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 540.8
Supervisors 85.2
Other Staff 129.0
APS Program Support 77.1
Total APS In-Home Staff 832.1

Worker demographic

Demographic Subcategory Number or Percent
Turnover Rate n/a 18.4%
Agency Tenure Less than 1 Year 15.3%
1-3 Years 24.0%
Greater than 3 Years 60.7%
Entry Salary n/a $29,932.92
Average Age n/a 41.2
Race/Ethnicity African-American 33.0%
Anglo 37.3%
Hispanic 27.9%
Other 1.8%

Supervisor Demographics

Demographic Subcategory Number or Percent
Turnover Rate n/a 9.1%
Agency Tenure Less than 1 Year 2.4%
1-3 Years 1.2%
Greater than 3 Years 96.4%
Entry Salary n/a $38,145.96
Average Age n/a 46.9
Race/Ethnicity African-American 31.0%
Anglo 42.9%
Hispanic 25.0%
Other 1.2%

APS Expenditures

APS In-Home Staff $47,325,723
Purchased Client Services $8,852,279
Total APS Expenditures $56,178,002

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
  • Rent/utility restoration
  • Health services
  • Legal services
  • Social services
  • Emergency Placement

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

Statistics FY 2012

  • Completed In-Home Investigations: 87,487
  • Validated In-Home Investigations: 59,595

Most Common...

  • Person reporting abuse/neglect/exploitation: Medical Personnel (20.8%)
  • Allegation validated: Physical Neglect (66.5%)
  • Validated perpetrator:
    • Relationship: Adult Children (40.8%),
    • Gender: Male (51.1 %)
    • Age: Age Over 45 (50.7%)
  • Characteristic of client:
    • Gender: Female (60.5%)
    • Age: Over 65 (50.2%)

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
    clients.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 2012 Pre- and Post-Reform Statistics by Region (APS In-Home)

Region 1 - Lubbock

Region 1 - Lubbock 2004 2012
Caseworkers 21.4 33.9
Turnover 7.3% 14.0%
Average Base Salary $34,600 $37,420
Completed Investigations 3,579 5,344

Region 2 - Abilene

Region 2 - Abilene 2004 2012
Caseworkers 24.8 32.1
Turnover 13.1% 27.3%
Average Base Salary $33,022 $37,704
Completed Investigations 4,590 5,446

Region 3 - Arlington

Region 3 - Arlington 2004 2012
Caseworkers 45.8 91.0
Turnover 16.2% 21.7%
Average Base Salary $33,708 $35,204
Completed Investigations 9,208 16,358

Region 4 - Tyler

Region 4 - Tyler 2004 2012
Caseworkers 27.0 39.3
Turnover 7.7% 12.4%
Average Base Salary $33,472 $36,628
Completed Investigations 4,497 5,841

Region 5 - Beaumont

Region 5 - Beaumont 2004 2012
Caseworkers 25.5 31.9
Turnover 13.0% 18.2%
Average Base Salary $33,927 $34,695
Completed Investigations 4,387 5,079

Region 6 - Houston

Region 6 - Houston 2004 2012
Caseworkers 46.2 102.6
Turnover 10.7% 14.2%
Average Base Salary $34,937 $37,195
Completed Investigations 10,332 15,850

Region 7 - Austin

Region 7 - Austin 2004 2012
Caseworkers 34.1 50.9
Turnover 15.5% 20.3%
Average Base Salary $34,500 $36,300
Completed Investigations 5,981 8,963

Region 8 - San Antonio

Region 8 - San Antonio 2004 2012
Caseworkers 32.8 68.0
Turnover 20.8% 23.4%
Average Base Salary $32,904 $35,041
Completed Investigations 6,673 10,515

Region 9 - Midland

Region 9 - Midland 2004 2012
Caseworkers 20.4 21.5
Turnover 9.8% 22.0%
Average Base Salary $34,153 $38,909
Completed Investigations 3,140 3,308

Region 10 - El Paso

Region 10 - El Paso 2004 2012
Caseworkers 12.1 20.6
Turnover 48.3% 4.8%
Average Base Salary $31,694 $36,108
Completed Investigations 2,600 3,054

Region 11 - Edinburg

Region 11 - Edinburg 2004 2012
Caseworkers 28.1 49.0
Turnover 13.6% 17.9%
Average Base Salary $34,759 $38,548
Completed Investigations 5,990 7,698

Statewide Totals

Statewide Totals 2004 2012
Caseworkers 318.3 540.8
Turnover 14.4% 18.4%
Average Base Salary $33,971 $36,509
Completed Investigations 60,998 87,487

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 2012

State Total: 2,818,076

Region Population Over 65
1 Lubbock 107,855
2 Abilene 89,480
3 Arlington 677,207
4 Tyler 211,393
5 Beaumont 118,186
6 Houston 578,702
7 Austin 295,231
8 San Antonio 328,155
9 Midland 73,935
10 El Paso 92,033
11 Edinburg 245,899
Grand Total 2,818,076

Population Data Source: Texas State Data Center, University of Texas (San Antonio) - based on Census 2010 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 2012

State Total: 1,683,350

Region Population Ages 18-64 Years
1 Lubbock 60,890
2 Abilene 50,010
3 Arlington 374,910
4 Tyler 101,910
5 Beaumont 85,400
6 Houston 336,600
7 Austin 192,220
8 San Antonio 205,650
9 Midland 47,440
10 El Paso 54,100
11 Edinburg 174,220
Grand Total 1,683,350

Population Data Source: Texas State Data Center, University of Texas (San Antonio) - based on Census 2010 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 2012

Region Incidence per 1,000 Adults
1 Lubbock 25.0
2 Abilene 30.9
3 Arlington 10.8
4 Tyler 14.7
5 Beaumont 18.1
6 Houston 11.3
7 Austin 10.7
8 San Antonio 11.6
9 Midland 20.7
10 El Paso 14.0
11 Edinburg 12.5
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 2012

Region Intakes
1 Lubbock 6,140
2 Abilene 6,535
3 Arlington 20,525
4 Tyler 7,135
5 Beaumont 6,005
6 Houston 19,177
7 Austin 11,200
8 San Antonio 13,619
9 Midland 3,892
10 El Paso 3,809
11 Edinburg 9,090
Unknown 76
State Total 107,203

Note: 76 reports did not have a region identified.

Back to top

Page 13

APS Intake* Reports by Priority
Fiscal Year 2012

Priority Intake Percent
Priority 1 13,339 12.4%
Priority 2 63,195 58.9%
Priority 3 25,896 24.2%
Priority 4 4,773 4.5%
Grand Total 107,203 100%

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

APS In-Home Intake* Reports by Source
Fiscal Year 2012

Sources Number Percent
Medical Personnel 22,711 20.8%
Relative 18,597 17.0%
Victim 16,091 14.7%
Community Agency 13,330 12.2%
Other 9,880 9.0%
Friend-Neighbor 6,598 6.0%
Provider 6,555 6.0%
Law Enforcement 5,037 4.6%
Anonymous 2,863 2.6%
Parent 1,730 1.6%
DFPS Staff 1,456 1.3%
Financial Institution 1,264 1.2%
State Agency 852 0.8%
School 794 0.7%
Unrelated Home Member 498 0.5%
Legal/Court 457 0.4%
Institutional Personnel 260 0.2%
Day Care Provider 145 0.1%
Religious Entity 144 0.1%
Parent's Paramour 35 0.0%
24 Hour Care Provider 20 0.0%
State Total 109,317 100.0%

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 2010 - 2012

Priority Intakes* Completed Investigations Validated Cases
2010 103,401 82,802 56,053
2011 108,580 87,741 58,068
2012 107,203 87,487 59,595

* Intakes included by date intake closed

Back to top

Page 14

Adult Protective Services Validated In-Home Investigations
Fiscal Year 2012

State Total: 59,595

Region Validated In-Home Investigations
1 Lubbock 4,212
2 Abilene 4,312
3 Arlington 11,376
4 Tyler 4,186
5 Beaumont 3,676
6 Houston 10,335
7 Austin 5,467
8 San Antonio 6,267
9 Midland 2,522
10 El Paso 2,050
11 Edinburg 5,173
Blank/Unknown County 19
Total 59,595

Note: 19 validated investigations did not have a county designated.

Validated In-Home Investigations, Fiscal Year 2012 by County

Back to top

Page 15

Completed APS In-Home Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2012

Region Validated Invalid Unable to Determine Other* Total
1 Lubbock 4,212 783 239 110 5,344
2 Abilene 4,312 894 176 64 5,446
3 Arlington 11,376 3,087 1,456 439 16,358
4 Tyler 4,186 1,127 353 175 5,841
5 Beaumont 3,676 928 214 261 5,079
6 Houston 10,335 3,739 1,238 538 15,850
7 Austin 5,467 2,484 646 366 8,963
8 San Antonio 6,267 3,214 658 376 10,515
9 Midland 2,522 601 143 42 3,308
10 El Paso 2,050 655 244 105 3,054
11 Edinburg 5,173 1,783 461 281 7,698
Unknown 19 6 5 1 31
Total 59,595 19,301 5,833 2,758 87,487

* "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, 19 were Validated, 6 were Invalid, 5 were Unable to Determine and 1 was Other.

APS Daily Caseload Fiscal Year 2012

Region Caseload
1 Lubbock 24.2
2 Abilene 21.2
3 Arlington 30.4
4 Tyler 26.9
5 Beaumont 30.3
6 Houston 27.7
7 Austin 30.7
8 San Antonio 36.1
9 Midland 24.2
10 El Paso 29.2
11 Edinburg 35
State Average 29.6

Back to top

Page 16

Completed APS In-Home Investigations by Region and Disposition
Fiscal Year 2012

Region Average Length (Days) Invalid Valid Progressed* Valid Not Progressed Unable to Determine Other** Region Subtotal
1 Lubbock 25.9 783 3,900 312 239 110 5,344
2 Abilene 24.3 894 3,450 862 176 64 5,446
3 Arlington 40.3 3,087 8,028 3,348 1,456 439 16,358
4 Tyler 37.7 1127 3,547 639 353 175 5,841
5 Beaumont 40.0 928 3,166 510 214 261 5,079
6 Houston 42.1 3,739 8,088 2,247 1238 538 15,850
7 Austin 39.7 2,484 4,244 1,223 646 366 8,963
8 San Antonio 52.4 3,214 4,895 1372 658 376 10,515
9 Midland 29.7 601 2,093 429 143 42 3,308
10 El Paso 43.5 655 1,267 783 244 105 3,054
11 Edinburg 45.7 1,783 4,610 563 461 281 7,698
Unknown 49.7 6 8 11 5 1 31
State Average 40.1 19,301 47,296 12,299 5,833 2,758 87,487

* 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 2008-2012

Fiscal Year Percent
2008 13.8%
2009 14.2%
20109 15.2%
2011 15.8%
2012 16.3%

Recidivism* of APS In-Home Cases
Fiscal Years 2012

Region Percent Recidivism
1 Lubbock 24.7%
2 Abilene 22.9%
3 Arlington 14.6%
4 Tyler 16.1%
5 Beaumont 18.5%
6 Houston 14.2%
7 Austin 16.1%
8 San Antonio 14.1%
9 Midland 19.4%
10 El Paso 14.2%
11 Edinburg 15.0%
State Average 16.3%

*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 2012

Validated APS Victims Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Anglo 18,374 30.8% 12,005 20.1% 22 0.0% 30,401 51.0%
African American 8,749 14.7% 4,917 8.2% 12 0.0% 13,678 22.9%
Hispanic 7,755 13.0% 5,745 9.6% 18 0.0% 13,518 22.7%
Native American 92 0.2% 55 0.1% 0 0.0% 147 0.2%
Asian 206 0.3% 125 0.2% 0 0.0% 331 0.6%
Other 892 1.5% 631 1.1% 3 0.0% 1,526 2.6%
Total 36,068 60.5% 23,478 39.4% 55 0.1% 59,601 100%

* 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. 

In-Home Validated Victims in Completed Investigations
Fiscal Year 2012

Characteristic Total Percentage
Disabled 29,683 49.8%
Aged 29,918 50.2%
Total 59,601 100%
Characteristic Total Percentage
Female 36,068 60.5%
Male 23,478 39.4%
Unknown 55 0.1%
Total 59,601 100%

Back to top

Page 18

Perpetrator Characteristics In Validated APS In-Home Investigations (Characteristic as % of Total Validated Perpetrators*) Fiscal Year 2012

Perpetrator Characteristic: Age

Age Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Race/
Ethnicity		 Percent of Total
Under 18 129 2.8% 180 3.9% 1 0.0% 310 6.8%
18-25 177 3.9% 218 4.8% 4 0.1% 399 8.7%
26-35 310 6.8% 334 7.3% 3 0.1% 647 14.2%
36-45 445 9.7% 447 9.8% 0 0.0% 892 19.5%
Over 45 1,156 25.3% 1,157 25.3% 4 0.1% 2,317 50.7%
Unknown 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 5 0.1% 7 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 979 21.4% 1,176 25.7% 4 0.1% 2,159 47.2%
African American 471 10.3% 329 7.2% 2 0.0% 802 17.5%
Hispanic 612 13.4% 683 14.9% 2 0.0% 1,297 28.4%
Native American 2 0.0% 9 0.2% 0 0.0% 11 0.2%
Asian 9 0.2% 5 0.1% 1 0.0% 15 0.3%
Other 145 3.2% 135 3.0% 8 0.2% 288 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 123 2.7% 179 3.9% 0 0.0% 302 6.6%
Divorced 193 4.2% 168 3.7% 0 0.0% 361 7.9%
Married 524 11.5% 549 12.0% 0 0.0% 1,073 23.5%
Separated 62 1.4% 53 1.2% 0 0.0% 115 2.5%
Single, Never Married 297 6.5% 409 8.9% 0 0.0% 706 15.4%
Widowed 64 1.4% 23 0.5% 0 0.0% 87 1.9%
Unknown 955 20.9% 956 20.9% 17 0.4% 1,928 42.2%
Total Perpetrators 2,218 48.5% 2,337 51.1% 17 0.4% 4,572 100%

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

** 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. 

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 2012

Perpetrator Type Number Percent
Adult Children 1,864 40.8%
Spouse 714 15.6%
Grandchildren 500 10.9%
Parent 343 7.5%
Sibling 228 5.0%
Service Provider 220 4.8%
Other Relatives 215 4.7%
Other 199 4.4%
No Relationship 174 3.8%
Friend-Neighbor 86 1.9%
Facility-Institutional Staff 15 0.3%
Unknown 14 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 2012

Region Referrals
1 Lubbock 239
2 Abilene 102
3 Arlington 1,204
4 Tyler 307
5 Beaumont 136
6 Houston 1,905
7 Austin 1,050
8 San Antonio 322
9 Midland 195
10 El Paso 176
11 Edinburg 183
Unknown 7
State Total 5,826

NOTE: Referral may have been made in previous fiscal year

APS Victims of Family Violence in Validated Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2012

Region Victims
1 Lubbock 232
2 Abilene 151
3 Arlington 775
4 Tyler 201
5 Beaumont 158
6 Houston 525
7 Austin 411
8 San Antonio 550
9 Midland 97
10 El Paso 221
11 Edinburg 375
Unknown 2
State Total 3,698

Back to top

Page 20

Validated Allegations in APS In-Home Investigations by Type of Abuse/Neglect
Fiscal Year 2012

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 117 48 1,092 458 78 3,914
2 Abilene 76 39 1,100 407 58 3,943
3 Arlington 409 168 2,801 1,636 303 9,987
4 Tyler 102 48 736 338 67 3,822
5 Beaumont 51 56 717 219 44 3,343
6 Houston 199 142 2,610 1,521 203 9,154
7 Austin 183 96 1,425 869 176 4,541
8 San Antonio 284 130 1,195 688 199 5,405
9 Midland 50 36 796 455 36 2,306
10 El Paso 98 40 622 346 62 1,743
11 Edinburg 149 45 1,075 822 139 4,517
Unknown 1 0 7 4 1 15
State Total 1,719 848 14,176 7,763 1,366 52,690

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

Region Suicidal Threat Sexual Abuse Total Percent of Types by Region Unduplicated Validated Victims* Percent Unduplicated by Region
1 Lubbock 23 3 5,733 7.2% 4,213 7.1%
2 Abilene 37 1 5,661 7.1% 4,312 7.2%
3 Arlington 119 6 15,429 19.5% 11,378 19.1%
4 Tyler 36 2 5,151 6.5% 4,186 7.0%
5 Beaumont 22 2 4,454 5.6% 3,676 6.2%
6 Houston 80 8 13,917 17.6% 10,335 17.3%
7 Austin 50 7 7,347 9.3% 5,468 9.2%
8 San Antonio 81 2 7,984 10.1% 6,267 10.5%
9 Midland 23 2 3,704 4.7% 2,522 4.2%
10 El Paso 26 4 2,941 3.7% 2,051 3.4%
11 Edinburg 78 9 6,834 8.6% 5,174 8.7%
Unknown 0 0 28 0.0% 19 0.0%
State Total 575 46 79,183 100% 59,601 100%

*Victims have been unduplicated by investigation stage.

Duration of Service Delivery Stages for APS In-Home Cases,
During Fiscal Year 2012

Days Cases %
Under 30 25,286 54.9%
31-60 11,781 25.6%
61-90 4,776 10.4%
91-120 2,077 4.5%
121-180 1,389 3.0%
181-365 698 1.5%
Over 1 Year 76 0.2%
Total 46,083 100%

Back to top

Page 21

Non-Purchased Client Services Delivered for APS In-Home Cases by Region
Fiscal Year 2012

Region Social Casework Other Government Agency Legal Total
1 Lubbock 4,445 136 13 4,594
2 Abilene 3,515 108 19 3,642
3 Arlington 8,653 135 33 8,821
4 Tyler 4,433 161 0 4,594
5 Beaumont 3,418 186 1 3,605
6 Houston 9,883 192 5 10,080
7 Austin 4,380 252 20 4,652
8 San Antonio 6,324 219 6 6,549
9 Midland 2,039 33 8 2,080
10 El Paso 1,807 70 17 1,894
11 Edinburg 5,295 194 16 5,505
Unknown 11 2 0 13
State Total 54,203 1,688 138 56,029

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