Page 7

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 disability.

Total Average Filled Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff

Caseworkers 564.6
Supervisors 86.1
Other Staff 130.7
APS Program Support 78.0
Total APS In-Home Staff 859.4

Worker demographic

Demographic Subcategory Number or Percent
Turnover Rate n/a 16.7%
Agency Tenure Less than 1 Year 15.0%
1-3 Years 21.7%
Greater than 3 Years 63.3%
Entry Salary n/a $30,481.44
Average Age n/a 41.4
Race/Ethnicity African-American 31.2%
Anglo 38.7%
Hispanic 28.0%
Other 2.1%

Supervisor Demographics

Demographic Subcategory Number or Percent
Turnover Rate n/a 7.9%
Agency Tenure Less than 1 Year 0.0%
1-3 Years 3.5%
Greater than 3 Years 96.5%
Entry Salary n/a $39,117.96
Average Age n/a 47.5
Race/Ethnicity African-American 31.4%
Anglo 44.2%
Hispanic 24.4%
Other 0.0%

APS Expenditures

APS In-Home Staff $46,360,525
Purchased Client Services $8,143,249
Total APS Expenditures $54,503,774

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 2011

  • Completed In-Home Investigations: 87,741
  • Validated In-Home Investigations: 58,068

Most Common...

  • Person reporting abuse/neglect/exploitation: Medical Personnel (20.3%)
  • Allegation validated: Physical Neglect (64.9%)
  • Validated perpetrator:
    • Relationship: Adult Children (39.6%),
    • Gender: Female (50.0 %)
    • Age: Age Over 45 (51.0%)
  • Characteristic of client:
    • Gender: Female (60.3%)
    • Disabled (50.4%)

Back to top

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 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 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, there is no other potential guardian available,
    and 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 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 who has been abused, neglected, or 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 inhome
    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

Back to top

Page 9

Fiscal Year 2004 and 2011 Pre- and Post-Reform Statistics by Region (APS In-Home)

Region 1 - Lubbock

Region 1 - Lubbock 2004 2011
Caseworkers 21.4 36.0
Turnover 7.3% 23.7%
Average Base Salary $34,600 $36,711
Completed Investigations 3,579 5,492

Region 2 - Abilene

Region 2 - Abilene 2004 2011
Caseworkers 24.8 34.3
Turnover 13.1% 16.8%
Average Base Salary $33,022 $36,887
Completed Investigations 4,590 5,141

Region 3 - Arlington

Region 3 - Arlington 2004 2011
Caseworkers 45.8 88.7
Turnover 16.2% 17.9%
Average Base Salary $33,708 $34,926
Completed Investigations 9,208 15,688

Region 4 - Tyler

Region 4 - Tyler 2004 2011
Caseworkers 27.0 42.2
Turnover 7.7% 4.7%
Average Base Salary $33,472 $36,031
Completed Investigations 4,497 6,291

Region 5 - Beaumont

Region 5 - Beaumont 2004 2011
Caseworkers 25.5 35.9
Turnover 13.0% 10.5%
Average Base Salary $33,927 $34,128
Completed Investigations 4,387 5,064

Region 6 - Houston

Region 6 - Houston 2004 2011
Caseworkers 46.2 105.5
Turnover 10.7% 10.9%
Average Base Salary $34,937 $36,650
Completed Investigations 10,332 15,230

Region 7 - Austin

Region 7 - Austin 2004 2011
Caseworkers 34.1 51.2
Turnover 15.5% 25.2%
Average Base Salary $34,500 $35,926
Completed Investigations 5,981 8,954

Region 8 - San Antonio

Region 8 - San Antonio 2004 2011
Caseworkers 32.8 74.1
Turnover 20.8% 27.7%
Average Base Salary $32,904 $34,262
Completed Investigations 6,673 10,925

Region 9 - Midland

Region 9 - Midland 2004 2011
Caseworkers 20.4 23.4
Turnover 9.8% 16.3%
Average Base Salary $34,153 $38,074
Completed Investigations 3,140 3,476

Region 10 - El Paso

Region 10 - El Paso 2004 2011
Caseworkers 12.1 20.5
Turnover 48.3% 14.3%
Average Base Salary $31,694 $35,806
Completed Investigations 2,600 3,516

Region 11 - Edinburg

Region 11 - Edinburg 2004 2011
Caseworkers 28.1 52.8
Turnover 13.6% 11.1%
Average Base Salary $34,759 $37,425
Completed Investigations 5,990 7,933

Statewide Totals

Statewide Totals 2004 2011
Caseworkers 318.3 564.6
Turnover 14.4% 16.7%
Average Base Salary $33,971 $35,910
Completed Investigations 60,998 87,741

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

Back to top

Page 10

Texas Adult Population Ages 65 and Over for Fiscal Year 2011

State Total: 2,581,170

Region Population Over 65
1 Lubbock 107,553
2 Abilene 87,345
3 Arlington 599,892
4 Tyler 182,136
5 Beaumont 119,773
6 Houston 519,636
7 Austin 287,789
8 San Antonio 304,339
9 Midland 73,812
10 El Paso 80,511
11 Edinburg 218,384
Grand Total 2,581,170

Population Data Source: Texas State Data Center, University of Texas (San Antonio) - based on Census 2000 data

Texas Adult Population Ages 65 and Over by County

Back to top

Page 11

Texas Disabled Adult population ages 18 to 64 years
Fiscal Year 2011

State Total: 2,097,597

Region Population Ages 18-64 Years
1 Lubbock 65,351
2 Abilene 42,878
3 Arlington 591,470
4 Tyler 88,833
5 Beaumont 61,763
6 Houston 522,268
7 Austin 239,571
8 San Antonio 209,594
9 Midland 43,820
10 El Paso 64,359
11 Edinburg 167,690
Grand Total 2,097,597

Population Data Source: Texas State Data Center, University of Texas (San Antonio) - based on Census 2000 data

Texas Disabled Adult population ages 18 to 64 years by County

Back to top

Page 12

Incidence of Maltreatment per 1,000 Adults in Texas Adult Population by Region
Fiscal Year 2011

Region Incidence per 1,000 Adults
1 Lubbock 25.3
2 Abilene 30.3
3 Arlington 8.6
4 Tyler 17.0
5 Beaumont 20.5
6 Houston 9.5
7 Austin 9.0
8 San Antonio 12.5
9 Midland 23.2
10 El Paso 16.5
11 Edinburg 12.8
Grand Total 12.4

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 2011

Region Intakes
1 Lubbock 6,174
2 Abilene 6,210
3 Arlington 20,590
4 Tyler 7,434
5 Beaumont 6,004
6 Houston 19,276
7 Austin 11,459
8 San Antonio 13,683
9 Midland 4,204
10 El Paso 4,052
11 Edinburg 9,420
Unknown 74
State Total 108,580

Note: 74 reports did not have a region identified.

Back to top

Page 13

APS Intake* Reports by Priority
Fiscal Year 2011

Priority Intake Percent
Priority 1 13,814 12.7%
Priority 2 61,977 57.1%
Priority 3 27,272 25.1%
Priority 4 5,517 5.1%
Grand Total 108,580 100%

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

APS In-Home Intake* Reports by Source
Fiscal Year 2011

Sources Number Percent
Medical Personnel 22,168 20.0%
Relative 19,280 17.4%
Victim 16,051 14.5%
Community Agency 13,863 12.5%
Other 9,410 8.5%
Friend-Neighbor 7,397 6.7%
Provider 6,986 6.3%
Law Enforcement 4,833 4.4%
Anonymous 3,004 2.7%
Parent 1,890 1.7%
DFPS Staff 1,281 1.2%
State Agency 1,103 1.0%
Financial Institution 1,053 1.0%
School 826 0.7%
Unrelated Home Member 478 0.4%
Legal/Court 456 0.4%
Institutional Personnel 260 0.2%
Religious Entity 175 0.2%
Day Care Provider 144 0.1%
Parent's Paramour 39 0.0%
24 Hour Care Provider 23 0.0%
State Total 110,720 100.0%

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 Years Fiscal Years 2009 - 2011

Priority Intakes* Completed Investigations Validated Cases
2009 89,489 72,265 50,936
2010 103,401 82,802 56,053
2011 108,580 87,741 58,068

* Intakes included by date intake closed

Back to top

Page 14

Adult Protective Services Validated In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2011

State Total: 58,068

Region Validated In-Home Investigations
1 Lubbock 4,366
2 Abilene 3,940
3 Arlington 10,244
4 Tyler 4,604
5 Beaumont 3,730
6 Houston 9,900
7 Austin 4,749
8 San Antonio 6,446
9 Midland 2,733
10 El Paso 2,396
11 Edinburg 4,940
Blank/Unknown County 20
Total 58,068

Note: 20 validated investigations did not have a county designated.

Validated In-Home Investigations, Fiscal Year 2011 by County

Back to top

Page 15

Completed APS In-Home Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2011

Region Validated Invalid Unable to Determine Other* Total
1 Lubbock 4,366 779 230 117 5,492
2 Abilene 3,940 921 194 86 5,141
3 Arlington 10,244 3,270 1,511 663 15,688
4 Tyler 4,604 1,187 328 172 6,291
5 Beaumont 3,730 887 244 203 5,064
6 Houston 9,900 3,727 978 625 15,230
7 Austin 4,749 3,182 666 357 8,954
8 San Antonio 6,446 3,406 654 419 10,925
9 Midland 2,733 583 126 34 3,476
10 El Paso 2,396 728 231 161 3,516
11 Edinburg 4,940 2,233 484 276 7,933
Unknown 20 4 5 2 31
Total 58,068 20,907 5,651 3,115 87,741

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

Note: 31 investigations had an "unknown" region. Of those, 20 were Validated, 4 were Invalid, 5 were Unable to Determine and 2 were Other.

APS Daily Caseload Fiscal Year 2011

Region Caseload
1 Lubbock 25.6
2 Abilene 21.1
3 Arlington 34.2
4 Tyler 26.3
5 Beaumont 28.7
6 Houston 28.4
7 Austin 35.2
8 San Antonio 39.3
9 Midland 24.5
10 El Paso 38.7
11 Edinburg 31.5
State Average 31

Back to top

Page 16

Completed APS In-Home Investigations by Region and Disposition
Fiscal Year 2011

Region Average Length (Days) Invalid Valid Progressed* Valid Not Progressed Unable to Determine Other** Region Subtotal
1 Lubbock 28.3 779 4,065 301 230 117 5,492
2 Abilene 28.7 921 3,112 828 194 86 5,141
3 Arlington 44.9 3,270 6,565 3,679 1,511 663 15,688
4 Tyler 37.6 1187 4,000 604 328 172 6,291
5 Beaumont 39.8 887 3,307 423 244 203 5,064
6 Houston 41.1 3,727 7,513 2,387 978 625 15,230
7 Austin 46.8 3,182 3,430 1,319 666 357 8,954
8 San Antonio 61.2 3,406 5,019 1427 654 419 10,925
9 Midland 32.6 583 2,235 498 126 34 3,476
10 El Paso 54.6 728 1,589 807 231 161 3,516
11 Edinburg 49.1 2,233 4,184 756 484 276 7,933
Unknown 47.8 4 12 8 5 2 31
State Average 43.9 20,907 45,031 13,037 5,651 3,115 87,741

* 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 2007-2011

Fiscal Year Percent
2007 13.2%
2008 13.8%
2009 14.2%
2010 15.2%
2011 15.8%

Recidivism* of APS In-Home Cases
Fiscal Years 2011

Region Percent Recidivism
1 Lubbock 23.7%
2 Abilene 22.5%
3 Arlington 13.4%
4 Tyler 15.7%
5 Beaumont 16.9%
6 Houston 14.4%
7 Austin 15.7%
8 San Antonio 13.5%
9 Midland 20.9%
10 El Paso 13.6%
11 Edinburg 15.3%
State Average 15.8%

*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 17

Characteristics of Validated APS Victims in Completed In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2011

Validated APS Victims Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Anglo 17,719 30.5% 11,653 20.1% 34 0.1% 29,406 50.6%
African American 8,548 14.7% 4,933 8.5% 15 0.0% 13,496 23.2%
Hispanic 7,603 13.1% 5,685 9.8% 12 0.0% 13,300 22.9%
Native American 89 0.2% 72 0.1% 0 0.0% 161 0.3%
Asian 183 0.3% 120 0.2% 0 0.0% 303 0.5%
Other 850 1.5% 545 0.9% 7 0.0% 1,402 2.4%
Total 34,992 60.3% 23,008 39.6% 68 0.1% 58,068 100%

In-Home Validated Victims in Completed Investigations
Fiscal Year 2011

Characteristic Total Percentage
Disabled 29,247 50.4%
Aged 28,821 49.6%
Total 58,068 100%
Characteristic Total Percentage
Female 34,992 60.3%
Male 23,008 39.6%
Unknown 68 0.1%
Total 58,068 100%

Back to top

Page 18

Perpetrator Characteristics In Validated APS In-Home Investigations (Characteristic as % of Total Validated Perpetrators*) Fiscal Year 2011

Perpetrator Characteristic: Age

Age Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Under 18 181 3.4% 177 3.3% 1 0.0% 359 6.7%
18-25 236 4.4% 227 4.3% 0 0.0% 463 8.7%
26-35 370 6.9% 369 6.9% 0 0.0% 739 13.9%
36-45 545 10.2% 493 9.2% 5 0.1% 1,043 19.6%
Over 45 1,331 24.9% 1,386 26.0% 3 0.1% 2,720 51.0%
Unknown 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 3 0.1% 11 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 1,251 23.4% 1,329 24.9% 2 0.0% 2,582 48.4%
African American 512 9.6% 410 7.7% 1 0.0% 923 17.3%
Hispanic 714 13.4% 758 14.2% 2 0.0% 1,474 27.6%
Native American 4 0.1% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 0.1%
Asian 8 0.1% 8 0.1% 0 0.0% 16 0.3%
Other 178 3.3% 149 2.8% 7 0.1% 334 6.3%

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 171 3.2% 166 3.1% 0 0.0% 337 6.3%
Divorced 223 4.2% 183 3.4% 0 0.0% 406 7.6%
Married 653 12.2% 701 13.1% 0 0.0% 1,354 25.4%
Separated 58 1.1% 70 1.3% 0 0.0% 128 2.4%
Single, Never Married 315 5.9% 439 8.2% 0 0.0% 754 14.1%
Widowed 71 1.3% 28 0.5% 1 0.0% 100 1.9%
Unknown 1,176 22.0% 1,069 20.0% 11 0.2% 2,256 42.3%
Total Perpetrators 2,667 50.0% 2,656 49.8% 12 0.2% 5,335 100%

*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 19

Perpetrators* in Validated In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2011

Perpetrator Type Number Percent
Adult Children 2,113 39.6%
Spouse 908 17.0%
Grandchildren 545 10.2%
Parent 398 7.5%
Other Relatives 292 5.5%
Service Provider 266 5.0%
Other 261 4.9%
Sibling 249 4.7%
No Relationship 168 3.1%
Friend-Neighbor 102 1.9%
Unknown 23 0.4%
Facility-Institutional Staff 10 0.2%

*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 2011

Region Referrals
1 Lubbock 267
2 Abilene 190
3 Arlington 1,348
4 Tyler 478
5 Beaumont 147
6 Houston 1,928
7 Austin 1,480
8 San Antonio 306
9 Midland 198
10 El Paso 273
11 Edinburg 244
Unknown 3
State Total 6,862

* Referral may have been made in previous fiscal year

APS Victims of Family Violence in Validated Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2011

Region Victims
1 Lubbock 308
2 Abilene 175
3 Arlington 848
4 Tyler 253
5 Beaumont 202
6 Houston 599
7 Austin 451
8 San Antonio 617
9 Midland 133
10 El Paso 301
11 Edinburg 369
Unknown 1
State Total 4,257

Back to top

Page 20

Validated Allegations in APS In-Home Investigations by Type of Abuse/Neglect
Fiscal Year 2011

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 152 79 1,204 611 86 3,987
2 Abilene 91 72 998 346 67 3,545
3 Arlington 442 214 2,559 1,442 323 8,706
4 Tyler 126 84 805 360 79 4,138
5 Beaumont 80 67 811 264 61 3,330
6 Houston 242 150 2,690 1,369 218 8,690
7 Austin 207 112 1,244 722 193 3,874
8 San Antonio 330 173 1,324 781 185 5,401
9 Midland 54 36 922 486 49 2,516
10 El Paso 158 71 726 404 72 1,980
11 Edinburg 184 59 1,076 769 141 4,260
Unknown 0 1 2 2 0 20
State Total 2,066 1,118 14,361 7,556 1,474 50,447

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 47 6 6,172 7.9% 4,366 7.5%
2 Abilene 30 1 5,150 6.6% 3,939 6.8%
3 Arlington 136 4 13,826 17.8% 10,245 17.6%
4 Tyler 39 0 5,631 7.2% 4,604 7.9%
5 Beaumont 23 0 4,636 6.0% 3,730 6.4%
6 Houston 92 6 13,457 17.3% 9,900 17.0%
7 Austin 62 6 6,420 8.3% 4,749 8.2%
8 San Antonio 97 11 8,302 10.7% 6,446 11.1%
9 Midland 24 0 4,087 5.3% 2,733 4.7%
10 El Paso 40 0 3,451 4.4% 2,396 4.1%
11 Edinburg 72 4 6,565 8.4% 4,940 8.5%
Unknown 0 0 25 0.0% 20 0.0%
State Total 662 38 77,722 100% 58,068 100%

*Victims have been unduplicated by investigation stage.

Duration of Service Delivery Stages for APS In-Home Cases,
During Fiscal Year 2011

Days Cases %
Under 30 22,575 51.8%
31-60 11,467 26.3%
61-90 4,736 10.9%
91-120 2,159 5.0%
121-180 1,718 3.9%
181-365 883 2.0%
Over 1 Year 60 0.1%
Total 43,598 100%

Back to top

Page 21

Non-Purchased Client Services Delivered for APS In-Home Cases by Region
Fiscal Year 2011

Region Social Casework Other Government Agency Legal Total
1 Lubbock 4,797 197 4 4,998
2 Abilene 2,920 150 10 3,080
3 Arlington 7,166 199 16 7,381
4 Tyler 4,624 177 3 4,804
5 Beaumont 3,298 187 5 3,490
6 Houston 9,210 204 1 9,415
7 Austin 3,739 146 16 3,901
8 San Antonio 6,311 209 13 6,533
9 Midland 2,308 29 9 2,346
10 El Paso 2,164 107 11 2,282
11 Edinburg 5,076 172 23 5,271
Unknown 15 0 0 15
State Total 51,628 1,777 111 53,516

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