The purpose of these offices were to provide protective services, that allowed for mandatory abuse reports. Majority of this time period was shifting focus from Adult Protective Services, to Elder Abuse. Researcher’s perceived elder abuse as a more easily identified subject for study, and a more dramatic issue to present to legislators and the public. One of the results of this shift of focus was the increasing invisibility of Adult Protective Services. States continued to provide the service, but as state laws evolved, definitions became increasingly state specific, as did the programs. For the past 20 plus years researchers have devoted a considerable amount of time identifying the risk factors that heightening the probability of elderly maltreatments. “ Several reviews summarizing this literature (Ansello, 1996, Kosberg, 1988; Schiamberg & Gerans, 200 retrieved from Jackson & Hafermeister) have identified several factors that can heighten the probability, such as, advanced age, dependence on others, living arrangements, excessive alcohol consumption, dementia, intergenerational and unfamiliar conflict, depression, isolation, poor health, antagonizing behavior, excessive loyalty to others and internalization of blame” (Jackson & Hafermeister, 2011, p.738). Risk factors such as mental illness social isolation, and being or becoming economically troubled or dependent, and a …show more content…
1). Openly funded, legally mandated Adult Protective Services (APS) units are elected as initial responders in reporting states of elder abuse or neglect. While estimates of the prevalence of the problem continued to rise, accurate data collection of actual cases served by local Adult Protective Services programs continued to be problematic to attain due to a lack of constant definitions and reporting requirements. By 1991, 42 states had mandatory reporting laws, and 34 were providing protective services to impaired adults as well as the elderly. Mandatory reporting had become an extremely constant issue seen by some as a threat to client autonomy. A study that year by the Government and office of accounting concluded that mandatory reporting did not necessarily prevent abuse. The study identified a number of other factors that were more effective in abuse prevention. However the study also pointed out that mandatory reporting was second only to public and professional responsiveness in helpfulness in case identification (U.S. Congress,