NAMRS FFY 2016

Report 2: Key Indicators

May 21, 2018
Suggested Citation:

Acker, D., Aurelien, G., Beatrice, M., Capehart, A., Gassoumis, Z., Ph.D., Gervais Voss, P., 

Greene, M., Phillippi, M. (2018). NAMRS FFY2016 Report 2: Key Indicators. Administration for 

Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, D.C.

Disclaimer:

This project was funded by the Administration for Community Living under contract number 

HHS-P233201500042I to WRMA, Inc. The statements contained in this publication do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services and 

Administration for Community Living.

Acknowledgements

The Administration for Community Living gratefully acknowledges the voluntary submission of 

data to the National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System (NAMRS) by the States, District of 

Columbia, and Territories. Without the support of the Adult Protective Services staff, supervisors, 

and program administrators’ collection of data and reporting into state systems, it would have 

been impossible to have achieved the historical, first submission of data (FFY 2016) into the 

National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System.

In addition, we applaud the work of the:

 Elder Justice Coordinating Council in making the collection of data regarding adult 

maltreatment a priority issue;

 Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation for support of the initial development and piloting of NAMRS; and

 Numerous experts, university faculty, medical researchers, and national organizations 

representing the field of adult maltreatment who provided guidance on NAMRS 

development.
Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................iii

Key Indicators Data .....................................................................................................................1

KI-1 Key Indicators Submission Rates................................................................................. 2

KI-2 Investigations and Clients............................................................................................ 3

Key Indicator Component – Interagency Coordination...................................................... 3

KI-3 Clients by Case Closure Reason ................................................................................... 4

KI-4 Clients and Victims ...................................................................................................... 5

KI-5 Victims by Age Groups................................................................................................. 6

KI-6 Victims by Race............................................................................................................ 7

KI-7 Victims by Ethnicity ..................................................................................................... 8

KI-8 Victims by Gender Identity .......................................................................................... 9

KI-9 Victim Characteristics................................................................................................ 10

KI-10 Maltreatment Types Among Victims....................................................................... 10

KI-11 Perpetrators by Age Groups.................................................................................... 13

KI-12 Perpetrators by Gender Identity ............................................................................. 14

KI-13 Perpetrator Relationship to Victim.......................................................................... 15
iii

Executive Summary

The statistics in this report are based on data submitted to NAMRS, which is a voluntary reporting 

system that was developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Community Living. In FFY 2016, 54 APS reporting jurisdictions volunteered to 

participate by providing information and data. For NAMRS, a reporting jurisdiction is the officially 

designated APS office in the state, territory, or district.

The Agency Component report offers an overview of the policies and practices of state APS 

agencies. In addition to submitting the data elements highlighted in this report, states provided 

narratives regarding statutes, policies and procedures, investigative practices, data systems, 

intake processes, staffing, training, and client assessments. Narrative information such as state 

statutes, policies, training, etc. will be used in developing future discussion papers.

Additional information gleaned from the initial year of NAMRS data submissions can be accessed 

in the following reports:

 NAMRS FY 2016 Background Report: This report discusses the development of the NAMRS 

data system, provides an overview of the data elements and the data submission process, 

and discusses the known limitations and future directions of NAMRS.

 NAMRS FY 2016 Report 1.2: Agency Component: This report provides highlights of APS 

agency profile information and investigation data submitted for FFY 2016.

 NAMRS FY 2016 Report 3: Case Component: Case Component provides a summary of case 

level information for investigations of maltreatments, clients, victims, services, and 

perpetrators. Additionally, Report 3 presents a review of cross tabulations of certain data 

elements relevant to victims with a substantiated maltreatment type.

A final note on limitations of the FFY 2016 data reports. In this first year of a new, national 

reporting system, care was taken to explain how many states were able to submit information; 

the percentage of individual data elements provided; and to describe limitations discovered 

when reviewing data. For FY 2016, no state could provide all Case Component, nor all Key 

Indicators, data elements, and no two states reported on all of the same data elements. 

Furthermore, as NAMRS was developed to allow maximum flexibility for states to be able to 

report data in a way that did not increase burden for the states’ participation, data contained in 

the exhibit tables will not always total 100%. Agency and Key Indicator data have aggregate 

totals, which contain duplicate counts of clients, victims, and perpetrators. The Case Component

data, conversely, are unique. Case Component data consists of client characteristics, services, 

and perpetrator characteristics, provided by states that have report-level tracking systems. For 

these reasons, readers are cautioned against attempting to compare or combine data reported 

in Agency, Key Indicator, or Case Components.
1

Key Indicators Data

The NAMRS FFY 2016 Key Indicator Component report describes FFY 2016 aggregated data 

pertaining to client, victim, and perpetrator demographics. Key Indicator Component data has 

aggregate totals which contain duplicate counts of clients, victims, and perpetrators. Therefore, 

data contained in the exhibit tables will not always total 100%. For example, a victim may have 

multiple substantiated maltreatments. 

This report is a merger of Key Indicator Component data from 20 states and the extraction of the 

same Key Indicator data points from Case Component data submitted by 24 states. As such, the 

Key Indicator Component section represents 44 states.

It is important to note that not all 44 states were able to report on each data element, or even 

the same data elements. Missing data was handled in one of two ways:

1. When a state did not report a data element, or submitted only unknown values for a data 

element, that state was not included in the aggregate data for that particular element. In 

these cases, the “unknown” data equates to data not submitted by the state.

2. In most instances, states submitted data elements that included some cases with valid 

values and some cases with missing values. These missing values were coded as 

“Unknown”. In these cases, the totals for the data element reflects all values submitted 

by the state, both valid and missing/unknown.

For more information on any of the data elements, see Appendix A: Data Element and Value 

Definitions
2

KI-1 Key Indicators Submission Rates

Exhibit KI-1 below provides response rates for the 20 Key Indicator data elements and illustrates 

the combined count for 44 states. Key Indicator Component data were submitted by 20 states. 

The same Key Indicator Component were extracted from 24 states that submitted on the same 

data elements to the Case Component data set. 

Exhibit KI- 1 Key Indicators Response Rates

Data Element

# States 

that 

Submitted 

KI

# States 

that 

Submitted 

Case

Total 

Number 

of 

States

% of 

states 

(56)

% of 

states 

submitting 

(44)

Investigations Closed 20 24 44 78.6% 100.0%

Clients Who Received an 

Investigation 20 24 44 78.6% 100.0%

Clients Found to Be Victims 20 23 43 76.8% 97.7%

Victims by Maltreatment Type 20 23 43 76.8% 97.7%

Clients by Case Closure Reason 20 20 40 71.4% 90.9%

Victims by Age Group 16 22 38 67.9% 86.4%

Victims by Gender Identity 15 23 38 67.9% 86.4%

Victims by Race 12 21 33 58.9% 75.0%

Perpetrators with Kinship 

Relationship 11 20 31 55.4% 70.5%

Perpetrators by Gender Identity 10 20 30 53.6% 68.2%

Victims by Ethnicity 10 18 28 50.0% 63.6%

Perpetrators by Age Group 9 17 26 46.4% 59.1%

Victims with Disabilities 11 10 21 37.5% 47.7%

Victims Who Received or Were 

Referred for Services 13 8 21 37.5% 47.7%

Clients Who Received 

Interagency Coordination 13 5 18 32.1% 40.9%

Perpetrators with Association to 

Victim 8 5 13 23.2% 29.5%

Victims with Behavioral 

Conditions 4 7 11 19.6% 25.0%

Victims Receiving Benefits 3 6 9 16.1% 20.5%

Victims with Guardian or 

Conservator 3 4 7 12.5% 15.9%

Perpetrators with Legal Remedy 

Recommendations 3 2 5 8.9% 11.4%
3

KI-2 Investigations and Clients

Exhibit KI-2 reports the number of closed investigations for the reporting year, and the number 

of clients receiving an investigation for the same time period. These numbers frequently differ, 

as it is practice in some states to include multiple clients under one investigation, rather than 

opening a separate case for each client, even if it is one single investigation. For example, APS 

may have received one report of alleged abuse for two people living in the same household. This 

could be recorded in two different ways. One way is to open one investigation record with two 

clients. Alternatively, two investigation records could be opened, one for each client in the 

household.

Exhibit KI- 1 Investigation and Client Counts

Investigations # of States

% of States 

that 

Submitted 

(44)

Investigations 

Completed or 

Closed

Clients who 

received an 

investigation

One client per investigation 33 75.0% 444,220 444,220

Multiple clients per investigation 11 25.0% 227,181 238,776

Total 44 - 671,401 682,996

Key Indicator Component – Interagency Coordination

APS staff work with human services programs, community groups, law enforcement, and other 

state and local agencies to coordinate advocacy, services and supports on behalf of clients. 

Eighteen (18) states reported 66,988 out of a total of 207,226 clients received interagency 

coordination. Key Indicator data does not identify the specific sectors or services to which clients 

received interagency coordination. However, information about the types of services in place at 

the start and end of an investigation is included in “Report 3: Case Component”.

One client per investigation

75.0%

Multiple clients per investigation

25.0%
4

KI-3 Clients by Case Closure Reason

FFY 2016 data submissions were based on cases closed during the federal fiscal year reporting 

period. Forty (40) states submitted case closure reason data. As shown in Exhibit KI-3 below, the 

highest three reasons states reported for closing a case were:

1. “Investigation Completed” (31 states (45%))

2. “Investigation Completed and Protective Services Case Completed” (24 states (36%)) 

3. “Other Closure Reason.” (15 states (7.4%))

Exhibit KI-3 also shows that two percent (2.7%) of states reported “unknown reasons” for case 

closures. The data value of “Other Closure Reason” indicates none of the data element values 

listed in NAMRS accurately describe how the state records closures of case closures. Some states 

provided comments for how they categorize case record closures including:

 Investigation or protective services case was closed because the client moved out of state

 Investigation or protective services case was closed because the client cannot be found

 Investigation or protective services case was closed because the client was incarcerated

 Administrative closure of case due to duplication or other errors

Exhibit KI- 2 Clients by Case Closure Reason

Clients by Case Closure Reason # of states 

selecting reason

Count % of Total 

(650,969)

Investigation Completed 31 293,047 45.0%

Investigation & Protective Services Case 

Completed 24 234,309 36.0%

Investigation Unable to Be Completed (NonSpecific) 18 17,359 2.7%

Investigation Unable to Be Completed Due to 

Death of Client During Investigation 12 5,141 0.8%

Investigation Unable to Be Completed Due to 

Refusal of Client 11 6,918 1.1%

Protective Services Case Opened but Not

Completed (Non-Specific) 10 3,453 0.5%

Protective Services Case Closed Due to Death of 

Client 13 3,320 0.5%

Protective Services Case Closed Due to Client 

Decision to Not Continue 15 21,839 3.4%

Other Closure Reason 15 48,263 7.4%

Unknown 11 17,320 2.7%
5

KI-4 Clients and Victims

In NAMRS, a client is considered a victim if at least one maltreatment allegation within an 

investigation has a substantiated disposition. Exhibit KI-4 shows 66.3% of client investigations of 

maltreatment(s) were not substantiated. Of the 645,853 clients, represented by 43 states, 33.7% 

of client investigations of maltreatment(s) were substantiated, thus the client is identified as a 

Victim.

Exhibit KI- 3 Clients and Victims

Clients

# of states 

that 

submitted

Count % of clients 

(645,853)

Clients with Substantiation Criteria Unmet 43 428,270 66.3%

Victims 43 217,583 33.7%

Clients with substantiation 

criteria unmet

66.3%

Victims

33.7%
6

KI-5 Victims by Age Groups

A state’s APS statute determines the age of potential clients for which the program will 

investigate reports of maltreatment. The most common eligibility age group is 18 and older. 

However, some states only investigate maltreatment allegations for persons 60 and older. Thirtyeight (38) states were able to report to NAMRS a total of 160,288 victims’ ages, and is illustrated 

in Exhibit KI-5. The highest average number of victims per year of age was within the 75-84 age 

group. The “Unknown” age group includes victims whose age was unknown or not disclosed. The 

top three age groupings of victims are: 

1. 75-84 years (22.8%)

2. 60-69 years (22.7%)

3. 85 years and older (14%)

Exhibit KI- 4 Victims by Age Group

Age Group # of States that

Submitted Count % of Victims (160,288)

Age 18-29 33 6,882 4.3%

Age 30-39 33 5,124 3.2%

Age 40-49 34 7,951 5.0%

Age 50-59 34 19,618 12.2%

Age 60-69 38 36,407 22.7%

Age 70-74 38 21,265 13.3%

Age 75-84 37 36,601 22.8%

Age 85+ 37 22,387 14.0%

Unknown 20 4,053 2.5%

4.3%

3.2%

5.0%

12.2%

22.7%

13.3%

22.8%

14.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Age 18-29

Age 30-39

Age 40-49

Age 50-59

Age 60-69

Age 70-74

Age 75-84

Age 85+
7

KI-6 Victims by Race

According to the FFY 2016 data reported on victims’ race, the greatest number of victims selfidentify as being white. NAMRS accepts multiple values for race for each individual. Ten of the

33 states reporting data on victim race reported multiple races per individual. NAMRS race and 

ethnicity demographic data are based upon how the data are collected by U.S. Census Bureau.

Exhibit KI-6 represents the race reported for a total of 147,219 victims. The race value of 

“Unknown” represents an unknown race or that the victim did not disclose the information.

Exhibit KI- 5 Victims by Race

Race

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Count % of Victims 

(147,219)

White 32 94,585 64.2%

Black or African American 33 26,048 17.7%

Other Race 21 2,998 2.0%

American Indian or Alaska Native 27 1,398 0.9%

Asian 28 935 0.6%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 21 210 0.1%

Unknown 28 22,047 15.0%

64.2%

17.7%

2.0%

0.9%

0.6%

0.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

White

Black or African American

Other Race

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
8

KI-7 Victims by Ethnicity

NAMRS ethnicity demographic data are based upon how the data are collected by U.S. Census 

Bureau. The options for ethnicity are (1) Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish and (2) Not Hispanic, 

Latino/a, or Spanish. Exhibit KI-7 reflects ethnicity data submitted by 28 states, for a total of 

122,889 victims. Based on data reported by 23 states, 56.5% of victims are not Hispanic, Latino,

or Spanish. Based on data reported by 27 states, 15.9% are Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. For 

27.6% of the victims, an inquiry was made as to the victim’s ethnicity but the ethnicity was 

unknown or not disclosed.

Exhibit KI- 6 Victims by Ethnicity

Ethnicity

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Count % of Victims 

(122,889)

Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 27 19,547 15.9%

Not Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 23 69,418 56.5%

Unknown 24 33,924 27.6%

Hispanic

15.9%

Not Hispanic

56.5%

Unknown

27.6%
9

KI-8 Victims by Gender Identity

Exhibit KI-8 reflects the number of victims whose gender identity was recorded by states. 

Reporting choices were: female, male, transgender, and gender unknown. The Unknown data 

value is used if the victim is not able or willing to provide their gender, or if the APS staff are 

unclear of the victim’s gender. The data for this element show that of the 38 states that could 

report this information, clients identifying as female were victims at a higher rate than those 

identifying as male, or 57.1% to 41.2%. A total of 163,827 victims are represented in the following 

exhibit. 

Exhibit KI- 7 Victims by Gender Identity

Note – Transgender not shown in chart above. See details in table below:

Gender Identity

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Count

% of 

Victims 

(163,827)

Male 38 67,575 41.2%

Female 38 93,473 57.1%

Transgender 2 5 0.003%

Unknown 21 2,774 1.7%

Male

41.2%

Female

57.1%

Unknown

1.7%
10

KI-9 Victim Characteristics

In NAMRS, a client is considered a victim if at least one maltreatment allegation within an 

investigation has the “substantiated” disposition, meaning the allegation of mistreatment is 

supported under state law and/or APS policy. Exhibit KI-9 provides the aggregate count of victims 

with some victim characteristics, as reported by the states, and the counts of victims that receive

public benefits and/or services. Although the percentage of victims with these characteristics 

seems high, it’s important to note that fewer than 1/3 of the reporting jurisdictions were able to 

report on these data elements.

Exhibit KI- 8 Victim Characteristics

Data Element

# of states 

that 

submitted

# of 

victims 

submitted 

by states

# of victims 

with 

characteristic

% of victims 

with 

characteristic

Victims Receiving Benefits 9 32,165 15,200 47.3%

Victims with Disabilities 21 110,046 62,227 56.5%

Victims with Behavioral 

Conditions 11 78,224 21,481 27.5%

Victims with Guardian or 

Conservator 7 19,917 246 1.2%

Victims Who Received or Were 

Referred for Services 21 69,742 34,843 50.0%

KI-10 Maltreatment Types Among Victims

Each state has distinct statutes and policies guiding the various factors that contribute to the type 

of maltreatment that is accepted for investigation. States also differ in the criteria by which APS 

makes a determination of the allegation. Some states “substantiate” an allegation of 

maltreatment, usually meaning that APS has determined, through an investigation, that the 

allegation is true (or most likely true). Some state APS programs do not determine if an allegation 

is true or not, they do not “substantiate”, but rather APS is only authorized to assess if the person 

is “at-risk” or in need of services. Another distinction between APS programs is that not every 

state investigates reports of all of these maltreatment types.

Exhibit KI-10 includes data on maltreatment type by victim submitted by 43 states, representing 

a total of 217,583 victims. Victims may have one or more maltreatment types. In FFY 2016, the 

highest percentage, 63.9%, of reported maltreatment type was Self-Neglect. The ACL National 

Voluntary Consensus Guidelines for APS systems and NAMRS define self-neglect as an adult’s 

inability, due to physical or mental impairment or diminished capacity, to perform essential selfcare tasks including:
11

1. obtaining essential food, clothing, shelter, and medical care

2. obtaining goods and services necessary to maintain physical health, mental health, or 

general safety

3. managing one’s own financial affairs1

Self-neglect among adults is one of the most challenging aspects of adult protective service work. 

Adults, who have not been adjudicated incompetent by a court of law, have the right to make 

their own decisions about their life, medical care, finances, and home, even if others would not 

make the same choices. Investigating allegations of self-neglect is difficult for APS. In some 

states, self-neglect is not a maltreatment type that APS is authorized to investigate. Adults who 

are reported as self-neglecting have the right to refuse assistance from others, including APS. At 

a minimum, most states have provisions for APS to work with individuals who are reported as 

self-neglecting if the individual is deemed to lack capacity or cannot consent to services

The second highest reported type of maltreatment, at 16.5%, was Neglect. NAMRS defines

neglect as: “the failure of a caregiver or fiduciary to provide the goods or services necessary to 

maintain the health or safety of a person. Includes acts of omission and of commission; includes 

willful deprivation, etc.”

The third highest maltreatment type was Financial Exploitation. Twenty-nine (29) states reported 

11% of victims’ maltreatment type was classified as financial exploitation. NAMRS defines

financial exploitation as “Illegal or improper use of an individual’s funds, property, or assets for 

another’s profit or advantage.” Another 2.4% of states identified “exploitation non-specific) as a 

maltreatment type. This means that in those states, different types of “exploitation” may be 

grouped under the one type, such as exploitation of the person and financial exploitation.

Reasons for “Unknown” values may include: (1) recorded as “Unknown” in state reporting system 

or staff were not able to determine; and (2) data records submitted to NAMRS did not contain 

the information, presumably because the information was not collected.

 

1 Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Final National Voluntary 

Consensus Guidelines for States Adult Protective Services Systems, September 2016.
12

Exhibit KI- 9 Maltreatment Types Among Victims

Please Note - Categories less than 1% and “Unknown” are not shown in the chart 

above. See details in table below.

Maltreatment Types # of States that 

Submitted Count % of Victims (217,583)

Self-Neglect 39 138,929 63.9%

Neglect 41 35,972 16.5%

Financial Exploitation 29 24,005 11.0%

Emotional Abuse 32 22,900 10.5%

Physical Abuse 42 18,920 8.7%

Other Type 14 15,410 7.1%

Exploitation (non-specific) 16 5,167 2.4%

Other Exploitation 9 3,245 1.5%

Abandonment 12 1,278 0.6%

Sexual Abuse 34 1,380 0.6%

Suspicious Death 2 40 0.02%

Unknown 3 222 0.1%

63.9%

16.5%

11.0%

10.5%

8.7%

7.1%

2.4%

1.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Self-Neglect

Neglect

Financial Exploitation

Emotional Abuse

Physical Abuse

Other Type

Exploitation (non-specific)

Other Exploitation
13

KI-11 Perpetrators by Age Groups

Age groupings for perpetrators are the same as those for victims, except for the addition of Age 

17 and younger. Twenty-six states submitted data with a total of 91,986 perpetrators 

represented. As with victims, age was reported by category. Therefore, comparisons between 

categories must take into account the number of perpetrators per year represented (i.e., average 

number of perpetrators per year of age). Exhibit KI-11 below shows the top three age groupings 

for perpetrators are 60-69 years, 75-84 years, and 50-59 years, but the highest average number 

of perpetrators per year of age was for the 60-69 and 70-74 age groups. Twenty-six states (26) 

were able to report the age of perpetrators. The age group of “Unknown” represents unknown 

age or that the victim did not disclose the information.

Exhibit KI- 10 Perpetrators by Age Groups

Age Group # of States that 

Submitted Count % of Perpetrators (91,986)

Age 17 or younger 10 1,689 1.8%

Age 18-29 26 4,681 5.1%

Age 30-39 26 5,216 5.7%

Age 40-49 26 7,616 8.3%

Age 50-59 25 14,258 15.5%

Age 60-69 26 18,872 20.5%

Age 70-74 22 9,140 9.9%

Age 75-84 23 14,761 16.0%

Age 85+ 19 7,919 8.6%

Unknown 22 7,834 8.5%

1.8%

5.1%

5.7%

8.3%

15.5%

20.5%

9.9%

16.0%

8.6%

8.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Age 17 or younger

Age 18-29

Age 30-39

Age 40-49

Age 50-59

Age 60-69

Age 70-74

Age 75-84

Age 85+

Unknown
14

KI-12 Perpetrators by Gender Identity

Thirty states (30) reported the perpetrators’ gender identity, with 107,754 perpetrators 

represented. Within these states, 52.4% of perpetrators identified asfemale, 41.3% as male, and

for 6.2% the gender identity is unknown. “Unknown gender” means that the perpetrator did not 

provide their gender identity or it was not obvious to the APS staff. Of note, some states 

categorize victims of self-neglect as “perpetrator”. The data in Exhibit KI-12 does not 

differentiate the self-neglect maltreatment type from the other maltreatment types. However, 

“Report 3: Case Component” includes information on how many victims with self-neglect 

substantiation are also the perpetrator based on the state’s definition of perpetrator.

Exhibit KI- 11 Perpetrators by Gender Identity

Note – Transgender not shown in chart above. See details in table below.

Gender Identity # of states that 

submitted Count

% of 

perpetrators 

(107,754)

Male 30 44,548 41.3%

Female 30 56,505 52.4%

Transgender - - -

Unknown 26 6,701 6.2%

Male

41.3%

Female

52.4%

Unknown

6.2%
End of NAMRS FFY 2016 Report 2: Key Indicators

For more information about NAMRS please direct inquiries to ACL 

Program Officer Stephanie Whittier Eliason

KI-13 Perpetrator Relationship to Victim

Exhibit KI-13 illustrates the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim, for those states that were 

able to report this data. Three data points were reported, if known: (1) perpetrators who had a 

kinship relationship to the victim, (2) perpetrators who had a non-kinship association to the 

victim, and (3) perpetrators where APS recommended a legal remedy for the victim against the 

perpetrator. These data elements and values are defined in Appendix A: Data Element and Value 

Definitions.

Exhibit KI- 12 Perpetrator Relationship to Victim

Data Element

# of states 

that 

submitted

# of 

perpetrators 

submitted 

by states

# of 

perpetrators 

with 

characteristic

% of 

perpetrators

Perpetrators with Kinship 

Relationship 31 107,006 26,032 24.3%

Perpetrators with Association to 

Victim 13 26,018 11,140 42.8%

Perpetrators with Legal Remedy 

Recommendations 5 13,124 3,139 23.9%