Page 21

APS
Adult protective Services

The Adult Protective Services Facility Investigations Program investigates reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of persons with disabilities (children and adults) receiving services in state operated and/or contracted settings that serve adults and children with mental illness, intellectual disabilities, or developmental disabilities. Investigation results are sent to the facility or program administrator for appropriate action.

Total Average Filled Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff

Caseworkers
123.3
Supervisors
22.4
Other Staff
24.2
Total APS Facility Staff
169.9

Worker Demographics

Turnover Rate
 
11.5%
Agency Tenure
Less than 1 Year
20.9%
1-3 Years
12.7%
Greater than 3 Years
66.4%
Entry Salary
 
$29,932.92
Average Age
 
40.8
Race/Ethnicity
African-American
14.20%
Anglo
57.5%
Hispanic
28.4%
Other
0.0%

Supervisor Demographics

Turnover Rate
 
8.6%
Tenure as Supervisor
Less than 1 Year
13.6%
1-3 Years
22.7%
Greater than 3 Years
63.6%
Entry Salary
 
$38,145.96
Average Age
 
43.3
Race/Ethnicity
African-American
9.1%
Anglo
77.3%
Hispanic
13.6%
Other
0.0%

APS Facility Expenditures

APS Facility Staff
$9,255,232

Description of the Report Investigation Process

Step 1: Notifications

The following persons are notified within one hour of the receipt of the intake:

  • Facility administrator
  • Law enforcement if allegations involves serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or death of an adult.
  • Law enforcement of any allegation involving a child.
Step 2: Investigation Activities
  • Face to face contact with alleged victims
  • Interview of witnesses and alleged perpetrator
  • Collection of written statements and documentary evidence.
  • Photographing of injuries
  • Photographing/diagramming scene of incident
  • Gathering other relevant evidence
Step 3: Investigation Findings
  • Analyze evidence
  • Determine finding(s)
  • Generate investigative report
  • Provide report to facility administrator
  • Provide report to law enforcement if investigation confirms abuse, neglect, or exploitation that may constitute a criminal offense

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

Statistics FY 2013

  • Completed MH&ID Investigations: 10,818
  • Confirmed MH&ID Investigations: 1,373

Most Common...

  • Person reporting abuse/neglect/exploitation: Institutional Personnel (27.9%)
  • Allegation confirmed: Neglect (63.0%)
  • MH & ID setting investigated: State Supported Living Centers (31.5%)
Back to top

Page 22

Legal Responsibility for APS Facility

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 persons receiving services in state-operated mental health and intellectual and developmental disability facilities (State Hospitals, State Supported Living Centers, and Rio Grande State Center) and/or state contracted settings (Community Centers, Home and Community-based Services programs, Texas Home Living Waiver Program, and privately-operated Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF-IID))
  • After an allegation is reported to DFPS Abuse Hotline APS initiates investigations by notifying the facility or provider agency within one hour.
  • APS notifies law enforcement and the Health and Human Services Commission Office of the Inspector General (OIG) within one hour, in certain settings
  • Refer reports to other state agencies when DFPS is not the appropriate investigating agency
  • Notify OIG(Office of Inspector General) and local law enforcement if APS has cause to believe a crime may have been committed
  • Report findings to the facility or provider
  • Make referrals to the Employee Misconduct Registry of certain confirmed perpetrators
  • Confidentiality of case records

Other Programmatic Information:

Factors Contributing to Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation:
  • Physical Conditions/Quality of Care
  • Lack of facility/ provider training, policy or procedures
  • Staff burnout
  • Staff shortages that lead to staff stress
  • Inadequate case manager planning for behavioral concerns
    or plans of care
  • Physical and mental stress of familial care giving in foster
    care settings
Challenges:
  • Meeting Department of Justice requirements including
    commencement of investigations, prior case history
    searches, and 10 day investigation timeframes in State
    Supported Living Centers and Rio Grande State Center
  • Requests by Law Enforcement or OIG that APS stop its
    investigation until they have finished
  • Staff shortages in facilities affecting access to staff for
    interviews
  • Lack of training and policy in place for community
    providers
  • Inability to find private space to conduct interviews
  • Increase in number of intakes with fewer investigators to
    conduct investigations

Back to top

Page 23

Source of Report for Completed Facility Investigations
Fiscal Year 2013

Source Number Percent
Institutional Personnel
3,035
27.9%
Victim
2,437
22.4%
Medical Personnel
1,242
11.4%
Community Agency
980
9.0%
Other
787
7.2%
Anonymous
594
5.5%
DFPS Staff
325
3.0%
Parent
301
2.8%
Provider
290
2.7%
State Agency
191
1.8%
Relative
172
1.6%
School
125
1.1%
Law Enforcement
115
1.1%
Unrelated Home Member
82
0.8%
Friend-Neighbor
70
0.6%
Legal/Court
61
0.6%
Day Care Provider
39
0.4%
Blank/Unknown
12
0.1%
24 Hour Care Provider
6
0.1%
Religious Entity
3
0.0%
Financial Institution
3
0.0%
Parent's Paramour
1
0.0%
State Total
10,871
100.0%

Note: A report of abuse/neglect/exploitation may come from multiple sources.

Average Length of Completed Facility Investigations by Region
Fiscal Year 2013

Region Investigations Average Days
1 Lubbock
417
13.6
2 Abilene
1,299
7.7
3 Arlington
1,366
11.9
4 Tyler
656
10.0
5 Beaumont
326
12.1
6 Houston
875
25.6
7 Austin
2,251
14.7
8 San Antonio
1,270
14.9
9 Midland
1,134
9.1
10 El Paso
324
9.4
11 Edinburg
900
10.5
State
10,818
12.9

 

Number of Facility Investigations Referred to Law Enforcement by Setting
Fiscal Year 2013

Setting Law Enforcement Provided Notification of Investigation* Law Enforcement Provided Investigation Report**
State Supported Living Centers
2,208
1,882
State Hospitals
1,548
883
HCS Homes
1,521
867
Private ICF-IID
507
293
Community Centers
231
123
State Center
99
76
Other
11
1
Total
6,125
4,125

* Notification sent on investigations which involve a child or serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or death of an adult person served.
** This data includes all cases in which a final investigation report was sent regardless of investigation disposition.

Types of Confirmed Allegations in Facility Settings
Fiscal Year 2013

Types of Confirmed Allegations Number Percent
Neglect 
1,365
63.0%
Physical Abuse
429
19.8%
Emotional Abuse
272
12.6%
Exploitation
74
3.4%
Sexual Abuse
27
1.2%
Total
2,167
100%

Back to top

Page 24

Characteristics of Victims in Confirmed Facility Investigations
Fiscal Year 2013

Characteristic: Race/Ethnicity

Characteristic:
Race/Ethnicity
Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Subtotal Percent of Total
Anglo
354
19.7%
655
36.5%
1
0.1%
1010
56.2%
African American
88
4.9%
191
10.6%
0
0.0%
279
15.5%
Hispanic
135
7.5%
310
17.3%
2
0.1%
447
24.9%
Native American
2
0.1%
2
0.1%
0
0.0%
4
0.2%
Asian
9
0.5%
9
0.5%
0
0.0%
18
1.0%
Other
14
0.8%
21
1.2%
3
0.2%
38
2.1%
Total Victims
602
33.5%
1,188
66.1%
6
0.3%
1,796
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. 

Note: A completed investigation may have more than one victim.

Characteristics of Perpetrators in Confirmed Facility Investigations
Fiscal Year 2013

Perpetrator Characteristic: Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Subtotal Percent of Total
Anglo
183
13.1%
108
7.7%
4
0.3%
295
21.1%
African American
364
26.1%
256
18.4%
6
0.4%
626
44.9%
Hispanic
161
11.5%
135
9.7%
2
0.1%
298
21.4%
Native American
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Asian
1
0.1%
1
0.1%
0
0.0%
2
0.1%
Other
47
3.4%
34
2.4%
93
6.7%
174
12.5%

Note: A completed investigation may have more than one victim.

Perpetrator Characteristic: Age

Age Female Percent of Total Male Percent of Total Unknown Percent of Total Subtotal Percent of Total
Under 18
0
0.0%
1
0.1%
1
0.1%
2
0.1%
18-25
164
11.8%
178
12.8%
7
0.5%
349
25.0%
26-35
213
15.3%
168
12.0%
34
2.4%
415
29.7%
36-45
137
9.8%
93
6.7%
15
1.1%
245
17.6%
Over 45
239
17.1%
93
6.7%
21
1.5%
353
25.3%
Unknown
3
0.2%
1
0.1%
27
1.9%
31
2.2%
Total
756
54.2%
534
38.3%
105
7.5%
1,395
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. 

Note: Each victim may have more than one perpetrator.

Each perpetrator may have more than one victim.

Back to top

Page 25

Completed Facility Investigations by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Completed Investigations
2009
9,730
2010
9,922
20110
10,981
2012
10,803
2013
10,818

Completed Facility Investigations by Setting
Fiscal Year 2013

Fiscal Year Completed Investigations
State Supported Living Centers
3,411
HCS
3,114
State Hospitals
2,531
Private ICF-IID
1,066
Community Centers
543
State Center
153
Total
10,818

Disposition of Completed Facility Investigations
Fiscal Year 2013

Setting of Facility Investigations

Setting Confirmed (%)Confirmed Unconfirmed (%)Unconfirmed Inconclusive (%)Inconclusive
Community Centers
84
0.8%
201
1.9%
84
0.8%
HCS
518
4.8%
1,386
12.8%
478
4.4%
Private ICF-IID
187
1.7%
436
4.0%
125
1.2%
State Center
5
0.0%
110
1.0%
7
0.1%
State Hospitals
159
1.5%
1,249
11.5%
156
1.4%
SSLCs
420
3.9%
1,776
16.4%
190
1.8%
State Total
1,373
12.7%
5,158
47.7%
1,040
9.6%

Setting of Facility Investigations

Setting Unfounded (%)Unfounded Other (%)Other Blank (%)Blank Total (%)Total
Community Centers
3
0.0%
91
0.8%
80
0.7%
543
5.0%
HCS
19
0.2%
429
4.0%
284
2.6%
3,114
28.8%
Private ICF-IID
6
0.1%
167
1.5%
145
1.3%
1,066
9.9%
State Center
0
0.0%
21
0.2%
10
0.1%
153
1.4%
State Hospitals
128
1.2%
480
4.4%
359
3.3%
2,531
23.4%
SSLCs
497
4.6%
325
3.0%
203
1.9%
3,411
31.5%
State Total
653
6.0%
1,513
14.0%
1,081
10.0%
10,818
100%

Region of Facility Investigations

Region Confirmed (%)Confirmed Unconfirmed (%)Unconfirmed Inconclusive (%)Inconclusive
1 Lubbock
100
0.9%
173
1.6%
63
0.6%
2 Abilene
122
1.1%
605
5.6%
77
0.7%
3 Arlington
173
1.6%
653
6.0%
143
1.3%
4 Tyler
64
0.6%
297
2.7%
39
0.4%
5 Beaumont
77
0.7%
147
1.4%
49
0.5%
6 Houston
131
1.2%
356
3.3%
135
1.2%
7 Austin
254
2.3%
1125
10.4%
224
2.1%
8 San Antonio
165
1.5%
606
5.6%
141
1.3%
9 Midland
127
1.2%
570
5.3%
84
0.8%
10 El Paso
67
0.6%
174
1.6%
27
0.2%
11 Edinburg
93
0.9%
450
4.2%
58
0.5%
Unknown
0
0.0%
2
0.0%
0
0.0%
State Total
1,373
12.7%
5,158
47.7%
1040
9.6%

Region of Facility Investigations

Region Unfounded (%)Unfounded Other (%)Other Blank (%)Blank Total (%)Total
1 Lubbock
10
0.1%
69
0.6%
2
0.0%
417
3.9%
2 Abilene
144
1.3%
244
2.3%
107
1.0%
1,299
12.0%
3 Arlington
8
0.1%
131
1.2%
257
2.4%
1,365
12.6%
4 Tyler
9
0.1%
7
0.1%
240
2.2%
656
6.1%
5 Beaumont
3
0.0%
12
0.1%
38
0.4%
326
3.0%
6 Houston
5
0.0%
54
0.5%
194
1.8%
875
8.1%
7 Austin
312
2.9%
247
2.3%
89
0.8%
2,251
20.8%
8 San Antonio
0
0.0%
280
2.6%
77
0.7%
1269
11.7%
9 Midland
44
0.4%
303
2.8%
6
0.1%
1,134
10.5%
10 El Paso
8
0.1%
48
0.4%
0
0.0%
324
3.0%
11 Edinburg
110
1.0%
118
1.1%
71
0.7%
900
8.3%
Unknown
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
0.0%
State Total
653
6.0%
1,513
14.0%
1,081
10.0%
10,818
100%

Note: "Other" and "Blank" include cases referred back to the provider or closed at intake because they do not meet the definitions of abuse, neglect or exploitation and therefore are not investigated.

Previous Section | Back to top | Next Section