Executive Summary:
Roundtable on Serving Victims
of Elder Financial Exploitation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Center for Victims of Crime spearheaded a Roundtable on November 18 and 19,
2014, focusing on serving victims of Elder Financial Exploitation. The Roundtable was supported by a
generous grant from the Huguette Clark Family Fund for Protection of Elders, a donor-advised fund of
the New York Community Trust. Over thirty nationally-recognized experts in the field, including
representatives of various government and law enforcement agencies, physicians, lawyers/judges,
professors, financial services professionals, regulators, executive directors of national and local victimoriented organizations, and policy analysts gathered in Washington, D.C. to address the gaps and to
proffer concrete steps to help those affected by elder financial exploitation. They focused on 3 areas: 1)
Direct Victim Services, 2) Public Policy, and 3) Justice System. The following are the five
recommendations generated during the Roundtable including estimated costs:
1. Create a demonstration project to explore comprehensive community-based or state-based model
service delivery programs for victims of EFE. Demonstration projects may be designed and
implemented by Adult Protective Services programs, area agencies on aging, victim assistance
programs, universities, or others. The estimated cost for an agency to implement this program is
$150,000 to $300,000 per year for a total of approximately $900,000 over three years. Estimated
cost for the National Center to advocate for the Program is $30,000.
2. Create a self- assessment tool for communities or states to evaluate their existing services for
victims of EFE, identify unmet needs, and craft plans for filling those needs. The tool will include
examples of best practices and recommendations. Estimated cost: $20,000.
3. Adapt Taking Action: An Advocate’s Guide to Assisting Victims of Financial Fraud for elder justice
service providers. Estimated cost: $35,000.
4. Provide a platform for policy leaders to share updates and collaborate and coordinate efforts.
Functions and topics could include strengthening state statutes, advocating for federal policy and
resources, and partnering with other advocacy groups. Estimated annual cost: $50,000.
5. Advance model elder financial exploitation civil statutes to maximize victims’ ability to recover
losses. Steps include identifying and evaluating existing EFE statutes, crafting a model law, and
encouraging states to implement it. Estimated costs: $35,000 for initial research, $15,000 for
consultants/experts, and $150,000 for ongoing technical assistance by the National Center.
1
White Paper: Roundtable on
Serving Victims of Elder
Financial Exploitation
I.
INTRODUCTION
The National Center for Victims of Crime spearheaded a Roundtable on November 18 and 19,
2014, focusing on serving victims of Elder Financial Exploitation. The Roundtable was supported by a
generous grant from the Huguette Clark Family Fund for Protection of Elders, a donor-advised fund of
the New York Community Trust. Over thirty nationally-recognized experts, a list of whom are appended
hereto, gathered in Washington, D.C., to address the gaps and to proffer concrete steps to help those
affected by elder financial exploitation. Participants included representatives of various government
and law enforcement agencies, physicians, lawyers/judges, professors, financial services professionals,
regulators, executive directors of national and local victim-oriented organizations, and policy analysts, as
well as an advisor to the Huguette Clark Family Fund. This White Paper captures the
recommendations developed by the Roundtable participants in the areas of direct victim services, public
policy, and justice systems. The National Center recognizes that the ideas expressed here must be
tailored to the particular audiences, whether they are policy makers, agencies, or advocates.
II. PROBLEM
Elder financial exploitation comprises a broad range of conduct, some of which is criminal and
some of which is not. It includes using deception, coercion, or undue influence for financial gain;
inducing cognitively impaired elders to sign deeds, wills, or powers of attorney; using property or
possessions without permission; promising lifelong care in exchange for money or property and not
following through on promises; forgery; confidence crimes; and “sweetheart scams.” Whereas early
research on EFE focused on abuse by family members, caregivers, friends, acquaintances, or predators
who gained the trust and confidence of their victims, in recent years, greater attention has been paid to
EFE by strangers, including mass-marketing fraud, predatory lending, and identity theft.
The extent of elder financial abuse and exploitation is unclear. One national study suggests that
3.5% older adults are abused annually.i Another sets the figure at 5.2%.ii Still another survey revealed
that 8.4% of seniors had experienced financial exploitation since turning 60, with 2.4% reporting that
they had been victimized in the past 6 months.iii A study conducted in 2011 found that 2-3 million older
Americans had their identities used by younger family members, mostly adult offspring, for fraudulent
reasons between 2006 and 2010.iv
With the aging population, this EFE epidemic can be expected to grow exponentially. Indeed, in
2010, 40 million people age 65 or older accounted for 13% of the total population in the United States.
In 2030, that number will increase to 72 million, reflecting nearly 20 % of the U.S. population.v
While experts may disagree on the extent of the problem, there is general agreement that EFE is
significantly underreported. A 2000 study found that only 1 in 25 cases is reported, suggesting that there
2
may be at least 5 million financial abuse victims each year.vi A study in New York found that only 1 in 44
cases of financial exploitation was documented and referred to social service, law enforcement or legal
authorities.vii According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 17% of ID theft victims reported the
incident to law enforcement in 2008.viii
EFE can be devastating to victims, their families, and to the public. There are strong indications
that the order of magnitude of global mass-marketing fraud losses is in the tens of billions of dollars per
year. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) estimates that identity theft alone costs consumers about
$50 billion annually.ix According to a 2010 study, elder financial abuse cost its victims a minimum of
$2.9 billion in 2010.x
The financial consequences to individuals include the loss of homes, life savings, pensions, and
inheritances. Victims have gone into debt, declared bankruptcy, had bank accounts frozen or closed so
that they can no longer pay bills and conduct business, been pursued by collection agencies, sued, or
charged criminally for unknowingly depositing and drawing on counterfeit checks.xi Victims of identity
theft are likely to have accounts opened in their names or find themselves in debt, the scammers having
taken out loans in their names. Creditors may demand payment and sell their debt to other creditors,
who continue the demands and harassment. Victims have even been arrested, jailed, and sued over
debts that were not theirs. They may be denied credit or lose access to public benefits or medical
coverage. Almost one in 10 financial abuse victims will turn to Medicaid as a direct result of their money
being stolen from them.xii
The consequences of fraud victimization are not only financial. It can significantly affect victims’
social, physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. The long-term social effects may include divorce,
estrangement from families, dependence on others, withdrawal from daily life, and continued risktaking to get back lost assets. It can result in loss of independence through the imposition of guardians
or placement in long-term care facilities.xiii Elder abuse victims (including victims of financial abuse) are 4
times more likely to go into nursing homes.xiv According to one study, 90% of victims of investment
fraud agree that the impact of investment fraud can be just as serious as the impact of crimes like
robbery and assault.xv Some experience major depressions and suicidal ideation.xvi Law enforcement
officials have reported mass-marketing fraud cases in which victims who had suffered devastating
financial losses committed or considered suicide.xvii
EFE is quite literally a matter of life and death. Older adults who experience mistreatment
(including financial abuse) or self-neglect are at increased risk for hospitalization and death.xviii EFE is a
societal, institutional, and moral problem, the magnitude and impact of which cannot be overstated.
Despite the significant scope and severity of EFE, few services exist to address victims’
emotional needs or recover their assets or property. The Roundtable on Serving Victims of Elder
Financial Exploitation was the first national effort to address these needs.
III. MEETING THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS OF EFE
The Roundtable participants devised strategies to better serve victims of EFE in three areas:
direct victim services, public policy, and justice systems. The following five recommendations are
immediately implementable, scalable, and feasible.
3
A. DIRECT VICTIM SERVICES
Roundtable participants identified the need for an accessible, comprehensive, and integrated
array of services that would incorporate the following “Elements”:
1. Prevention and case identification include, but are not limited to helplines, legal assistance to
review documents such as powers of attorneys, clearinghouses for information about scams,
fraud, and available services, and resources for community agencies to educate various
constituents on “red flags” for financial abuse. Prevention could also encompass the
identification of safe financial strategies such as loans that could be alternatives to risky financial
products and could prevent elders from being subject to predatory scams;
2. Immediate response and victim safety, including case management to assess and respond to the
immediate needs of seniors and to make arrangements for ongoing services including
emergency services, crisis counseling, freezing assets/filing restraining orders, providing
cognitive assessments, safety planning, and legal assistance;
3. Restoration/remediation to provide assistance with restitution as well as participation in
possible court-alternatives such as mediation or conflict resolution; and
4. Long term ongoing services include mental health services, peer counseling, money
management, support groups and other assistance to address victims’ ongoing social and
mental health needs and reduce their risk for future exploitation.
Participants articulated the following guiding “Principles” for victim services:
1. Victims should not be required to file police reports to receive services - referrals from APS,
physicians, domestic violence services, and others should qualify victims for services;
2. Community service networks must be multidisciplinary;
3. Services should be easily accessible;
4. Special outreach for underserved groups and building relationships with existing entities such as
the Urban Indian Health Centers and LGBT resource centers;
5. The use of volunteers should be encouraged;
6. Multidisciplinary assessment of victim service needs;
7. Evaluations should be included as a component to address program outcomes, demand for
services, etc.; and
8. Programs must address capacity and/or cognitive issues.
The following recommendations are designed to encompass the above-identified Elements and
are guided by the aforementioned Principles:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1
Create a demonstration project to explore comprehensive community-based or state-based
model service delivery programs (“Comprehensive Program”) for victims of EFE. Community or state
4
level agencies, including Adult Protective Services (“APS”), area agencies on aging, victim assistance
programs, universities, or others would be invited to design and implement models that reflect local
needs, leadership, and resources and incorporate the four Elements and principles identified above.
Service delivery models may include, for example, a “one stop shop” victim service center operated by
universities to draw from departments of social work, medicine, psychology, computer technology and
law schools, as well as bringing in researchers and technological resources.
Potential funders/administrators for the Comprehensive Program could include the Office of
Victims of Crime through direct grants for model projects or by authorizing states to use VOCA victim
assistance. It must be noted that per statute, VOCA funds cannot be used for prevention efforts.
Potential partners/collaborators could include the Administration for Community Living, Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, Veterans Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, Social Security Administration, and Investment Protection Trust. The
cost for the National Center to advocate for this Comprehensive Program will be $30,000. Costs to a
federal agency to implement of the Comprehensive Program would be $150,000 to $300,000 per year
for a total of around $900,000 over three years.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
Create a self- assessment tool for communities or states to evaluate their existing services for
victims of EFE, identify unmet needs, and craft plans for filling those needs. The tool will be designed to
be administrated by state agencies, Financial Abuse Special Teams ("FASTs"), elder abuse or victim
services councils, advocacy organizations, task forces, etc. A checklist format will be used to help users
identify service needs within each of the Elements, and reflect the Principles.
The self-assessment tool can be executed as a stand-alone project which would include a survey
of best practice, sample innovation programs, and recommended process for implementation. The cost
for the National Center to complete this project would be $20,000.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
We also recommend retooling the Taking Action: An Advocate’s Guide to Assisting Victims of
Financial Fraud to target and meet the needs of the elder service community. The current Guide is
designed for victim advocates generally. The Roundtable participants noted that this valuable
information about assisting victims of financial fraud was needed by those who serve the elderly
community. Revising this guide, to include vocabulary and issues that resonate with this community,
such as capacity/cognitive issues, would cost $35,000.
Recommendation 2 and 3 could be combined into a single resource for a total funding of
$55,000.
Adopting these proposals will potentially streamline the cumbersome processes to which a
victim may be subjected to receive services, identify duplicative efforts by competing agencies or
groups, promote efficiency among the various groups providing services to victims, and ensure that
recovery is holistic.
5
B. PUBLIC POLICY
The need for public policy to meet the needs of victims of EFE is widespread and requires action
at both the state and federal levels. Victims of EFE have lacked a voice in policy and service
development. Victims and their advocates also lack mechanisms for exchanging information and
coordinating efforts. The Roundtable participants responded to these needs through the following
public policy priorities:
1. Expand crime victim compensation programs to include victims of EFE;
2. Increase the availability of Victims of Crime Act funds for services to elder victims, especially
victims of financial exploitation/fraud;
3. Create/amend state or federal laws to permit short-term freezing of assets or authorize waiting
periods without legal repercussions in situations where financial exploitation or fraud is
suspected or is reported by Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, or other investigatory
agencies;
4. Secure funding for the Administration of Community Living/Administration on Aging data
collection pilot projects;
5. Seek streamlined reporting or referrals of EFE/fraud;
6. Amend the Older American’s Act to classify victims (and suspected victims or those at risk of
victimization) as a priority class for services such as case management, legal assistance, benefits
counseling, respite care for family members; explore whether similar amendments could be
extended to other programs besides OAA ones (for example, Medicaid waiver programs offer
case management and other services); evaluate the possible role of U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development in prioritizing abused or vulnerable elders for subsidized housing; and
7. Protect Social Services Block Grant funding.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
Given the complementary but varying policy priorities and the need for coordination of these
efforts, a public policy clearinghouse is recommended. It must be noted that efforts will not be limited
to the seven priorities the Roundtable identified, but may include, for example, advocating to require
federal employees such as postal workers to be classified as mandatory reporters. The clearinghouse,
housed at the National Center, would accomplish at minimum, the following:
1. Provide a platform for policy leaders to share updates through quarterly webinars, and to
collaborate and coordinate efforts;
2. Provide technical assistance to state level advocates to support the strengthening of state
statutes and to provide strategies to best position advocacy groups to access federal funding;
3. Coordinate support for national and state policy proposals. For example, if there is potentially
influential legislation in a particular state, that efforts are coordinated to “sign on” or to take
similar actions;
6
4. Create a webpage from the National Center with prominent links to partners and other
advocacy groups.
The administrative time required from staff and the Director of Public Policy as well as the costs
for the webinars is estimated to be $50,000 annually. A clearinghouse would provide a wider impact in
achieving the EFE public policy priorities as identified during the Roundtable.
A public policy clearinghouse would provide policy makers and concerned citizens an
opportunity to amplify attention to legislative efforts affecting EFE victims. Additional benefits include
shared intelligence and strategies as well as bridging local and national advocacy issues to increase
impact.
C. JUSTICE SYSTEMS
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in the 2013 legislative session, 29
states and the District of Columbia considered legislation to address financial crimes and exploitation
against the elderly and other vulnerable adults. Of these, 18 were enacted as legislation or adopted as
resolutions. These pieces of legislation focused on mandatory reporting of EFE, established criminal
offenses and penalties, and created oversight committees. Few, however, addressed the needs of EFE
victims.
The justice system group therefore focused on victims’ need for accountability. The group
discussed various gaps in the legal response system and the need for additional research. The following
needs were explored: (1) judicial councils akin to multi-disciplinary teams to identify and address legal
issues pertaining to victims of EFE on an ongoing basis (e.g. alerting community stakeholders to
potential threats); (2) research about elders’ experience in the criminal justice system; (3) improving
access to legal services by EFE victims (e.g. removing the “financially indigent” requirement for elders
who do not have control of their assets or when their assets are controlled by abusers; (4) civil justice
system training resources; (5) promoting the development of interdisciplinary, one-stop shops for
victims of EFE, that offer assistance in restraining orders, case management, etc.; and (6) selfassessment tools for states to see if they have basic protections in place.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5
Ultimately, the group reached a consensus that a significant and fundamental gap in the justice
system that touches on each of the matters discussed above is the general unavailability of civil
remedies. Barriers EFE victims face in obtaining civil judgments are primarily the result of the lack of
incentives for civil attorneys to take cases (recoveries are low and cases are labor intensive). A statute
that provides for attorneys’ fees and treble damages would encourage civil attorneys to retain victims of
EFE as clients. Currently, five jurisdictions have an independent cause of action for EFE. The justice
group discussed the need for a model statute and the key provisions to include. In addition to an
attorneys’ fees and treble damages provision, the model statute would include burden shifting,
extending the statute of limitations, and other victim-centered and protective mechanisms. The model
statute could be channeled through the ABA model law commission.
The initial steps necessary will be to survey and research the current EFE statutes to determine
what is effective. Additional research and examination is needed to determine the features of the most
comprehensive model EFE statute that would provide the broadest protection for elders. Coordination
7
of policy efforts will be required to push jurisdictions to adopt portions, if not all, of the elements of the
model EFE statute. We estimate cost to the National Center to be $35,000 to conduct in-depth studies
and surveys as well as initial promotion efforts, and $15,000 for the retention of consultants/experts.
After the initial research portion, the National Center’s cost to administer, including providing technical
assistance is estimated to be $150,000.
If adopted, model EFE civil statutes would increase the number of lawsuits against perpetrators
and responsible third parties, deter wrongful conduct, and provide the best opportunity for a victim to
recover his or her loss.
IV. CONCLUSION
Elder Financial Exploitation is a serious crime and the current level of attention and resources
fail to adequately address this epidemic. The recommendations generated in the National Center for
Victims of Crime’s Roundtable on elder financial exploitation would advance direct victim services,
elevate the public policies at issue, and fill a critical gap in the justice system. The recommendations, to
(1) create a comprehensive program that includes wide ranging services necessary to holistically help a
victim of EFE to recover; (2) develop a self-assessment tool for communities to ensure the needs of
victims of EFE are being met; (3) provide a platform to coordinate and elevate public policy efforts
related to EFE; and (4) advancing a model elder financial exploitation civil statute to maximize a victim’s
ability to recover loss, will directly impact the lives and recovery of victims of elder financial exploitation
and progress this field.
8
Roundtable Participants
The Roundtable and the White Paper was made possible through the contribution and participation of
the following experts, who are leading the nation’s efforts against elder financial exploitation:
Andres, Matthew
Professor & Director of the Elder Financial Justice Clinic, University of Illinois
Baldridge, David
Executive Director, International Association for Indigenous Aging
Benson, Bill
President, International Association for Indigenous Aging
Blancato, Bob
National Coordinator, Elder Justice Coalition
Conger, Judge Julie
First Presiding Judge, California Elder Abuse Court
Davis, Molly
Vice President, Elder Abuse Prevention & Ombudsman Services
Deem, Debbie
Victim Specialist, FBI
Devine, Ian Clark
Advisor to the Huguette Clark Family Fund for Protection of Elders
Frommer, Hillary
Attorney, Farrell Fritz
Hutchinson, Ed
Karp, Naomi
Traffic Safety Director, National Sheriffs’ Association Program Director
Older Americans Senior Policy Analyst, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
Kieffer, Christine
Loewy, Liz
Malks, Betty
Marshall, Philip
Marson, Dr. Dan
Senior Director, FINRA Investor Protection Campaign
General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Industry Relations, Ever Safe
Director, Department of Aging and Adult Services, Santa Clara County
Professor, Roger Williams University
Professor of Neurology & Director Alzheimer’s Research Center,
Neuropsychology, University of Alabama
Martin, Jaye
Mosqueda, Dr. Laura
Nerenberg, Lisa
Olson, Erin
Ponder, Meredith
Quinn, Kathleen
Rex, Judy
Schoen, Julie
Executive Director Legal Services for the Elderly
Associate Dean & Professor, Keck School of Medicine, USC
Chair, California Elder Justice Workgroup
Attorney, Law Office of Erin Olson, P.C.
Senior Associate, Matz, Blancato & Associates
Executive Director, National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA)
Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services
Deputy Director, National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA)
9
Sewell, Carol
Policy Analyst, California Commission on Aging
Steele, Tobie
Assistant Vice President, Wells Fargo Advisors, Compliance, Regulatory Affairs
Stiegel, Lori
Teaster, Dr. Pam
Thurston, Catherine
Senior Attorney, American Bar Association
Associate Director & Professor, Virginia Tech
Senior Director Services and Training at Services & Advocacy
for Gay, Lesbian & Transgender Elders (SAGE)
The Roundtable was supported by the following directors and members of the National Center for
Victims of Crime:
Ballasteros, Tara
Cook, Laura
Dion, Jeff
Fernandez, Mai
Howley, Susan
Lee, Jane K.
Oddi, Gianna
Director of Public Affairs
Staff Attorney
Deputy Executive Director
Executive Director
Director of Public Policy
Director of Financial Crime Resource Center
Legal Intern
Thomas, Joanna
Program & Training Associate
Wilber, Kathleen
Director of Events Member Services and Personnel
10
i
Laumann, E. O., Leitsch, S. A., & Waite, L. J. (2008). Elder mistreatment in the United States: prevalence estimates
from a nationally representative study. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social
Sciences, 63(4), S248-S254.
ii
Acierno, R., Hernandez, M. A., Amstadter, A. B., Resnick, H. S., Steve, K., Muzzy, W., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2009).
Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential neglect in the United
States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study. Am J Public Health, 100(2), 292-297.
iii
Beach, Schulz, Castle & Rosen, 2010.
iv
Sullivan, R. (2011). Stealing elderly parents’ identities a hidden, common problem. NBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/stealing-elderly-parents-identities-hidden-common-crime-120116.
v
(Older Americans 2012: Key Indicators of Well-Being). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Administration on Aging. (2013). A Profile of Older Americans (2012). Available on the Administration on Aging’s
Web site: http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Aging_Statistics/Profile/index.aspx
vi
Wasik, J.F. (2000). The fleecing of America’s elderly. Consumers Digest, March/April.
vii
Lifespan of Greater Rochester, Weill Cornell Medical Center of Cornell University, & New York City Department
for the Aging. (2011, May). Under the radar: New York state elder abuse prevalence study. Retrieved from
http://www.lifespan-roch.org/documents/UndertheRadar051211.pdf
viii
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010).
ix
Congressional Research Service, 2010.
x
MetLife Mature Market Institute, National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, & Center for
Gerontology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (2011). The MetLife study of elder financial
abuse: Crimes of occasion, desperation, and predation against America’s elders. Retrieved from
http://www.preventelderabuse.org/documents/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf
xi
Deem, D., Nerenberg, L., & Titus, R. (2013). Victims of financial crime. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio & S. Herman
(Eds.), Victims of Crime (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
xii
Gunther, J & Van Langeveld, A. (2011). Utah Legal Needs Study. Utah Division of Aging and Adult Services.
xiii
Deem, D., Nerenberg, L., & Titus, R. (2013). Victims of financial crime. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio & S. Herman
(Eds.), Victims of Crime (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
xiv
Rovi et al., 2009.
xv
Canadian Securities Administrators Investment Education Committee, 2007.
xvi
Ganzini, L., McFarland, B., & Bloom, J. (1990). Victims of fraud: Comparing victims of white collar and violent
crime. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatric Law, 18(1), 55–63.
xvii
Federal Bureau of Investigation, International Mass-Marketing Fraud Working Group. (2010). Mass-Marketing
fraud: A threat assessment. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/mass-marketing-fraudthreat-assessment
xviii
Dong, 2013; Lachs, 1998, M. S., Williams, C. S., O'Brien, S., Pillemer, K. A., & Charlson, M. E. (1998). The
mortality of elder mistreatment. JAMA, 280(5), 428-432.
11