Page 5

APS
Adult protective Services In-Home Overview

The mission of Adult Protective Services is to protect the elderly and adults with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and 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 exploited and age 65 or older or age 18-64 with a disabling condition.

Paid Expenditures and Total Average Filled
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff

Total Staff 854.4
Direct Delivery Total 823.1
Direct Delivery Workers 568.1
Direct Delivery Supervisors 84.9
Direct Delivery Other 170.1
Staff Costs $44,778,615.54

Worker demographic

Demographic Subcategory Number or Percent
Turnover Rate n/a 18.1%
Tenure Less than 1 Year 17.4%
1-3 Years 27.5%
Greater than 3 Years 55.1%
Entry Salary n/a $30,481.44
Average Age n/a 41.2
Race/Ethnicity African-American 30.7%
Anglo 39.7%
Hispanic 27.3%
Other 2.3%

Supervisor Demographics

Demographic Subcategory Number or Percent
Turnover Rate n/a 7.0%
Tenure Less than 1 Year 0.0%
1-3 Years 4.6%
Greater than 3 Years 95.4%
Entry Salary n/a $39,117.96
Average Age n/a 47.8
Race/Ethnicity African-American 29.9%
Anglo 41.4%
Hispanic 28.7%
Other 0.0%

Description of the Report Investigation Process

Step 1: Report Assigned for Investigation
Step 2: Investigation/Assessment Activities
  • 24 hour initiation
  • Immediate intervention
  • Initial face-to-face visit
  • Client risk assessment
  • Collateral contacts
  • Evidence collection
  • Referral to law enforcement
Step 3: Investigation Findings
  • Validity of allegations
  • Need for protective services
  • Referral for guardianship or
  • legal services under Chapter48, Human Resources Code
Step 4: Case Closed or
Step 5: Service Delivery
  • Determine DFPS Program
  • Determine Priority
  • Notify Law Enforcement (CPS, CCL)
  • Notify Field Office

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

Statistics FY 2010

  • Completed In-Home Investigations: 72,296
  • Validated In-Home Investigations: 56,936

Most Common...

  • Person reporting abuse/neglect/exploitation: Family Member (18.6%)
  • Allegation validated: Physical Neglect (64.0%)
  • Validated perpetrator:
    • Relationship: Adult Children (38.6%),
    • Gender: Female (51.4%)
    • Age: Age Over 45 (49.1%)
  • Characteristic of client:
    • Gender: Female (60.9%)
    • Age: Over 65 (50.2%)

Back to top

Page 6

Legal Responsibility for Statewide Intake

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 Provisions

  • Mandatory reporting of abuse, neglect, and exploitation
    of adults who are elderly (defined as age 65 and 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 investigations of abuse, neglect, and
    exploitation of persons receiving services in state operated
    mental health and mental retardation facilities (State
    Hospitals, State Schools, and State Centers) and/or state
    contracted settings (Community MH and MR Centers,
    Home and Community-based Services programs, and
    Texas Home Living Waiver Program) that serve adults and
    children with mental illness or mental retardation.
  • 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 exploitation.
  • Enhancing and developing community resources in
    an effort to increase awareness of abuse, neglect and
    exploitation and to address increasing needs of APS
    consumers.
  • Responsibility for referring adult victims of abuse, neglect
    and/or 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. Guardianship is the least restrictive alternative
    that will ensure the person’s safety and well-being when no
    other guardian is available.
  • Assessment of factors that may indicate an adult’s possible
    lack of capacity to consent to services and pursuit of a
    medical 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 provide
    emergency protective services, to access records or
    documents, and to initiate emergency protective services
    (e.g., a removal) after hours and on holidays without a
    court order.
  • Requirement to notify law enforcement if APS suspects
    that an elderly person or adult with a disability has been
    abused, neglected, or exploited in a manner that constitutes
    a criminal offense.
  • Confidentiality of case records.

Other Programmatic Information:

Factors Contributing to Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation:
  • Aging population
  • Growing number of younger persons with disabilities
  • Alcohol and drug dependency
  • Poverty
  • Lack of affordable housing and high costs of utility bills
  • De-institutionalization of persons who are mentally ill and/or mentally retarded when community support is not adequate
  • Inadequate access to health care and costly medications
  • Pathological family relationships/violence as a coping
    mechanism in society
  • Physical and mental stress of caregiving in traditionally
    non-violent, caring households
  • Denial of benefits, such as SSI and Medicaid, to some
    elderly and disabled immigrants
Challenges:
  • Affordable and safe housing for elders and adults with
    disabilities
  • Waiting lists and other limitations in the availability of inhome
    care and home health care
  • Shortage of resources to serve persons denied long-term
    care and other benefits under welfare reform
  • Gaps in surrogate decision-making processes for
    incapacitated persons in hospitals, nursing homes and
    community-based setting
  • Inadequate community services for persons discharged
    from state hospitals and schools
  • Lack of statewide access to preventative or early
    intervention services such as long-term case management
    for elderly persons and adults with disabilities who
    are at risk, but not yet experiencing abuse, neglect, or
    exploitation
  • Hiring and maintaining a skilled workforce while the
    availability of caseworkers and specialized geriatric social
    work training is not keeping pace with the ever-increasing
    number of older Americans

Back to top

Page 7

Fiscal Year 2004 and 2010 Pre- and Post-Reform Statistics by Region (APS In-Home)

Region 1 - Lubbock

Region 1 - Lubbock 2004 2010
Caseworkers 21.4 35.5
Turnover 7.3% 21.2%
Average Base Salary $34,600 $36,868
Completed Investigations 3,579 5,001

Region 2 - Abilene

Region 2 - Abilene 2004 2010
Caseworkers 24.8 36.7
Turnover 13.1% 13.4%
Average Base Salary $33,022 $36,715
Completed Investigations 4,590 5,249

Region 3 - Arlington

Region 3 - Arlington 2004 2010
Caseworkers 45.8 86.5
Turnover 16.2% 19.9%
Average Base Salary $33,708 $34,782
Completed Investigations 9,208 14,398

Region 4 - Tyler

Region 4 - Tyler 2004 2010
Caseworkers 27.0 41.4
Turnover 7.7% 9.4%
Average Base Salary $33,472 $35,525
Completed Investigations 4,497 5,815

Region 5 - Beaumont

Region 5 - Beaumont 2004 2010
Caseworkers 25.5 33.1
Turnover 13.0% 27.6%
Average Base Salary $33,927 $34,291
Completed Investigations 4,387 4,728

Region 6 - Houston

Region 6 - Houston 2004 2010
Caseworkers 46.2 103.3
Turnover 10.7% 15.4%
Average Base Salary $34,937 $36,829
Completed Investigations 10,332 15,502

Region 7 - Austin

Region 7 - Austin 2004 2010
Caseworkers 34.1 53.2
Turnover 15.5% 38.6%
Average Base Salary $34,500 $36,404
Completed Investigations 5,981 7,785

Region 8 - San Antonio

Region 8 - San Antonio 2004 2010
Caseworkers 32.8 77.1
Turnover 20.8% 12.9%
Average Base Salary $32,904 $34,061
Completed Investigations 6,673 10,116

Region 9 - Midland

Region 9 - Midland 2004 2010
Caseworkers 20.4 23.7
Turnover 9.8% 8.2%
Average Base Salary $34,153 $37,944
Completed Investigations 3,140 3,416

Region 10 - El Paso

Region 10 - El Paso 2004 2010
Caseworkers 12.1 20.9
Turnover 48.3% 23.0%
Average Base Salary $31,694 $35,407
Completed Investigations 2,600 3,067

Region 11 - Edinburg

Region 11 - Edinburg 2004 2010
Caseworkers 28.1 56.5
Turnover 13.6% 10.6%
Average Base Salary $34,759 $36,936
Completed Investigations 5,990 7,681

Statewide Totals

Statewide Totals 2004 2010
Caseworkers 318.3 568.1
Turnover 14.4% 18.1%
Average Base Salary $33,971 $35,858
Completed Investigations 60,998 82,802

Note: The State Total for Completed Investigations includes those where the Region was Unknown and/or Out of State.

Back to top

Page 8

Texas Adult Population Ages 65 and Over for Fiscal Year 2010

State Total: 2,516,747

Region Population Over 65
1 Lubbock 106,743
2 Abilene 87,383
3 Arlington 580,564
4 Tyler 179,318
5 Beaumont 118,315
6 Houston 501,422
7 Austin 279,219
8 San Antonio 297,444
9 Midland 73,220
10 El Paso 79,160
11 Edinburg 213,959
Grand Total 2,516,747

Population Data Source: Texas State Data Center, University of Texas (San Antonio)

Texas Adult Population Ages 65 and Over by County

Back to top

Page 9

Texas Disabled Adult population ages 18 to 64 years
Fiscal Year 2010

State Total: 1,728,180

Region Population Ages 18-64 Years
1 Lubbock 55,050
2 Abilene 35,780
3 Arlington 489,000
4 Tyler 71,610
5 Beaumont 49,520
6 Houston 427,930
7 Austin 207,420
8 San Antonio 169,460
9 Midland 35,490
10 El Paso 51,930
11 Edinburg 134,990
Grand Total 1,728,180

Population Data Source: Texas State Data Center, University of Texas (San Antonio)

Note: The decline in the disabled adult population from the previous year is due to more recent Census Bureau data.

Texas Disabled Adult population ages 18 to 64 years by County

Back to top

Page 10

Incidence of Maltreatment per 1,000 Adults in Texas Adult Population by Region
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Incidence per 1,000 Adults
1 Lubbock 25.0
2 Abilene 32.8
3 Arlington 8.4
4 Tyler 17.1
5 Beaumont 20.8
6 Houston 11.5
7 Austin 9.1
8 San Antonio 13.3
9 Midland 24.8
10 El Paso 16.2
11 Edinburg 14.3
Grand Total 13.2

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

APS In-home Intake Reports by Region
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Intakes
1 Lubbock 5,724
2 Abilene 6,360
3 Arlington 18,888
4 Tyler 7,014
5 Beaumont 5,799
6 Houston 19,107
7 Austin 10,295
8 San Antonio 13,050
9 Midland 4,012
10 El Paso 3,779
11 Edinburg 9,313
Unknown 60
State Total 103,401

Back to top

Page 11

APS Intake* Reports by Priority
Fiscal Year 2010

Priority Intake Percent
Priority 1 13,524 13.1%
Priority 2 58,023 56.1%
Priority 3 26,286 25.4%
Priority 4 5,568 5.4%
Grand Total 103,401 100%

* Intakes included by the date intake closed.
Refer to the definitions section for priority definitions.

APS In-Home Intake* Reports by Source
Fiscal Year 2010

Sources Number Percent
Family Member 19,654 18.6%
Self 14,787 14.0%
Healthcare Provider 12,189 11.5%
Other 10,610 10.1%
Social Services Staff 8,625 8.2%
Paid Caregiver 7,497 7.1%
Public Employee 6,892 6.5%
Friend-Neighbor 6,326 6.0%
Nurses 5,305 5.0%
Law Enforcement 5,000 4.7%
Anonymous 2,579 2.4%
Mental Health Worker 2,315 2.2%
Unknown 2,305 2.2%
Physicians 677 0.6%
DFPS Staff 396 0.4%
Institutional Staff 277 0.3%
Psychologist 130 0.1%

Note: A report of abuse/neglect may come from multiple sources.
* Intakes included by date intake closed

APS In-Home Intakes*, Completed Investigations and Validated Cases
Fiscal Year 2010

Priority Intakes* Completed Investigations Validated Cases
2008 83,605 68,683 48,380
2009 89,489 72,265 50,936
2010 103,401 82,802 56,053

* Intakes included by date intake closed

Back to top

Page 12

Adult Protective Services Validated In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2010

State Total: 56,053

Region Validated In-Home Investigations
1 Lubbock 4,043
2 Abilene 4,044
3 Arlington 8,997
4 Tyler 4,295
5 Beaumont 3,493
6 Houston 10,726
7 Austin 4,425
8 San Antonio 6,207
9 Midland 2,701
10 El Paso 2,130
11 Edinburg 4,973
Blank/Unknown County 19
Total 56,053

Validated In-Home Investigations, Fiscal Year 2010 by County

Back to top

Page 13

Completed APS In-Home Investigations BY Region
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Validated Invalid Unable to Determine Other* Total
1 Lubbock 4,043 639 212 107 5,001
2 Abilene 4,044 959 150 96 5,249
3 Arlington 8,997 3,521 1,309 571 14,398
4 Tyler 4,295 1,098 276 146 5,815
5 Beaumont 3,493 819 244 172 4,728
6 Houston 10,726 3,332 851 593 15,502
7 Austin 4,425 2,580 498 282 7,785
8 San Antonio 6,207 2,820 739 350 10,116
9 Midland 2,701 564 114 37 3,416
10 El Paso 2,130 659 207 71 3,067
11 Edinburg 4,973 1,885 455 368 7,681
Unknown 19 7 6 12 44
Total 56,053 18,883 5,061 2,805 82,802

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

APS Daily Caseload Fiscal Year 2010

Region Caseload
1 Lubbock 29.4
2 Abilene 18.5
3 Arlington 37.1
4 Tyler 31
5 Beaumont 37.2
6 Houston 31.2
7 Austin 33.1
8 San Antonio 39.5
9 Midland 25
10 El Paso 39.3
11 Edinburg 33.8
State Average 33.1

Back to top

Page 14

Completed APS In-Home Investigations by Region and Disposition
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Average Length (Days) Invalid Valid Progressed* Valid Not Progressed Unable to Determine Other** Region Subtotal
1 Lubbock 35.5 639 3,795 248 212 107 5,001
2 Abilene 23.8 959 3,217 827 150 96 5,249
3 Arlington 54.8 3,521 5,500 3,497 1,309 571 14,398
4 Tyler 43.5 1098 3,784 511 276 146 5,815
5 Beaumont 48.2 819 2,960 533 244 172 4,728
6 Houston 43.0 3,332 8,432 2,294 851 593 15,502
7 Austin 50.5 2,580 3,180 1,245 498 282 7,785
8 San Antonio 59.5 2,820 5,169 1038 739 350 10,116
9 Midland 33.8 564 2,247 454 114 37 3,416
10 El Paso 62.1 659 1,552 578 207 71 3,067
11 Edinburg 52.5 1,885 4,377 596 455 368 7,681
Unknown 40.4 7 6 13 6 12 44
State Average 47.6 18,883 44,219 11,834 5,061 2,805 82,802

* Valid investigations in which the client requires services are "progressed" into the service delivery stage.

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

Recidivism* of APS In-Home Cases
Fiscal Years 2006-2010

Fiscal Year Percent
2006 13.8%
2007 13.2%
2008 13.8%
2009 14.2%
2010 15.2%

Recidivism* of APS In-Home Cases
Fiscal Years 2010

Region Percent Recidivism
1 Lubbock 21.0%
2 Abilene 23.5%
3 Arlington 12.0%
4 Tyler 14.1%
5 Beaumont 17.0%
6 Houston 14.6%
7 Austin 14.0%
8 San Antonio 14.1%
9 Midland 20.1%
10 El Paso 12.5%
11 Edinburg 14.2%
State Average 15.2%

*Recidivism is a measure of the percentage of APS clients referred to the APS system more than once during the fiscal year, including clients who refused services and were re-returned.

Back to top

Page 15

Characteristics of Validated APS Victims in Completed In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2010

Validated APS Victims Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Anglo 17,250 30.8% 11,172 19.9% 29 0.1% 28,451 50.8%
African American 8,406 15.0% 4,661 8.3% 13 0.0% 13,080 23.3%
Hispanic 7,485 13.4% 5,376 9.6% 9 0.0% 12,870 23.0%
Native American 75 0.1% 70 0.1% 0 0.0% 145 0.3%
Asian 195 0.3% 94 0.2% 2 0.0% 291 0.5%
Other 747 1.3% 471 0.8% 1 0.0% 1,219 2.2%
Total 34,158 60.9% 21,844 39.0% 54 0.1% 56,056 100%

In-Home Validated Victims in Completed Investigations
Fiscal Year 2010

Characteristic Total Percentage
Disabled 27,919 49.8%
Aged 28,137 50.2%
Total 56,056 100%
Characteristic Total Percentage
Female 34,158 60.9%
Male 21,844 39.0%
Unknown 54 0.1%
Total 56,056 100%

Back to top

Page 16

Perpetrator Characteristics In Validated APS In-Home Investigations (Characteristic as % of Total Validated Perpetrators*) Fiscal Year 2010

Perpetrator Characteristic: Age

Age Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Under 18 150 2.5% 225 3.8% 2 0.0% 377 6.4%
18-25 287 4.9% 291 4.9% 2 0.0% 580 9.8%
26-35 417 7.1% 379 6.4% 3 0.1% 799 13.5%
36-45 622 10.5% 611 10.4% 5 0.1% 1,238 21.0%
Over 45 1,369 23.2% 1,524 25.8% 5 0.1% 2,898 49.1%
Unknown 1 0.0% 3 0.1% 5 0.1% 9 0.2%

Perpetrator Characteristic: Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Anglo 1,338 22.7% 1,529 25.9% 2 0.0% 2,869 48.6%
African American 564 9.6% 532 9.0% 1 0.0% 1,097 18.6%
Hispanic 754 12.8% 800 13.6% 8 0.1% 1,562 26.5%
Native American 6 0.1% 11 0.2% 0 0.0% 17 0.3%
Asian 21 0.4% 10 0.2% 0 0.0% 31 0.5%
Other 163 2.8% 151 2.6% 11 0.2% 325 5.5%

Perpetrator Characteristic: Marital Status

Marital Status Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Child, Not Applicable 144 2.4% 213 3.6% 0 0.0% 357 6.0%
Divorced 239 4.1% 209 3.5% 0 0.0% 448 7.6%
Married 704 11.9% 758 12.8% 2 0.0% 1,464 24.8%
Separated 62 1.1% 80 1.4% 0 0.0% 142 2.4%
Single, Never Married 354 6.0% 469 7.9% 3 0.1% 826 14.0%
Widowed 83 1.4% 28 0.5% 0 0.0% 111 1.9%
Unknown 1,260 21.4% 1,276 21.6% 17 0.3% 2,553 43.3%
Total Perpetrators 2,846 48.2% 3,033 51.4% 22 0.4% 5,901 100%

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

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

Back to top

Page 17

Perpetrators* in Validated In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2010

Perpetrator Type Number Percent
Adult Children 2,276 38.6%
Spouse 954 16.2%
Grandchildren 671 11.4%
Parent 418 7.1%
Other Relatives 339 5.7%
Service Provider 321 5.4%
Other 282 4.8%
Sibling 253 4.3%
No Relationship 199 3.4%
Friend-Neighbor 140 2.4%
Unknown 32 0.5%
Facility-Institutional Staff 16 0.3%

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

Number of Referrals Made to Law Enforcement in Completed APS In-Home Cases by Region
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Referrals
1 Lubbock 298
2 Abilene 184
3 Arlington 1,088
4 Tyler 427
5 Beaumont 153
6 Houston 1,999
7 Austin 1,383
8 San Antonio 290
9 Midland 243
10 El Paso 333
11 Edinburg 330
Unknown 3
State Total 6,731

* Referral may have been made in previous fiscal year

APS Victims of Family Violence in Validated Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Victims
1 Lubbock 330
2 Abilene 209
3 Arlington 746
4 Tyler 295
5 Beaumont 270
6 Houston 824
7 Austin 449
8 San Antonio 600
9 Midland 132
10 El Paso 312
11 Edinburg 412
State Total 4,579

Back to top

Page 18

Validated Allegations in APS In-Home Investigations by Type of Abuse/Neglect
Fiscal Year 2010

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

Region Emotional/
Verbal Abuse		 Exploitation Medical Neglect Mental Health Neglect Physical Abuse Physical Neglect
1 Lubbock 184 99 1,132 623 91 3,635
2 Abilene 100 68 942 341 51 3,625
3 Arlington 389 230 2,267 1,380 330 7,563
4 Tyler 134 101 786 376 76 3,829
5 Beaumont 114 101 765 342 89 2,999
6 Houston 305 239 2,734 1,387 307 9,407
7 Austin 221 180 1,223 763 164 3,549
8 San Antonio 320 193 1,249 757 179 5,175
9 Midland 72 43 882 483 47 2,502
10 El Paso 165 84 743 425 62 1,700
11 Edinburg 162 107 1,004 683 158 4,319
Unknown 0 0 3 5 0 17
State Total 2,166 1,445 13,730 7,565 1,554 48,320

Table Includes Abuse/Neglect Types:
Suicidal Threat, Sexual Abuse, Total of Types, Percent of Types by Region, Unduplicated Confirmed Victims*, and Percent of Unduplicated types by Region.

Region Suicidal Threat Sexual Abuse Total Percent of Types by Region Unduplicated Confirmed Victims* Percent Unduplicated by Region
1 Lubbock 48 1 5,813 7.4% 4,043 6.8%
2 Abilene 31 1 5,159 7.4% 4,044 7.6%
3 Arlington 122 5 12,286 14.0% 8,998 14.4%
4 Tyler 29 3 5,334 7.1% 4,295 7.7%
5 Beaumont 37 4 4,451 6.0% 3,493 6.2%
6 Houston 131 10 14,520 18.3% 10,727 17.9%
7 Austin 65 3 6,168 9.8% 4,425 9.4%
8 San Antonio 108 3 7,984 11.8% 6,207 12.2%
9 Midland 15 1 4,045 5.1% 2,701 4.7%
10 El Paso 49 5 3,233 3.9% 2,130 3.7%
11 Edinburg 79 2 6,514 9.1% 4,974 9.3%
Unknown 0 0 25 0.1% 19 0.1%
State Total 714 38 75,532 100% 56,056 100%

*Victims have been unduplicated by investigation stage.

Duration of Service Delivery Stages for APS In-Home Cases,
During Fiscal Year 2010

Days Cases %
Under 30 19,470 45.4%
31-60 11,445 26.7%
61-90 5,347 12.5%
91-120 2,777 6.5%
121-180 2,399 5.6%
181-365 1,359 3.2%
Over 1 Year 129 0.3%
Total 42,926 100%

Back to top

Page 19

Non-Purchased Client Services Delivered for APS In-Home Cases by Region
Fiscal Year 2010

Region Social Casework Other Government Agency Legal Total
1 Lubbock 4,612 247 4 4,863
2 Abilene 2,920 195 8 3,123
3 Arlington 6,336 223 39 6,598
4 Tyler 4,549 225 8 4,782
5 Beaumont 3,132 189 4 3,325
6 Houston 10,516 261 2 10,779
7 Austin 3,576 221 21 3,818
8 San Antonio 6,341 241 15 6,597
9 Midland 2,236 79 13 2,328
10 El Paso 1,950 113 15 2,078
11 Edinburg 5,423 177 14 5,614
Unknown 12 2 0 14
State Total 51,603 2,173 143 53,919

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

Social Casework - Actions taken by the caseworker to provide assistance to a victim of abuse, neglect or exploitation, in such areas as counseling/education, assistance with benefits, and mediation. These actions may include referrals to community organizations that provide direct services to the client.

Other Government Agency - This term is used to describe services that were provided by another government agency. For example, the client was referred to the Social Security Administration, or the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services in order to resolve abuse, neglect or exploitation.

Legal - Legal actions that are taken as a result of Adult Protective Services involvement. An example would be Emergency Order for Protective Services.

Back to top

Previous Section | Back to top | Next Section