e. a finding of self-neglect).

Completed APS In-Home Investigations with Notifications to Law Enforcement, by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Investigations
1 Lubbock	193
2 Abilene	113
3 Arlington	1,543
4 Tyler	342
5 Beaumont	175
6 Houston	2,168
7 Austin	728
8 San Antonio	222
9 Midland	157
10 El Paso	209
11 Edinburg	219
Unknown	2
State Total	6,071

NOTE: Referral may have been made in previous fiscal year

Victims of Family Violence* in Validated APS In-Home Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Victims
1 Lubbock	101
2 Abilene	113
3 Arlington	652
4 Tyler	143
5 Beaumont	136
6 Houston	309
7 Austin	237
8 San Antonio	265
9 Midland	66
10 El Paso	147
11 Edinburg	295
State Total	2,464

*Family Violence is indicated when a validated investigation has a relative perpetrator excluding those where financial exploitation is the only confirmed allegation.

Page 19

Validated Allegations in APS In-Home Investigations by Type of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation
Fiscal Year 2015

Table Includes Totals of all Abuse/Neglect Types:
Totals, Percent by Region, Unduplicated Validated Victims

Region	Total	Percent by Region	Unduplicated Validated Victims*	Percent Unduplicated by Region
1 Lubbock	4,461	8.2%	3,499	8.0%
2 Abilene	3,957	7.3%	3,191	7.3%
3 Arlington	11,729	21.5%	9,242	21.1%
4 Tyler	3,315	6.1%	2,744	6.3%
5 Beaumont	2,788	5.1%	2,312	5.3%
6 Houston	9,912	18.2%	8,268	18.9%
7 Austin	4,844	8.9%	3,864	8.8%
8 San Antonio	4,625	8.5%	3,831	8.8%
9 Midland	2,130	3.9%	1,537	3.5%
10 El Paso	2,168	4.0%	1,647	3.8%
11 Edinburg	4,590	8.4%	3,599	8.2%
Unknown	33	0.1%	25	0.1%
State Total	54,552	100%	43,759	100%

Table Includes Abuse/Neglect Types:
Physical Neglect, Medical Neglect, Mental Health Neglect, Physical Abuse, Financial Exploitation, Emotional/Verbal Abuse, and Sexual Abuse

Region	Physical Neglect	Medical Neglect	Mental Health Neglect	Physical Abuse	Financial Exploitation	Emotional/ Verbal Abuse	Sexual Abuse
1 Lubbock	3,282	755	296	48	59	19	2
2 Abilene	2,954	701	173	49	43	37	0
3 Arlington	8,223	2,076	772	264	212	176	6
4 Tyler	2,517	490	149	55	76	28	0
5 Beaumont	2,134	396	97	53	60	46	2
6 Houston	7,620	1,451	495	139	123	82	2
7 Austin	3,364	871	330	128	74	75	2
8 San Antonio	3,373	684	228	92	131	114	3
9 Midland	1,405	429	214	34	20	28	0
10 El Paso	1,424	435	160	43	69	35	2
11 Edinburg	3,164	791	386	110	67	67	5
Unknown	23	5	5	0	0	0	0
State Total	39,483	9,084	3,305	1,015	934	707	24

*Victims have been unduplicated by investigation stage.

Page 20

Completed Service Delivery Stages* in APS In-Home Cases
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Total Stages with Service Delivery	Investigations in which Services were Provided	Service Delivery Stages*
1 Lubbock	2,864	1,244	1,620
2 Abilene	2,117	797	1,320
3 Arlington	5,504	2,634	2,870
4 Tyler	2,028	603	1,425
5 Beaumont	1,667	633	1,034
6 Houston	5,810	2,322	3,488
7 Austin	2,451	1,510	941
8 San Antonio	2,812	1,438	1,374
9 Midland	1,043	317	726
10 El Paso	778	464	314
11 Edinburg	2,355	907	1,448
Unknown	13	7	6
Statewide	29,442	12,876	16,566

Note: Counts cannot be compared to those from prior Data Books, due to changes in APS In-Home casework practice model. Cases with services provided during the investigation may not have a separate service stage.

*Includes Regular, Maintenance and Intensive Service Stages.

Client Services Delivered for APS In-Home Cases by Region
Fiscal Year 2015

Region	Totals	Non-Purchased Services	Purchased Services
1 Lubbock	8,256	5,667	2,589
2 Abilene	7,101	5,275	1,826
3 Arlington	14,547	11,350	3,197
4 Tyler	4,996	4,051	945
5 Beaumont	3,822	2,767	1,055
6 Houston	11,406	8,122	3,284
7 Austin	6,498	4,938	1,560
8 San Antonio	7,516	5,338	2,178
9 Midland	3,013	2,120	893
10 El Paso	2,080	1,727	353
11 Edinburg	6,170	4,750	1,420
Unknown	41	34	7
Statewide	75,446	56,139	19,307

Note: Clients in validated cases may receive more than one service.

Previous Section | Back to top | Next Section

Adult Protective Services In-Home Select Page Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20

Adult Protective Services In-Home
Select Page