NAMRS FFY 2017

Report 3: Case Component

September 27, 2018
Suggested Citation

Aurelien, G., Beatrice, M., Cannizzo, J., Capehart, A., Gassoumis, Z., Ph.D., Greene, M. (2018). 

NAMRS FFY2017 Report 3: Case Component. Submitted to the Administration of Community 

Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Disclaimer

The National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System and the Adult Protective Services Technical 

Resource Center is a project (HHSP 233201500042I) of the U.S. Administration for Community 

Living, Administration on Aging, Department of Health and Human Services, administered by 

WRMA, Inc., a TriMetrix Company. The contractor’s findings, conclusions, and points of view 

do not necessarily represent official policy of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, 

Administration on Aging, Department of Health and Human Services.

Acknowledgements

The Administration for Community Living gratefully acknowledges the voluntary submission of 

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

Columbia, and territories. We appreciate the support of Adult Protective Services staff, 

supervisors, and program administrators, whose efforts resulted in near-universal submission of 

Federal Fiscal Year 2017 data to the National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component i

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................III

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

CASE COMPONENT DATA...................................................................................................... 3

DS-1 STATE COMPONENT SUBMISSIONS...................................................................................... 3

CASE COMPONENT – INVESTIGATIONS......................................................................................... 3

IN-1 Investigation - Records Submission................................................................................ 3

IN-2a Investigations - Report Source ..................................................................................... 4

IN-2b Investigations - Multiple Report Sources ..................................................................... 6

IN-2c Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Report Source........................... 6

IN-3a Investigations - Duration.............................................................................................. 7

IN-3b Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Duration................................... 8

CASE COMPONENT – CLIENTS...................................................................................................... 9

CL-1 Client Record Submission.............................................................................................. 9

CL-2 Clients - Maltreatment Setting..................................................................................... 10

CL-3a Clients - Case Closure Reason .................................................................................. 11

CL-3b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Case Closure Reason ...................... 12

CL-4a Clients - Age Group................................................................................................... 13

CL-4b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group ....................................... 14

CL-5a Clients - Gender Identity ........................................................................................... 15

CL-5b Clients - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity ................................ 16

Clients - Sexual Orientation.................................................................................................. 17

CL-6a Clients - Race............................................................................................................. 17

CL-6b Clients - Multiple Races............................................................................................. 18

CL-7 Clients - Ethnicity ........................................................................................................ 18

CL-8a Clients - Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................. 19

CL-8b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity ................................. 20

CL-9 Clients - Primary Language ........................................................................................ 21

CL-10 Clients - Schooling Level........................................................................................... 22

CL-11a Clients - Marital Status............................................................................................ 23

CL-11b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Marital Status................................ 24

CL-12 Clients - Employment Status...................................................................................... 25

CL-13 Clients - Income Level ............................................................................................... 26

CL-14a Clients - Benefits...................................................................................................... 26

CL-14b Clients - Multiple Benefits....................................................................................... 27

CL-15 Clients - Veteran Status............................................................................................. 28

CL-16a Clients - Disabilities................................................................................................ 28

CL-16b Clients - Multiple Disabilities.................................................................................. 29

CL-16c Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Disabilities..................................... 30

CL-17 Clients - ADL and IADL Score .................................................................................. 31

CL-18a Clients - Behavioral Health Conditions .................................................................. 32

CL-18b Clients - Multiple Behavioral Health Conditions.................................................... 34

CL-19 Clients - Living Settings at Start and Close............................................................... 34
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component ii

CL-20a Clients - Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close......................................... 35

CL-20b Clients - Multiple Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close .......................... 36

CL-21a Clients - Services at Start ........................................................................................ 36

CL-21b Clients - Multiple Services at Start.......................................................................... 38

CL-22a Clients - Services Provided by APS......................................................................... 38

CL-22b Clients - Multiple Services Provided by APS .......................................................... 40

CL-23a Clients - Services Referred ...................................................................................... 40

CL-23b Clients - Multiple Services Referred........................................................................ 42

CL-24a Clients - Services at Close ....................................................................................... 43

CL-24b Clients - Multiple Services at Close......................................................................... 44

CL-25a Clients - Interagency Coordination......................................................................... 45

CL-25b Clients - Multiple Interagency Coordination .......................................................... 46

CL-26a Clients - Previous Reports....................................................................................... 47

CL-26b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Previous Report............................. 47

CASE COMPONENT - MALTREATMENT ALLEGATIONS................................................................ 48

MA-1 Maltreatment Allegation Record Submission ............................................................. 48

MA-2 Maltreatment Allegation - Types and Dispositions.................................................... 49

MA-3 Maltreatment Allegation - Multiple Substantiation.................................................... 49

CASE COMPONENT – PERPETRATORS......................................................................................... 50

PR-1 Perpetrator Record Submission................................................................................... 50

PR-2a Perpetrators - Age Group.......................................................................................... 51

PR-2b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group............................... 52

PR-3a Perpetrators - Gender Identity .................................................................................. 52

PR-3b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity ....................... 53

PR-4a Perpetrators - Race.................................................................................................... 54

PR-4b Perpetrators - Multiple Races ................................................................................... 55

PR-5 Perpetrators - Ethnicity ............................................................................................... 56

PR-6a Perpetrators - Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................... 56

PR-6b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity......................... 57

PR-7a Perpetrators - Disabilities......................................................................................... 58

PR-7b Perpetrators - Multiple Disabilities........................................................................... 59

PR-8a Perpetrators - Behavioral Health Conditions ........................................................... 60

PR-8b Perpetrators - Multiple Behavioral Health Conditions............................................. 61

CASE COMPONENT - CLIENT-PERPETRATOR RELATIONSHIPS .................................................... 61

CPR-1 Client-Perpetrator Relationship Record Submission................................................ 61

CPR-2 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Cohabitation ..................................................... 62

CPR-3 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Kinship Relationship......................................... 63

CPR-4 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Association at Start....................... 64

CPR-5 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Association at Close...................... 65

Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Substitute Decision Maker........................ 66

CPR-6a Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Legal Remedy Recommendations 66

CPR-6b Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Multiple Perpetrator Legal Remedy 

Recommendations................................................................................................................. 67
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 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 2017, 55 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. States choose to submit Agency Component only or 

Agency Component and either Key Indicators Component or Case Component. 

Much information can be gleaned from reviewing the initial year of NAMRS data submissions in 

conjunction with the FFY 2017 data. Both years’ reports can be accessed on ACL’s NAMRS site.

 NAMRS 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. 

 Report 1: Agency Component: This report provides highlights of APS agency profile 

information and investigation data, including statutes, policies and procedures;

investigative practices; data systems; intake processes; staffing; training; and client 

assessments.

 Report 2: Key Indicators Component: This report consists of aggregated data on key 

statistics of investigations and victims, clients, and perpetrators provided by states that 

are unable to provide case-level data. 

 Report 3: Case Component: This report consists of case level data on investigations, 

client, maltreatment allegations, perpetrator, and client-perpetrator relationship. 

A final note on limitations of the FFY 2016 and FFY2017 data reports. For 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. 

No state could provide all Case Component, nor all Key Indicator Component data elements, and 

no two states reported on all of the same data elements. Data contained in the exhibit tables will 

not always total 100%. Agency and Key Indicator Components 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.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 1

Introduction

The National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System (NAMRS) Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 

Case Component report offers an overview of case-level data pertaining to investigations, clients, 

victims, maltreatment allegations, perpetrators, and client perpetrator relationships. The FFY2017 

reporting period was October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 and was reported in calendar 

year 2018. 

The NAMRS Case Component has 54 data elements. Additionally, this report provides cross 

tabulations of Case Component data elements for victims with a substantiated maltreatment type. 

Three key definitions for client, victim, and perpetrator are as follows: (a) a client is a person who 

received an investigation regarding a report of alleged maltreatment; (b) a victim is a person who 

received an investigation and one or more of the alleged maltreatments were substantiated; and (c) 

a perpetrator is the person associated with the substantiated maltreatment.

Since this is a new national reporting system, in its second year of data collection, explanations 

are provided showing how many states submitted information, the percentage of individual data 

elements provided, and limitations discovered when reviewing data. NAMRS was developed to 

allow maximum flexibility to decrease state reporting burden. 

This Case Component report contains case-level data from 26 states. Clients and perpetrators are 

assigned encrypted, de-identified numbers and no personal identifiable information is collected. 

The data elements are individually identified with a narrative and data table. Data contained in the 

exhibit tables will not always total 100%, as states may select multiple data values for certain data 

elements. Data graphs or charts are also included for almost all exhibits. 

A review of data comparisons was conducted between the two reporting years and the differences 

were negligible. The factors of additional states reporting Case Component and submitting more 

data elements and data values contributed to the small differences in data between reporting years. 

Selecting which states to use in reporting Case Component characteristics required balancing the 

desire to report as much of the submitted information as possible, with the need to avoid presenting 

results based on incomplete information. When case records have a large amount of missing 

information, the reader is cautioned about drawing incorrect conclusions or interpretations. The 

total number of records and the number of records that contain the data element are described in 

the narratives.

For the review of data, misinterpretation is harder to avoid when presenting cross tabulations of 

data elements with considerable amounts of missing information. To minimize the potential of 

presenting biased data, we used a general rule to only present results on a given data element for 

states that submitted information for at least 75% of records. However, exceptions to this rule were 

made for certain data elements. The exceptions are made when it is the norm for information to be 

recorded in data systems only when the characteristic is present and not recorded when it is absent. 

The number of data elements submitted, and the completeness of each record vary across the 26 

states reporting Case Component. This report contains information for each data element even 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 2

when there may be only a few states providing the data. Sharing information about the evolution 

of the data collected and reported is relevant to the adaptation of a new data system. 

This report includes cross tabulations of select data elements with maltreatment type. These cross 

tabulations are only presented for maltreatment types that have been substantiated, as differences 

are expected to exist between cases that involve substantiated versus unsubstantiated maltreatment. 

The data elements selected for these cross tabulations were based on the availability of the data 

element across several states. To enhance the readability of some exhibits, some data element 

categories were combined, such as the three types of Exploitation: Exploitation (Non-Specific), 

Financial Exploitation, and Other Exploitation.

States and individuals were excluded from individual data elements’ cross tabulations for three 

specific reasons:

1. If 25% or more of the records had missing/unknown values for that data element. 

2. Apparent inconsistencies for a data element. 

3. Some states record self-neglecters as being both the client and the perpetrator, however, 

this practice is far from universal. To avoid confusion, perpetrators were excluded from the 

review if their only substantiated maltreatment type was Self-Neglect. For cross tabulations 

of perpetrator characteristics, data are not presented for Self-Neglect.

An increase in the number of states reporting Case Component and in the reporting of additional 

data elements and values indicates steady progress from FFY2016 to FFY2017. We applaud the 

work of the states in their continued advancement of data collection and reporting of data to 

NAMRS.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 3

Case Component Data

DS-1 State Component Submissions

Fifty-five states submitted the Agency Component. The second decision for states was whether to 

submit Key Indicator Component or Case Component data. States could submit Case Component

data if their automated information system allowed for extraction of investigation specific caselevel data. 

“Exhibit DS-1 State Component Submission FFY2016-FFY2017” provides details on how many 

states submitted each component in FFY2016 and FFY2017. In FFY2016, 24 states submitted 

Agency Component and Case Component, 20 states reported Agency Component and Key 

Indicators Component, ten states provided Agency Component only, and two states did not 

participate. In FFY2017, 26 states provided Agency Component and Case Component. Twentyone states provided Agency Component and Key Indicators Component. Eight states provided 

Agency Component only. Only one state was unable to participate.

Exhibit DS-1 State Component Submission FFY2016-FFY2017

Component # of States that Submitted

(2016)

# of States that Submitted

(2017)

Did Not Participate 2 1

Agency Only 10 8

Agency and Key Indicators 20 21

Agency and Case 24 26

Case Component – Investigations

IN-1 Investigation - Records Submission

Case Component submissions of investigation records by 26 states are shown in “Exhibit IN-1 

Investigation Records Submission FFY2017.” A total of 356,566 records were submitted in 

FFY2017. NAMRS analytical conventions require that states submit records with an Investigation 

Identification and Case Closure Date; therefore, 100% of records included these two data elements. 

In addition, 99.9% included a Report Date, 95.8% provided an Investigation Start Date, and 71% 

reported an Investigation Disposition Date. Twenty states were able to provide the Report Source 

and 19 states provided the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Code of the 

Investigative Agency.1

 

1 Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_codes.html#fips. The Census Bureau and other 

federal agencies assign codes to geographic entities to facilitate the organization, presentation, and exchange of 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 4

Exhibit IN-1 Investigation Records Submission FFY2017

Data Element # of States # of 

Records 

# of 

Records 

with Data

Element

% of 

Records 

with Data

% of Total 

Records 

(N=356,566)

Investigation ID 26 356,566 356,566 100.0% 100.0%

Case Closure Date 26 356,566 356,566 100.0% 100.0%

Report Date 26 356,566 356,164 99.9% 99.9%

Investigation Start Date 25 343,013 341,612 99.6% 95.8%

Report Source 20 310,895 264,783 85.2% 74.3%

Investigation Disposition Date 21 272,495 253,078 92.9% 71.0%

FIPS Code of Investigative 

Agency 19 248,347 244,746 98.6% 68.6%

IN-2a Investigations - Report Source 

Twenty states reported at least one report source per record (representing 310,895 records of 

356,566 total investigation records). “Exhibit IN-2a Investigations-Report Source FFY2017” lists 

the possible roles or professions of the person who made the report of the suspected adult 

maltreatment. States may include more than one report source for an investigation therefore, the 

data table percentages will not equal 100%. The top three report sources were Social Services 

Professional (15.8%), Medical or Health Professional (15.4%), Other Professional (13.7%) and 

None or Unknown (14.8%). Reasons for None or Unknown values may include: anonymous 

reporters, recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and 

data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably because the information 

was not collected.

 

statistical data and other information. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes are assigned 

alphabetically by geographic name for states, counties, core based statistical areas, places, county subdivisions, 

consolidated cities and all types of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 5

Exhibit IN-2a Investigations-Report Source FFY2017

Categories less than 3% not shown. None and Unknown not shown.

Report Sources among Investigations

# of States 

that 

Submitted

# of Report 

Sources

% of 

Investigations 

(N=310,895)

Social Services Professional 19 49,122 15.8%

Medical or Health Professional 17 47,801 15.4%

Other Professional 19 42,485 13.7%

Relative 19 35,774 11.5%

Law/Judicial/Legal Professional 20 21,674 7.0%

Self 17 19,025 6.1%

Neighbor/Friend/Nonrelative/Nonprofessional 20 17,110 5.5%

In-Home Caregiver 17 12,435 4.0%

Mental/Behavioral Health Professional 16 8,745 2.8%

Nursing Home Staff 13 8,213 2.6%

Financial Professional 13 6,859 2.2%

Residential Care Community Staff 11 4,030 1.3%

Education Professional 7 1,277 0.4%

Substitute Decision Maker 12 629 0.2%

None 17 23,264 7.5%

Unknown 15 22,848 7.3%

15.8%

15.4%

13.7%

11.5%

7.0%

6.1%

5.5%

4.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Social Services

Professional

Medical or Health

Professional

Other Professional

Relative

Law/Judicial/Legal

Professional

Self

Neighbor/Friend/

Nonrelative/Nonprofessional

In-Home Caregiver
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 6

IN-2b Investigations - Multiple Report Sources

Adult protective services programs may receive the same report of alleged maltreatment of the 

same person by different reporters. “Exhibit IN-2b Investigations - Multiple Report Sources

FFY2017” indicates the number of investigations with multiple report sources. Most 

investigations, 82.2%, included only one report source while 14.8% did not include a report source.

Exhibit IN-2b Investigations - Multiple Report Sources FFY2017

Investigations with Multiple Report 

Sources # of States # of Investigations

% of 

Investigations 

(N=310,895)

No Report Source Submitted 20 46,112 14.8%

Only 1 Report Source 20 255,419 82.2%

2 Report Sources 9 8,591 2.8%

3 Or More Report Sources 7 773 0.2%

IN-2c Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Report Source

“Exhibit IN-2c Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Report Source FFY2017” 

presents data submitted by 14 states representing 91,075 investigations, first for all substantiated

investigations and then for all investigations containing each type of substantiated maltreatment. 

Note that an investigation may include substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which 

case that investigation would be included in the column of every type of maltreatment that was 

substantiated. Also, each investigation can be reported by multiple report sources, so the 

percentages in each column may add up to more than 100%. This cross tabulation excludes four 

states’ records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). Health/Social 

Services Professionals were the most frequent reporters among all substantiated investigations 

(42.4%) and for investigations that involved each type of substantiated maltreatment, including 

Sexual Abuse (52.6%), Neglect (49.5%), and Physical Abuse (47.1%).

Exhibit IN-2c Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Report Source FFY2017

Report Source

All Substantiated 

Investigations

Abandonment

Emotional 

Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

Self or Substitute Decision 

Maker 8.3% 11.1% 9.9% 5.5% 2.0% 5.3% 3.0% 9.3% 4.7%

Relative 12.5% 9.6% 16.2% 16.2% 11.5% 9.2% 2.8% 12.7% 11.0%

Neighbor, Friend, Other 

Nonrelative/Nonprofessional 5.4% 10.2% 4.8% 6.1% 4.5% 3.6% 1.3% 5.8% 7.0%

In-Home Caregiver 5.0% 3.0% 3.4% 2.9% 3.7% 2.5% 1.3% 5.5% 3.5%

Health/Social Services 

Professional 42.2% 36.8% 39.2% 29.2% 49.5% 47.1% 52.6% 42.4% 43.4%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 7

Report Source

All Substantiated 

Investigations

Abandonment

Emotional 

Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

Other Professional 13.5% 12.6% 16.4% 26.2% 14.8% 20.4% 26.6% 11.4% 21.0%

Multiple Report Sources 2.1% 0.3% 0.6% 3.9% 5.2% 3.3% 4.8% 1.7% 0.7%

None 3.9% 16.2% 4.0% 4.1% 3.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 8.4%

Unknown 7.0% 0.1% 5.7% 5.8% 4.9% 5.6% 4.7% 7.7% 0.2%

Total 91,075 791 5,492 7,725 8,334 5,266 538 69,472 3,508

IN-3a Investigations - Duration

Investigation duration is defined as the time from case opening to case closure. State APS program 

policies and procedures for the opening and closing of investigation records varies by number of 

business or calendar days, number of days based on the maltreatment type, and review of case 

record by a supervisor. “Exhibit IN-3a Investigations - Duration FFY2017” displays information 

from 26 states (356,566 investigation records submitted with 356,164 records that included 

duration). About one third (31.5%) of investigations were closed within 31-60 days of receipt of

the report, and 13.6% were closed within 61-90 days of the receipt of the report. Only a small 

portion (1.7%) of investigations were closed after one year.

Exhibit IN-3a Investigations - Duration FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

1.9%

8.0%

8.8%

17.8%

31.5%

13.6%

12.3%

4.5%

1.7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Less Than 1 Day

1-7 Days

8-14 Days

15-30 Days

31-60 Days

61-90 Days

91-180 Days

181-365 Days

More than 365 Days
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 8

Investigation 

Duration

# of 

States 

# of 

Investigations

% of Investigations 

(N=356,164)

Less Than 1 Day 21 6,596 1.9%

1-7 Days 26 28,553 8.0%

8-14 Days 26 31,243 8.8%

15-30 Days 26 63,364 17.8%

31-60 Days 26 112,166 31.5%

61-90 Days 26 48,397 13.6%

91-180 Days 26 43,781 12.3%

181-365 Days 26 16,000 4.5%

More Than 365 Days 22 6,064 1.7%

Unknown 5 402 0.1%

IN-3b Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Duration

“Exhibit IN-3b Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Duration FFY2017” presents 

data submitted by 24 states representing 112,857 investigations, first for all substantiated 

investigations and then for all investigations containing each type of substantiated maltreatment. 

Note that an investigation may include substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which 

case that investigation would be included in the column of every type of maltreatment that was 

substantiated. The most frequent duration was 31-60 days among all substantiated investigations 

(32.6%) and for investigations that involved substantiated Abandonment (51.5%), Other Type 

(40.7%), Self-Neglect (33.6%), Exploitation (32.0%), Neglect (28.6%), Physical Abuse (27.2%), 

and Emotional Abuse (24.3%).

Exhibit IN-3b Investigations - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Duration FFY2017 Investigation Duration All Substantiated Investigations Abandonment Emotional 

AbuseExploitationNeglectPhysical AbuseSexual AbuseSelf-NeglectOther Type

14 Days or Fewer 12.9% 11.5% 17.3% 10.6% 15.2% 20.7% 30.4% 11.0% 18.9%

15-30 Days 15.6% 13.4% 20.7% 16.9% 15.9% 18.2% 21.8% 14.6% 11.0%

31-60 Days 32.6% 51.5% 24.3% 32.0% 28.6% 27.2% 21.8% 33.6% 40.7%

61-90 Days 16.2% 16.4% 13.2% 12.6% 13.2% 12.8% 9.0% 17.5% 18.3%

91 Days or More 22.6% 7.3% 24.3% 27.6% 26.6% 20.8% 16.7% 23.2% 11.1%

Unknown 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 112,857 828 6,631 12,290 11,946 6,709 687 82,245 4,272
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 9

Case Component – Clients

CL-1 Client Record Submission

Twenty-six states submitted 361,185 client records. The one required data element was a unique 

client identification. States varied in their ability to submit other data elements. “Exhibit CL-1 

Client Record Submission FFY2017” displays summary information about the client data and 

subsequent exhibits provide detail on each data element.

Exhibit CL-1 Client Record Submission FFY2017

Data Element

# of States 

that 

Submitted

# of Records 

from States

# of 

Records 

with Data

% of 

Records 

from States 

with Data

% of Total 

Records 

(N=361,185)

Client ID 26 361,185 361,185 100.0% 100.0%

Gender Identity 26 361,185 353,281 97.8% 97.8%

Age 26 361,185 349,556 96.8% 96.8%

Case Closure Reason 23 336,127 329,104 97.9% 91.1%

Race 24 359,231 283,738 79.0% 78.6%

Previous Report 14 287,371 273,788 95.3% 75.8%

Primary Language 16 286,604 249,984 87.2% 69.2%

FIPS Code of Client Residence 16 247,852 227,169 91.7% 62.9%

Ethnicity 20 335,460 201,120 60.0% 55.7%

Marital Status 18 243,637 153,917 63.2% 42.6%

Living Setting at Close 11 204,194 160,812 78.8% 44.5%

Disabilities 15 237,828 139,978 58.9% 38.8%

Living Setting at Start 13 138,864 112,009 80.7% 31.0%

Maltreatment Setting 12 93,641 74,124 79.2% 20.5%

Behavioral Health Screenings 9 192,262 53,173 27.7% 14.7%

Benefits 9 100,638 47,770 47.5% 13.2%

Services Referred 11 102,425 46,516 45.4% 12.9%

Veteran Status 10 70,076 41,931 59.8% 11.6%

Services at Start 8 81,146 38,511 47.5% 10.7%

Income Level 8 57,729 27,735 48.0% 7.7%

Services APS 8 98,413 27,053 27.5% 7.5%

Services at Close 6 76,883 25,273 32.9% 7.0%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 10

Data Element

# of States 

that 

Submitted

# of Records 

from States

# of 

Records 

with Data

% of 

Records 

from States 

with Data

% of Total 

Records 

(N=361,185)

Schooling Level 8 56,347 18,198 32.3% 5.0%

ADL Score 1 18,921 14,980 79.2% 4.1%

IADL Score 1 18,921 14,869 78.6% 4.1%

Employment Status 5 47,592 11,632 24.4% 3.2%

Interagency Coordination 9 86,993 17,622 20.3% 4.9%

Substitute Decision Makers at Start 7 67,627 10,445 15.4% 2.9%

Substitute Decision Makers at 

Close 6 84,775 3,889 4.6% 1.1%

Sexual Orientation 1 17,365 610 3.5% 0.2%

CL-2 Clients - Maltreatment Setting

Twelve states provided 93,641 client records on maltreatment setting in FFY2017. “Exhibit CL-2 

Clients - Maltreatment Setting FFY2017” provides information about the location where the 

alleged maltreatment occurred. By far the highest category was maltreatment in the client’s own 

residence or private residence of a relative or caregiver at 67.2%. Other Setting was the second 

highest percentage at 4.3%. Unknown was reported for 20.8% of the client records. Reasons for 

Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not 

able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably 

because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CL-2 Clients - Maltreatment Setting FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

67.2%

4.3%

2.9%

1.8%

1.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Own/Private Residence

of Client/Caregiver

Other Setting

Nursing Home

(Non-Specific)

Residential Care Community

(Non-Specific)

Licensed Nursing Home
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 11

Clients by Maltreatment Setting # of States that 

Submitted

Maltreatment 

Setting Count

% of Clients 

(N=93,641)

Own/Private Residence of Client/Caregiver 12 62,966 67.2%

Other Setting 10 4,064 4.3%

Nursing Home (Non-Specific) 9 2,738 2.9%

Residential Care Community (Non-Specific) 9 1,668 1.8%

Licensed Nursing Home 4 1,425 1.5%

Place of Business or Other Services 6 696 0.7%

Licensed Residential Care Community 6 355 0.4%

Unlicensed Residential Care Community 3 62 0.1%

Unlicensed Nursing Home 2 57 0.1%

Adult Day Services Center (Non-Specific) 5 67 0.1%

Licensed Adult Day Services Center 2 26 0.03%

Unlicensed Adult Day Services Center 0 0 0.00%

Unknown 12 19,517 20.8%

CL-3a Clients - Case Closure Reason

Nineteen states submitted 336,127 client records of which 329,104 records included a closure 

reason in FFY2017. Many state APS programs provide protective services to address the 

maltreatment before closing a case. APS programs may offer a range of short- or long-term 

services to clients or refer them for services provided by other organizations. In a few states, APS 

clients can refuse an investigation if they have capacity; in most states, APS clients can refuse 

services if they have not been adjudicated incompetent by a court of law. If a client did not receive 

protective services to address maltreatment, they were reported as Investigation Completed or 

Investigation Not Completed. If both investigative and protective services were provided to the 

victim or “at-risk” client, their case would be reported as Investigative/Protective Services 

Completed or Protective Services Closed/Not Completed. “Exhibit CL-3a Clients - Case Closure 

Reason FFY2017” provides the reasons for closure of a client’s case. 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 12

Exhibit CL-3a Clients - Case Closure Reason FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

Clients by Closure Reason

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Case Closure 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=336,127)

Investigation Completed 19 168,081 50.0%

Investigation/Protective Services Completed 19 98,546 29.3%

Other Closure Reason 13 24,088 7.2%

Investigation Not Completed (Non-Specific) 13 16,327 4.9%

Investigation Not Completed (Client Refusal) 9 6,757 2.0%

Investigation Not Completed (Client Death) 9 4,892 1.5%

Protective Services Closed (Client Decision) 12 5,636 1.7%

Protective Services Not Completed (Non-Specific) 6 1,657 0.5%

Protective Services Closed (Client Death) 8 3,120 0.9%

Unknown 13 7,023 2.1%

CL-3b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Case Closure Reason

“Exhibit CL-3b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Case Closure Reason Type

FFY2017” presents data submitted by 21 states representing 105,811 victims, first for all 

substantiated victims and then for all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. Note that 

a victim may have substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim 

would be included in the column of every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. The most 

50.0%

29.3%

7.2%

4.9%

2.0%

1.5%

1.7%

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

Investigation Completed

Investigation/Protective

Services Completed

Other Closure Reason

Investigation Not Completed

(Non-Specific)

Investigation Not Completed

(Client Refusal)

Investigation Not Completed

(Client Death)

Protective Services Closed

(Client Decision)
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 13

frequent case closure reason was Investigation/Services Completed among all substantiated 

victims (80.0%) and for victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment, including Self-Neglect 

(81.6%), Exploitation (76.9%), and Physical Abuse (76.5%).

Exhibit CL-3b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Case Closure Reason FFY2017 Case Closure Reason All Substantiated Investigations Abandonment Emotional abuse Exploitation Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Self-Neglect Other Type

Investigation/Services 

Completed 80.0% 73.4% 67.2% 76.9% 75.0% 76.5% 75.9% 81.6% 66.4%

Investigation/Services 

Incomplete at 

Request/Refusal of Client

7.3% 1.6% 12.4% 6.3% 4.5% 8.5% 5.6% 7.8% 4.7%

Investigation/Services 

Incomplete/Client Death 3.2% 1.7% 1.2% 2.2% 4.5% 1.3% 0.5% 3.5% 2.0%

Investigation/Services 

Incomplete, Other 1.8% 5.2% 0.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 1.8% 6.1%

Other Reason 7.1% 18.2% 18.4% 11.8% 13.6% 11.6% 17.1% 4.9% 20.1%

Unknown 0.5% - 0.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7%

Total 105,811 830 6,231 11,525 10,590 6,196 626 78,396 3,521

CL-4a Clients - Age Group

Twenty-six states submitted 361,185 records of which 349,556 included the data element. “Exhibit 

CL-4a Clients - Age Group FFY2017” displays data on the age of clients. The largest age group 

for clients was 75-84 years (21.3%); the second largest age group was the 60-69 age group 

(20.2%); and the third highest was the 85+ age group (14.6%). Because not all age groups 

encompass the same number of years (e.g., 70-74 is only five years), the largest age groups do not 

necessarily have the highest concentration of clients per year of age. The age for 3.2% of the client 

records was unknown. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state 

reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain 

the information, presumably because the information was not collected.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 14

Exhibit CL-4a Clients - Age Group FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

Age Group # of States that 

Submitted Age Group Count % of Clients (N=361,185)

Age 18-29 25 23,720 6.6%

Age 30-39 25 17,091 4.7%

Age 40-49 26 21,341 5.9%

Age 50-59 26 43,097 11.9%

Age 60-69 26 73,092 20.2%

Age 70-74 26 41,509 11.5%

Age 75-84 26 76,983 21.3%

Age 85+ 26 52,723 14.6%

Unknown 19 11,629 3.2%

CL-4b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group

“Exhibit CL-4b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group FFY2017” presents 

data submitted by 23 states representing 109,095 victims, first for all substantiated victims and 

then for all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. Note that a victim may have 

substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim would be included in 

the column of every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation excludes 

one state’s records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). 

The largest age group was 60-69 among all substantiated victims. This was also the largest age 

group for victims of Abandonment, Physical Abuse, and Self-Neglect. The largest age group for 

victims of other substantiated maltreatment types were: 18-29 for Sexual Abuse; and 75-84 for 

Emotional Abuse, Exploitation, Neglect, and Other Type. Because not all age groups encompass 

the same number of years (e.g., 70-74 is only five years), the largest age groups do not necessarily 

have the highest concentration of victims per year of age.

6.6%

4.7%

5.9%

11.9%

20.2%

11.5%

21.3%

14.6%

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

Age 18-29

Age 30-39

Age 40-49

Age 50-59

Age 60-69

Age 70-74

Age 75-84

Age 85+
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 15

Exhibit CL-4b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group FFY2017

Age Group

All VictimsAbandonmentEmotional AbuseExploitationNeglectPhysical AbuseSexual AbuseSelf-NeglectOther Type

Age 18-29 4.3% 5.9% 6.3% 3.3% 9.2% 12.0% 34.0% 2.7% 8.5%

Age 30-39 3.2% 7.1% 4.0% 2.0% 4.9% 5.9% 13.2% 2.7% 4.8%

Age 40-49 5.2% 8.7% 5.1% 2.8% 5.7% 6.0% 9.4% 5.2% 6.8%

Age 50-59 12.9% 22.8% 10.8% 6.8% 9.8% 11.5% 13.2% 14.2% 13.3%

Age 60-69 23.8% 24.9% 22.8% 19.2% 17.0% 20.4% 9.5% 25.9% 19.2%

Age 70-74 13.3% 10.6% 13.3% 14.3% 10.4% 12.5% 3.8% 13.9% 11.5%

Age 75-84 22.9% 14.2% 23.5% 29.1% 22.8% 18.9% 7.5% 22.6% 22.6%

Age 85+ 13.3% 5.4% 12.9% 20.4% 18.5% 11.2% 8.7% 11.8% 13.3%

Unknown 1.1% 0.6% 1.3% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.1%

Total 109,095 804 6,487 11,532 11,283 6,523 682 79,448 4,272

CL-5a Clients - Gender Identity

Twenty-six states submitted 361,185 client records, of which 353,281 included Gender Identity. 

“Exhibit CL-5a Clients - Gender Identity FFY2017” provides client gender identity data. In FFY 

2017, 57.4% of clients were female and 40.4% were male. Three states were able to report 

transgender identity. A gender identity was not included in 2.2% of the client records submitted 

and were classified as Unknown.

Exhibit CL-5a Clients - Gender Identity FFY2017

Transgender not shown above.

Male

40.4%

Female

57.4%

Unknown

2.2%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 16

Gender Identity # of states that 

submitted

Gender Identity 

Count

% of clients 

(N=361,185)

Male 26 145,875 40.4%

Female 26 207,391 57.4%

Transgender 3 15 0.0%

Unknown 20 7,904 2.2%

CL-5b Clients - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity

“Exhibit CL-5b - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity FFY2017” presents data 

submitted by 24 states representing 113,170 victims, first for all substantiated victims and then for 

all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A victim may have substantiation of 

multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim would be included in the column of every 

type of maltreatment that was substantiated. The most frequent gender identity was Female among 

all substantiated victims (57.9%) and for victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment, 

including Sexual Abuse (77.7%), Emotional Abuse (70.6%), and Physical Abuse (63.6%).

Exhibit CL-5b Clients - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity FFY2017

Transgender and Unknown not shown above.

45.5%

28.9%

39.0%

39.6%

35.8%

22.0%

42.3%

41.4%

54.1%

70.6%

59.3%

59.7%

63.6%

77.7%

56.5%

58.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Abandonment

Emotional Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

Male

Female
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 17 Gender Identity All Victims Abandonment Emotional abuse Exploitation Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Self-Neglect Other Type

Male 41.0% 45.5% 28.9% 39.0% 39.6% 35.8% 22.0% 42.3% 41.4%

Female 57.9% 54.1% 70.6% 59.3% 59.7% 63.6% 77.7% 56.5% 58.2%

Transgender 0.004% - - 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% - - -

Unknown 1.1% 0.4% 0.5% 1.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 1.1% 0.5%

Total 113,170 830 6,642 12,343 12,012 6,719 687 82,436 4,272

Clients - Sexual Orientation

Sexual Orientation is not a common data element collected by APS programs. One state submitted 

Sexual Orientation for 610 of its 17,365 client records. Over 96% of the client records submitted 

indicated the sexual orientation of the client was unknown.

CL-6a Clients - Race

In FFY2017, 24 states submitted 359,231 records, of which 283,738 included at least one race. 

States are permitted to report multiple races for one individual therefore, the data table percentages 

will not equal 100%. “Exhibit CL-6a Clients - Race FFY2017” shows that 56.4% of clients were 

classified as being White and 13.7% reported as Black or African American. The race was 

unknown for 21% of client records.

Exhibit CL-6a Clients - Race FFY2017

56.4%

13.7%

6.6%

1.8%

0.9%

0.2%

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
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 18

Unknown not shown above.

Race

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Race Count % of Clients 

(N=359,231)

White 23 202,751 56.4%

Black or African American 23 49,170 13.7%

Other Race 16 23,762 6.6%

American Indian or Alaska Native 23 6,484 1.8%

Asian 20 3,211 0.9%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 18 647 0.2%

Unknown 22 75,493 21.0%

CL-6b Clients - Multiple Races

States may report multiple races for one client. “Exhibit CL-6b Clients - Multiple Races FFY2017”

indicates the number of clients with multiple races. The majority of client records, 78.4%, listed 

only one race and 21% did not include a race.

Exhibit CL-6b Clients - Multiple Races FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Races # of States # of Clients % of Clients 

(N=359,231)

No Race Submitted 22 75,493 21.0%

Only 1 Race 24 281,525 78.4%

2 Races 9 2,153 0.6%

3 or More Races 5 60 0.02%

CL-7 Clients - Ethnicity

Twenty states submitted 335,460 client records of which 19 states’ records (201,120) included 

ethnicity. “Exhibit CL-7 Clients - Ethnicity FFY2017” shows that 49.2% of clients were classified 

as Not Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish. A smaller percentage, 10.8%, were classified as Hispanic, 

Latino/a, or Spanish. The ethnicity was unknown for 40% of clients.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 19

Exhibit CL-7 Clients - Ethnicity FFY2017

Ethnicity # of States that 

Submitted Ethnicity Count % of Clients(N=335,460)

Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 19 36,173 10.8%

Not Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 16 164,947 49.2%

Unknown 19 134,340 40.0%

CL-8a Clients - Race/Ethnicity

Twenty-three states submitted data on race/ethnicity (359,231 total records submitted, of which

290,127 contained at least one race). Per convention, race/ethnicity is assigned as Hispanic/Latino 

for everyone reporting a Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. All non-Hispanic/Latino individuals who 

reported multiple races were classified as such; all other non-Hispanic/Latino individuals were 

assigned a single race. “Exhibit CL-8a Clients - Race/Ethnicity FFY2017” shows that nonHispanic whites accounted for 49.7% of clients, while 0.6% had multiple races recorded.

Exhibit CL-8a Clients - Race/Ethnicity FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

Hispanic

10.8%

Not Hispanic

49.2%

Unknown

40.0%

49.7%

13.3%

10.1%

4.4%

1.7%

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

White Non-Hispanic

Black/African American...

Hispanic/Latino

Other Non-Hispanic

American Indian/Alaska...
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 20

Race/Ethnicity # of States that 

Submitted

Race/Ethnicity 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=359,231)

White Non-Hispanic 23 178,658 49.7%

Black/African American NonHispanic 23 47,880 13.3%

Hispanic/Latino 20 36,173 10.1%

Other Non-Hispanic 16 15,752 4.4%

American Indian/Alaska Native

Non-Hispanic 22 5,970 1.7%

Asian Non-Hispanic 22 3,079 0.9%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander Non-Hispanic 19 477 0.1%

Multiple Races Non-Hispanic 9 2,138 0.6%

Unknown 22 69,104 19.2%

CL-8b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity

“Exhibit CL-8b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity FFY2017” presents 

data submitted by 13 states representing 93,077 victims, first for all substantiated victims and then 

for all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A victim may have substantiation of 

multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim would be included in the column of every 

type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation excludes nine states’ records 

due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). The most frequent race/ethnicity 

was Non-Hispanic White among all substantiated victims (55.4%) and for victims of each type of 

substantiated maltreatment, including Emotional Abuse (71.2%), Sexual Abuse (71.2%), and 

Exploitation (68.6%).

Exhibit CL-8b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity FFY2017

Race/Ethnicity

All Victims

Abandonment

Emotional 

Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

White Non-Hispanic 55.4% 60.9% 71.2% 68.6% 64.7% 66.2% 71.2% 51.7% 66.2%

Black/African American NonHispanic 16.7% 12.4% 13.8% 14.3% 17.5% 13.8% 15.7% 17.5% 10.4%

Hispanic/Latino 13.1% 1.4% 6.0% 3.4% 5.7% 9.6% 5.1% 15.7% 0.4%

American Indian/Alaska 

Native Non-Hispanic 1.9% 15.1% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% 1.3% 2.4% 1.6% 12.2%

Other Non-Hispanic 0.9% 3.9% 1.8% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.6% 6.4%

Asian Non-Hispanic 0.7% 3.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 2.1%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 21

Race/Ethnicity

All Victims

Abandonment

Emotional 

Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic 0.1% - 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% - 0.1% -

Multiple Races Non-Hispanic 0.7% - 0.6% 0.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% -

Unknown 10.5% 2.8% 4.3% 9.3% 6.8% 6.1% 3.2% 11.5% 2.4%

Total 93,077 814 5,669 8,043 9,197 5,381 534 71,115 2,675

CL-9 Clients - Primary Language

Sixteen states reported the clients’ primary language (286,604 client records, of which 249,984 

included language). “Exhibit CL-9a Clients - Primary Language FFY2017” indicates that English 

was identified as the primary language for 80.6% and Spanish or Spanish Creole for 3.8% of clients

in FFY2017. NAMRS has 11 other primary language choices including Sign Language and 

Assistive Technology. Additional details for all language choices can be found in “Exhibit CL-9b 

Clients - Primary Language (Details).” The language was Unknown for 12.8% of records. Reasons 

for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not 

able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably 

because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CL-9a Clients - Primary Language FFY2017 (Unknown not shown)

Primary Language # of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=286,604)

English 16 231,104 80.6%

Spanish 15 10,978 3.8%

Other Language 14 7,902 2.8%

English

80.6%

Spanish

3.8%

Other Language

2.8%

Unknown

12.8%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 22

Primary Language # of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=286,604)

Unknown 12 36,620 12.8%

English 16 231,104 80.6%

Primary Language Details (N=286,604)

Spanish 15 10,978 3.8%

Other Language 14 6,125 2.1%

Sign Language 12 355 0.1%

Russian 11 376 0.1%

French 10 289 0.1%

Chinese 10 253 0.1%

Vietnamese 12 155 0.1%

Korean 11 172 0.1%

Arabic 8 111 0.04%

German 7 25 0.01%

Tagalog 4 40 0.01%

Assistive 

Technology 1 1 0.0003%

Unknown 12 36,620 12.8%

CL-10 Clients - Schooling Level

Eight states provided the clients’ highest education level (56,347 records submitted with 18,198 

of these including schooling level). The category with the highest percentage of clients reported 

was High School Diploma or Equivalent at 19.4%. The next highest response was Less than High 

School at 10.8%. The other school levels, Associate’s or Bachelor’s Degree and Advanced Degree, 

combined for 2.1% of responses. The clients’ schooling level was unknown for 67.7% of clients. 

Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff 

were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, 

presumably because the information was not collected.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 23

Exhibit CL-10 Clients - Schooling Level FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

Schooling Level

# of states 

that 

Submitted

# of Clients % of Clients 

(N=56,347)

Less than High School 8 6,084 10.8%

High School Diploma or Equivalent 8 10,936 19.4%

Associate’s Degree or Bachelor’s Degree 8 1,023 1.8%

Advanced Degree 7 155 0.3%

Unknown 8 38,149 67.7%

CL-11a Clients - Marital Status

Eighteen states reported the marital status of clients (243,637 total client records submitted with 

153,917 records that included marital status). “Exhibit CL-11a Clients - Marital Status FFY2017” 

indicates that the top three statuses were Never Married at 18.1%, Widowed at 14.8%, and Married 

at 14.4%. The other statuses listed were Divorced, Other Status, Separated, and Domestic Partner

(Including Civil Union). The marital status was unknown for 36.8% of the client records. Reasons 

for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not 

able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably 

because the information was not collected.

10.8%

19.4%

1.8%

0.3%

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

Less Than High School

High School Diploma

or Equivalent

Associate’s Degree or 

Bachelor’s Degree

Advanced Degree
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 24

Exhibit CL-11a Clients - Marital Status FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

Marital Status # of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=243,637)

Never Married 17 44,174 18.1%

Widowed 16 36,134 14.8%

Married 18 35,026 14.4%

Divorced 18 24,641 10.1%

Other Status 10 10,271 4.2%

Separated 16 3,489 1.4%

Domestic Partner (Including 

Civil Union) 6 182 0.1%

Unknown 17 89,720 36.8%

CL-11b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Marital Status

“Exhibit CL-11b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Marital Status FFY2017” presents 

data submitted by seven states representing 18,011 victims, first for all substantiated victims and 

then for all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A victim may have substantiation 

of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim would be included in the column of 

every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation excludes ten states’ 

records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). The most frequent marital 

status was Never Married among all substantiated victims (25.5%) and for victims of substantiated 

Sexual Abuse (52.5%), Abandonment (31.4%), Self-Neglect (30.6%), Physical Abuse (28.1%), 

and Neglect (24.6%).

18.1%

14.8%

14.4%

10.1%

4.2%

1.4%

0.1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Never Married

Widowed

Married

Divorced

Other Status

Separated

Domestic Partner
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 25

Exhibit CL-11b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Marital Status FFY2017 Marital Status All Victims Abandonment Emotional abuse Exploitation Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Self-Neglect Other Type

Never Married 25.5% 31.4% 21.1% 14.8% 24.6% 28.1% 52.5% 30.6% 18.0%

Divorced/Separated 19.9% 22.9% 32.4% 28.1% 19.6% 22.6% 15.5% 13.1% 19.3%

Widowed 19.1% 17.1% 16.1% 22.4% 20.6% 15.8% 12.4% 18.6% 21.0%

Married/Partnered 18.1% 10.0% 24.7% 19.5% 22.6% 25.5% 11.9% 12.0% 16.5%

Other Status 12.7% 17.1% 2.4% 9.6% 7.5% 5.0% 5.8% 20.9% 11.5%

Unknown 4.7% 1.4% 3.4% 5.7% 5.3% 3.1% 1.8% 4.8% 13.7%

Total 18,011 70 3,410 3,951 4,302 2,490 394 7,298 844

CL-12 Clients - Employment Status

Five states included data on employment status (47,592 client records of which 11,632 records 

included employment status). “Exhibit CL-12 Clients - Employment Status FFY2017” indicates

that 2.5% of records noted that the client was employed, while 19.9% had an employment status 

of Not in Labor Force.

Exhibit CL-12 Clients - Employment Status FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

Employment 

Status

# of States that 

Submitted

Employment Status 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=47,592)

Not in Labor 

Force 3 9,467 19.9%

Employed 4 1,174 2.5%

Unemployed 4 787 1.7%

Other Status 2 204 0.4%

Unknown 5 35,960 75.6%

19.9%

2.5%

1.7%

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

Not in Labor Force

Employed

Unemployed
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 26

CL-13 Clients - Income Level

Eight states reported the income level of the client (57,729 client records of which 27,735 include 

income level). As shown in “Exhibit CL-13 Clients - Income Level FFY2017” a total of 42.6% of 

client records indicated an income less than $25,000. If known, the level of annual income of the 

client including all sources (public and private) was provided. The income level for 52% of the 

client records submitted by seven states was unknown. Reasons for Unknown values may include: 

recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and data 

submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably because the information was 

not collected.

Exhibit CL-13 Clients - Income Level FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

Income level # of States that 

Submitted # of Clients % of Clients (N=57,729)

Less Than $25,000 8 24,585 42.6%

$25,000-$49,999 7 2,591 4.5%

$50,000-$74,999 7 410 0.7%

$75,000-$99,999 7 63 0.1%

$100,000 or More 7 86 0.1%

Unknown 7 29,994 52.0%

CL-14a Clients - Benefits

Benefits refer to federal and state financial resources received by the client during the time of the 

investigation. A state could submit multiple benefits for each client therefore, the data table 

percentages will not equal 100%. “Exhibit CL-14a Clients - Benefits FFY2017” shows nine states 

provided data on the benefits received by clients (100,638 client records submitted, of which

47,770 included at least one benefit). The top four benefits were Medicaid at 19.6%, Medicare at 

18.6%, Social Security Income at 16.8%, and Social Security Retirement at 15.3%. Other Benefits 

include Social Security Disability Insurance, Publicly-Subsidized Housing, Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families (TANF), Veterans’ Disability, and Other. Benefits received was unknown for 

52.5% of client records from eight states. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as 

Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to 

NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably because the information was not collected.

42.6%

4.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Less Than $25,000

$25,000-$49,999
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 27

Exhibit CL-14a Clients - Benefits FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

Benefits

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Benefits 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=100,638)

Medicaid 7 19,765 19.6%

Medicare 7 18,695 18.6%

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 9 16,878 16.8%

Social Security Retirement Benefits 8 15,373 15.3%

Other Benefits 6 12,541 12.5%

Social Security Disability Insurance 

(SSDI) 6 781 0.8%

Veterans’ Disabled Benefits 8 500 0.5%

Publicly-Subsidized Housing 3 133 0.1%

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) 2 10 0.01%

Unknown 8 52,868 52.5%

CL-14b Clients - Multiple Benefits

Nine states submitted 100,638 client records providing data on client benefits. “Exhibit CL-14b 

Clients - Multiple Benefits FFY2017” indicates that 52.5% of clients had no benefits, 22.5% of

clients received one benefit, 15.8% received two benefits, and 9.2% received three or more

benefits.

19.6%

18.6%

16.8%

15.3%

12.5%

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

Medicaid

Medicare

Supplemental Security

Income (SSI)

Social Security

Retirement Benefits

Other Benefits
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 28

Exhibit CL-14b Clients - Multiple Benefits FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Benefits # of States that 

Submitted # of Clients % of Clients (N=100,638)

No Benefit Submitted 8 52,868 52.5%

Only 1 Benefit 9 22,625 22.5%

2 Benefits 9 15,865 15.8%

3 or More Benefits 8 9,280 9.2%

CL-15 Clients - Veteran Status

Ten states reported data on veteran status (70,076 client records submitted, of which 41,931 

included veteran status). The graph in “Exhibit CL 15 Clients - Veteran Status FFY2017” shows

that 4.4% of clients were veterans and 55.5% were not veterans for FFY2017.

Exhibit CL-15 Clients - Veteran Status FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

Veteran Status # of States that 

Submitted # of Clients % of Clients (N=70,076)

Veteran 10 3,055 4.4%

Non-Veteran 10 38,876 55.5%

Unknown 6 28,145 40.2%

CL-16a Clients - Disabilities

Disabilities include the clients’ physical, emotional, and cognitive difficulties that result in 

limitation in activities and restrictions to fully participate at school, work, or in the community. 

More than one disability could be selected for one client therefore, the data table percentages will 

not equal 100%. “Exhibit CL-16a Clients - Disabilities FFY2017” reflects clients’ disabilities data 

from 15 states (237,828 client records submitted, of which 139,978 included at least one 

disability). The three highest reported difficulties experienced by clients were Cognitive at 29.3%, 

Ambulatory at 26.3%, and Independent Living at 20.3%. The other difficulties are

Veteran 

4.4%

Non-Veteran

55.4%

Unknown

40.2%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 29

Communication, Hearing, Self-Care, Vision, and Other Difficulty. The values of None and 

Unknown indicate that there was no disability determined or it was unknown if the client had a 

disability.

Exhibit CL-16a Clients - Disabilities FFY2017

None and Unknown not shown above.

Disability # of States that 

Submitted Disabilities Count % of Clients (N=237,828)

Cognitive 15 69,650 29.3%

Ambulatory 12 62,633 26.3%

Independent Living 10 48,230 20.3%

Self-Care 10 26,123 11.0%

Other Difficulty 8 12,360 5.2%

Communication 12 11,673 4.9%

Hearing 8 6,480 2.7%

Vision 10 6,315 2.7%

None 8 12,124 5.1%

Unknown 14 85,726 36.0%

CL-16b Clients - Multiple Disabilities

Fifteen states submitted 237,828 client records with information regarding client disabilities. 

“Exhibit CL-16b Clients - Multiple Disabilities FFY2017” indicates the number of states 

submitting and the number of clients with multiple disabilities. As reported by 15 states, the 

majority of client records, 41.1%, had no client disability submitted. Fourteen states’ client records 

had only one disability for 33.4% of clients. Thirteen states reported that 13.6% of clients had two 

29.3%

26.3%

20.3%

11.0%

5.2%

4.9%

2.7%

2.7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Cognitive

Ambulatory

Independent Living

Self-Care

Other Difficulty

Communication

Hearing

Vision
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 30

disabilities. Twelve states’ client records indicated that 7.1% of clients had three disabilities, while

4.8% of clients had four or more disabilities.

Exhibit CL-16b Clients - Multiple Disabilities FFY2017

Clients with Multiple 

Disabilities

# of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=237,828)

No Disability Submitted 15 97,850 41.1%

Only 1 Disability 14 79,385 33.4%

2 Disabilities 13 32,245 13.6%

3 or More Disabilities 12 16,985 7.1%

4 or More Disabilities 11 11,363 4.8%

CL-16c Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Disabilities

“Exhibit CL-16c Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Disabilities FFY2017” presents 

data submitted by 13 states representing 77,058 victims, first for all substantiated victims and then 

for all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A victim may have substantiation of 

multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim would be included in the column of every 

type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This exhibit collapses the disabilities into four 

categories: Functional Difficulty (including ambulatory difficulty, independent living difficulty, 

and self-care difficulty), Cognitive Difficulty, Communication/Sensory Difficulty (including 

communication difficulty, hearing difficulty, and vision difficulty), and Other Difficulty. Each 

victim can have multiple disabilities, so the percentages in each column may add up to more than 

100%. The most frequent disability was Functional Difficulty among all substantiated victims 

(43.8%) and for victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment except for Sexual Abuse and 

Other Type.

Exhibit CL-16c Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Disabilities FFY2017

Disabilities

All Victims

Abandonment

Emotional abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

Functional Difficulty 43.8% 87.8% 22.1% 33.6% 42.8% 28.9% 22.6% 47.2% 1.7%

Cognitive Difficulty 19.5% 63.4% 14.7% 26.8% 38.9% 24.1% 39.6% 17.2% 21.1%

Communication/

Sensory Difficulty 9.7% 26.8% 20.2% 17.1% 21.6% 15.5% 17.0% 7.8% 0.6%

Other Difficulty 3.2% - 3.2% 9.1% 6.7% 5.2% 12.7% 2.2% 2.3%

None 1.1% - 4.1% 4.8% 1.1% 3.2% 2.8% 0.6% -

Total 77,058 41 3,444 6,301 6,898 3,800 212 62,564 814
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 31

CL-17 Clients - ADL and IADL Score

One state provided client scores for activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of 

daily living (IADL), as shown in “Exhibit CL-17 Clients - ADL and IADL Score FFY2017.” This 

exhibit includes 14,980 records with an ADL score and 14,869 records with an IADL score (of 

18,921 records submitted). ADL and IADL scores were unknown for 21.4% of client records.

Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff 

were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, 

presumably because the information was not collected. The highest IADL score of eight was 

recorded for 32.2% of the clients. The highest ADL score of six was recorded for 30.4% of the 

clients. Clients typically are assessed for both ADL and IADL.

Many states use the ADL and IADL assessment instruments, but do not record the information as 

a data element in the state reporting system. “ADL are self-care activities that a person performs 

daily (e.g., eating, dressing, bathing, transferring between the bed and a chair, using the toilet, 

controlling bladder and bowel functions). IADL are activities that are needed to live independently 

(e.g., doing housework, preparing meals, taking medications properly, managing finances, using a 

telephone).” 2

Exhibit CL-17 Clients - ADL and IADL Score FFY2017

Unknown now shown above.

 

2 American Academy of Family Physicians. “The Geriatric Assessment”

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Score

ADL

IADL
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 32

Clients - ADL and IADL Score FFY2017

Score ADL Score 

Counts

% of Clients 

(N=18,921)

IADL Score 

Counts

% of Clients 

(N=18,921)

0 2,766 14.6% 713 3.8%

1 953 5.0% 415 2.2%

2 922 4.9% 330 1.7%

3 974 5.1% 360 1.9%

4 1,009 5.3% 606 3.2%

5 2,595 13.7% 1,232 6.5%

6 5,761 30.4% 1,851 9.8%

7 NA NA 3,262 17.2%

8 NA NA 6,100 32.2%

Unknown 3,941 20.8% 4,052 21.4%

CL-18a Clients - Behavioral Health Conditions

NAMRS has eight distinct behavioral health screenings or diagnoses data elements plus Other

Condition. States could submit multiple behavioral health conditions for each client therefore, the 

data table percentages will not equal 100%. Nine states reported on clients’ behavioral health 

screenings or diagnoses (192,262 records submitted, of which 53,173 included at least one 

condition). “Exhibit CL-18a Clients - Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017” shows that the 

most common client behavioral health conditions were Other (18.3%), Dementia (4.9%), and 

Depression (2.3%). Some state examples of Other are delusional, organic brain syndrome, 

borderline personality, and emotional disorder. Reasons for Unknown values may include:

recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and data records 

submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably because the information was 

not collected.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 33

Exhibit CL-18a Clients - Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017

None and Unknown not shown above.

Behavioral Health Condition # of States that 

Submitted

Behavioral Condition 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=192,262)

Other Condition 6 35,199 18.3%

Dementia 6 9,441 4.9%

Depression 5 4,505 2.3%

Substance Use Disorder 4 3,429 1.8%

Anxiety 4 3,620 1.9%

Schizophrenia and Other 

Psychotic Disorders 4 1,388 0.7%

Alcohol Use Disorder 5 1,421 0.7%

Bipolar Disorder 2 4 0.002%

Traumatic Brain Injury 1 1 0.001%

None 5 22,925 11.9%

Unknown 6 116,164 60.4%

18.3%

4.9%

2.3%

1.8%

1.9%

0.7%

0.7%

0.002%

0.001%

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

Other Condition

Dementia

Depression

Substance Use Disorder

Anxiety

Schizophrenia/Other...

Alcohol Use Disorder

Bipolar Disorder

Traumatic Brain Injury
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 34

CL-18b Clients - Multiple Behavioral Health Conditions

Nine states submitted 192,262 records with information about clients’ behavioral health 

conditions. “Exhibit CL-18b Clients - Multiple Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017” indicates 

most client records, 72.3%, listed no condition and 25.2% indicated only one condition. 

Exhibit CL-18b Clients - Multiple Behavioral Health Condition FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Conditions # of States # of Clients % of Clients (N=192,262)

No Condition Submitted 9 139,089 72.3%

Only 1 Condition 9 48,428 25.2%

2 Conditions 5 3,803 2.0%

3 or More Conditions 5 942 0.5%

CL-19 Clients - Living Settings at Start and Close

NAMRS requests information about clients’ primary living setting at the start of the investigation 

and close of the investigation. The living setting at the start may not be the same location as the 

maltreatment setting. For example, the client may live in their own residence, but the maltreatment 

may have occurred at an Adult Day Services Center. Eight states reported clients’ living setting at 

both the start and close of the investigation. “Exhibit CL-19 Clients - Living Settings at Start and 

Close FFY2017” indicates that clients lived in their own residence or residence of a relative or 

caregiver at both the start and close of the investigation in 60.3% of records. A living setting was 

not included for 21.6% of client records. Reasons for Unknown values for the living setting may 

include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system; and data submitted to NAMRS did not 

contain the information, presumably because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CL-19 Clients - Living Setting at Start and Close FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above. 

69.8%

3.3%

3.4%

1.5%

1.1%

0.5%

60.3%

3.5%

8.9%

1.7%

2.4%

1.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Residence of Client,

Relative, or Caregiver

Nursing Home

(Non-Specific)

Other Setting

Residential Care Community

(Non-Specific)

Licensed Residential Care

Community

Licensed Nursing Home

at Start

at Close
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 35

Clients - Living Setting at Start and Close Start 

Counts

% of 

Clients 

(N=93,440)

Close 

Counts

% of 

Clients 

(N=93,440)

Residence of Client, Relative, or Caregiver 65,181 69.8% 56,344 60.3%

Nursing Home (Non-Specific) 3,074 3.3% 3,235 3.5%

Other Setting 3,188 3.4% 8,356 8.9%

Residential Care Community (Non-Specific) 1,440 1.5% 1,558 1.7%

Licensed Residential Care Community 1,034 1.1% 2,273 2.4%

Licensed Nursing Home 466 0.5% 1,437 1.5%

Non-Licensed Residential Care Community 39 0.04% 84 0.1%

Non-Licensed Nursing Home - - 1 0.001%

Unknown 19,018 20.4% 20,152 21.6%

CL-20a Clients - Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close

NAMRS requests information about clients’ substitute decision makers at the start and close of the 

investigation. It includes authorizations that are in effect and related to health, personal, or 

financial decision making for the client. States may submit multiple substitute decision maker code 

values for each client. There are six data values defining substitute decision makers and an option 

for None and Unknown. Three states reported information about substitute decision makers at both 

start and close (28,788 client records submitted). There were 474 records that included at least one 

decision maker at the start of the investigation and 515 records that included at least one decision 

maker at the close of the investigation. “Exhibit CL-20a Clients - Substitute Decision Makers at 

Start and Close FFY2017” shows the most common substitute decision maker as Guardianship or 

Conservatorship of Person. 

Exhibit CL-20a Clients - Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close FFY2017

Categories less than 0.1% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

0.8%

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

1.1%

0.3%

0.3%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2%

Guardianship or Conservatorship

of Person

Representative Payee

Financial Proxy in Effect

Guardianship/Conservatorship

(Non-Specific)

Guardianship or Conservatorship

of Property

Start

Close
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 36

Clients - Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close FFY2017

Substitute Decision Maker Start 

Counts

% of 

Clients 

(N=28,788)

Close 

Counts

% of 

Clients 

(N=28,788)

Guardianship or Conservatorship of Person 235 0.8% 313 1.1%

Representative Payee 96 0.3% 90 0.3%

Financial Proxy in Effect 83 0.3% 93 0.3%

Guardianship/Conservatorship (Non-Specific) 45 0.2% - 0.0%

Guardianship or Conservatorship of Property 16 0.1% 22 0.1%

Health Care Proxy in Effect 4 0.01% 3 0.01%

None 7321 25.4% 7383 25.6%

Unknown 20993 72.9% 20890 72.6%

CL-20b Clients - Multiple Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close

Seven states provided a total of 28,788 client records with information about substitute decision 

makers. Of the records submitted, 474 included at least one substitute decision maker at the start 

of the investigation and 515 included at least one substitute decision maker at the close of the 

investigation. “Exhibit CL-20b Clients - Multiple Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close

FFY2017” indicates that most client records, 98.2%, indicated no substitute decision maker at the 

close of the investigation. One substitute decision maker was recorded for 1.6% of clients at the 

start, and 1.8% of clients at the close. 

Exhibit CL-20b Clients - Multiple Substitute Decision Makers at Start and Close FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Substitute Decision Makers Start 

Counts

% of 

Clients 

(N=28,788)

Close 

Counts

% of 

Clients 

(N=28,788)

No Substitute Decision Maker Submitted 28,314 98.4% 28,273 98.2%

Only 1 Substitute Decision Maker 469 1.6% 509 1.8%

2 or More Substitute Decision Makers 5 0.02% 6 0.02%

CL-21a Clients - Services at Start

NAMRS requests client services data at start and close of an investigation, services provided by 

APS, and referred for services. States could submit multiple service code values therefore, the data 

table percentages will not equal 100%. “Exhibit CL-21a Clients - Services at Start FFY2017”

includes the services known to the agency that the client was already receiving at the start of the 

investigation. Eight states provided client services information at the start of the investigation

(81,146 client records submitted, of which 38,511 had at least one service). The top three identified 

Services at Start were Victim Services at 17.1%, Other Services at 15.7%, and Care/Case 

Management Services at 14.3%. Examples of Other Services include Guardianship/Court Support 

Services, Informal Supports, and Nursing Home Transition Services. None and Unknown services 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 37

were noted in 52.5% of records. Reasons for Unknown values for services may include: recorded 

as Unknown in state reporting system; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the 

information, presumably because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CL-21a Clients - Services at Start FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Services at Start

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=81,146)

Victim Services 2 13,901 17.1%

Other Services 7 12,760 15.7%

Care/Case Management Services 7 11,618 14.3%

In-Home Assistance Services 6 3,432 4.2%

Medical and Dental Services 6 1,283 1.6%

Nutrition 6 992 1.2%

Mental Health Services 5 597 0.7%

Education, Employment, and Training Services 3 369 0.5%

Medical Rehabilitation Services 4 224 0.3%

Legal Services 3 170 0.2%

Transportation 4 136 0.2%

Housing and Relocation Services 3 108 0.1%

Community Day Services 4 85 0.1%

Caregiver Support Services 3 82 0.1%

Substance Use Services 3 31 0.04%

17.1%

15.7%

14.3%

4.2%

1.6%

1.2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Victim Services

Other Services

Care/Case Management

Services

In-Home Assistance

Services

Medical and Dental

Services

Nutrition
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 38

Services at Start

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=81,146)

Emergency Assist/Material Aid Services 2 18 0.02%

Financial Planning Services 1 1 0.001%

Public assistance Benefits 1 1 0.001%

None 3 1,996 2.5%

Unknown 8 40,639 50.1%

CL-21b Clients - Multiple Services at Start

Eight states submitted 81,146 records. States could submit multiple service code values for each 

client. “Exhibit CL-21b Clients - Multiple Services at Start FFY2017” indicates the number of 

clients that had services at the start of the investigation. Most client records, 52.5%, did not include 

a service; 40.6% indicated only one service; and 5.2% reported two services were received.

Exhibit CL-21b Clients - Multiple Services at Start FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Services # of States # of Clients % of Clients (N=81,146)

No Service Submitted 8 42,635 52.5%

Only 1 Service 8 32,942 40.6%

2 Services 7 4,251 5.2%

3 or More Services 7 1318 1.6%

CL-22a Clients - Services Provided by APS

NAMRS requests client services data about four distinct ways services information is collected -

start and close of investigation, provided by APS, and referred for services. States could submit 

multiple service code values for each client therefore, the data table percentages will not equal 

100%. “Exhibit CL-22a Clients - Services Provided by APS FFY2017” includes the services that 

the agency provided on behalf of the client during the investigation or while the agency kept an 

open case. Eight states reported data regarding services provided by APS (98,413 records

submitted of which 27,053 records included at least one service). The three most common services

reported were Victim Services (14.4%), Care/Case Management Services (5.3%), and In-Home 

Assistance Services (3.9%). 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 39

Exhibit CL-22a Clients - Services Provided by APS FFY2017

Categories less than 2% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Services Provided by APS

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=98,413)

Victim Services 4 14,215 14.4%

Care/Case Management Services 7 5,204 5.3%

In-Home Assistance Services 6 3,816 3.9%

Financial Planning services 3 3,314 3.4%

Legal Services 6 3,274 3.3%

Housing and Relocation Services 5 3,187 3.2%

Mental Health Services 3 2,747 2.8%

Other Services 5 2,692 2.7%

Public Assistance Benefits 4 2,624 2.7%

Emergency Assist/Material Aid Services 3 1,479 1.5%

Medical and Dental Services 4 1,127 1.1%

Nutrition 5 505 0.5%

Transportation 6 385 0.4%

Caregiver Support Services 3 115 0.1%

Substance Use Services 1 112 0.1%

Community Day Services 4 110 0.1%

14.4%

5.3%

3.9%

3.4%

3.3%

3.2%

2.8%

2.7%

2.7%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Victim Services

Care/Case Management

Services

In-Home Assistance Services

Financial Planning Services

Legal Services

Housing and Relocation

Services

Mental Health Services

Other services

Public Assistance Benefits
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 40

Services Provided by APS

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=98,413)

Medical Rehabilitation Services 1 7 0.01%

Education, Employment, and Training Services 1 1 0.001%

None 2 21,430 21.8%

Unknown 7 49,930 50.7%

CL-22b Clients - Multiple Services Provided by APS

States could submit multiple service code values for each client. “Exhibit 22b Clients - Multiple 

Services Provided by APS FFY2017” indicates the number of clients that received services 

provided by APS during the investigation. A total of 98,413 records that included data on services 

provided by APS were submitted by eight states. Most client records, 72.5%, did not include a 

service and 18% indicated only one service received. 

Exhibit CL-22b Clients - Multiple Services Provided by APS FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Services # of States # of Clients % of Clients (N=98,413)

No Service Submitted 8 71,360 72.5%

Only 1 Service 8 17,754 18.0%

2 Services 8 4,849 4.9%

3 Services 7 2,229 2.3%

4 Services 5 1137 1.2%

5 Services 2 571 0.6%

6 or More Services 1 513 0.5%

CL-23a Clients - Services Referred

NAMRS requests client services data about four distinct ways services information is collected -

start and close of investigation, provided by APS, and referred for services. “Exhibit CL-23a 

Clients - Services Referred FFY2017” shows the services for which the agency referred the client.

Eleven states provided data about referrals for services for clients (102,425 records submitted, of 

which 46,516 records contained at least one service). The most commonly chosen responses were

None or Unknown at 54.6% and Other Services at 29% of records. Some examples of Other 

Services include burial/cremation, Alzheimer's/dementia education, public health, animal control, 

and consultation. Care/Case Management Services was noted for 5.9% of clients and Medical and 

Dental Services was reported for 4% of clients. 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 41

Exhibit CL-23a Clients - Services Referred FFY2017

Categories less than 2% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Services Referred # of States that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=102,425)

Other Services 8 29,752 29.0%

Care/Case Management Services 6 6,024 5.9%

Medical and Dental Services 7 4,103 4.0%

Mental Health Services 7 4,095 4.0%

Legal Services 9 2,956 2.9%

In-Home Assistance Services 8 2,897 2.8%

Emergency Assist/Material Aid 

Services 5 2,626 2.6%

Housing and Relocation Services 8 2,442 2.4%

Public Assistance Benefits 7 1434 1.4%

Victim Services 6 1033 1.0%

Community Day Services 7 985 1.0%

Transportation 7 679 0.7%

Caregiver Support Services 5 618 0.6%

Financial Planning Services 6 580 0.6%

Nutrition 7 495 0.5%

Medical Rehabilitation Services 4 466 0.5%

29.0%

5.9%

4.0%

4.0%

2.9%

2.8%

2.6%

2.4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other Services

Care/Case Management

Services

Medical and Dental Services

Mental Health Services

Legal Services

In-Home Assistance Services

Emergency Assist/Material

Aid Services

Housing and Relocation Services
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 42

Services Referred # of States that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=102,425)

Education, Employment, and 

Training Services 4 115 0.1%

Substance Use Services 5 109 0.1%

None 3 12,956 12.6%

Unknown 8 42,953 41.9%

CL-23b Clients - Multiple Services Referred

Multiple service code values can be submitted for the client. “Exhibit CL-23b Clients - Multiple 

Services Referred FFY2017” indicates the number of clients that APS referred to services. Ten 

states submitted 102,425 records, which included information on services referred. Most client 

records, 54.6%, did not include a service and 36.9% indicated only one service. 

Exhibit CL-23b Clients - Multiple Services Referred FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Services # of States # of Clients % of Clients (N=102,425)

No Service Submitted 10 55,909 54.6%

Only 1 Service 11 37,746 36.9%

2 Services 10 5,017 4.9%

3 Services 8 2,284 2.2%

4 Services 8 903 0.9%

5 or More Services 7 566 0.6%

54.6%

36.9%

4.9%

2.2%

0.9%

0.6%

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

No Service Submitted

Only 1 Service

2 Services

3 Services

4 Services

5 or More Services
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 43

CL-24a Clients - Services at Close

NAMRS requests client services data about four distinct ways services information is collected -

start and close of investigation, provided by APS, and referred for services. “Exhibit 24a Client -

Services at Close FFY2017” includes the services known to the agency that the client was 

receiving at the time of investigation closure. Six states provided information about clients’ 

services at case closure (76,883 records submitted, of which 25,273 records included at least one 

service). The four most common services reported were Victim Services (16.9%), In-Home 

Services (7%), Care/Case Management Services (4.3%), and Legal Services (4.3%). None or 

Unknown services was noted for 67.1% of clients. Reasons for Unknown values may include: 

recorded as Unknown in state reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and data 

submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, presumably because the information was 

not collected.

Exhibit CL-24a Clients - Services at Close FFY2017

Categories less than 2% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Services at Close # of States that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=76,883)

Victim Services 4 13,011 16.9%

In-Home Assistance Services 5 5,355 7.0%

Care/Case Management Services 5 3,340 4.3%

Legal Services 4 3,329 4.3%

Housing and Relocation Services 3 3,249 4.2%

Financial Planning Services 3 2,938 3.8%

16.9%

7.0%

4.3%

4.3%

4.2%

3.8%

3.6%

3.0%

2.8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Victim Services

In-Home Assistance Services

Care/Case Management

Services

Legal Services

Housing and Relocation

Services

Financial Planning Services

Emergency Assist/Material

Aid Services

Mental Health Services

Other Services
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 44

Services at Close # of States that 

Submitted

Services 

Count

% of Clients 

(N=76,883)

Emergency Assist/Material Aid 

Services 3 2,795 3.6%

Mental Health Services 5 2,301 3.0%

Other Services 5 2,182 2.8%

Public Assistance Benefits 3 1,486 1.9%

Nutrition 5 1,042 1.4%

Medical and Dental Services 3 885 1.2%

Transportation 4 389 0.5%

Caregiver Support Services 4 383 0.5%

Community Day Services 4 150 0.2%

Substance Use Services 3 114 0.1%

Medical Rehabilitation Services 3 84 0.1%

Education, Employment, and 

Training Services 2 35 0.05%

None 2 16,295 21.2%

Unknown 6 35,315 45.9%

CL-24b Clients - Multiple Services at Close

Six states submitted 76,883 records, which included information on services at the close of 

investigation. “Exhibit CL-24b Clients - Multiple Services at Close FFY2017” indicates the 

number of services known to the agency that the client was receiving at the time of investigation

closure. Most client records, 67.1%, did not include a service and 19.8% indicated only one 

service. 

Exhibit CL-24b Clients - Multiple Services at Close FFY2017

67.1%

19.8%

7.3%

3.2%

2.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

No Service Submittted

Only 1 Service

2 Services

3 Services

4 or More Services
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 45

Clients with Multiple Services

at Close

# of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=76,883)

No Service Submitted 6 51,610 67.1%

Only 1 Service 6 15,192 19.8%

2 Services 5 5,628 7.3%

3 Services 5 2,466 3.2%

4 or More Services 5 1,987 2.6%

CL-25a Clients - Interagency Coordination

Nine states provided data about Interagency Coordination activities for clients as noted in “Exhibit 

CL-25a Clients - Interagency Coordination FFY2017” (86,993 client records submitted, of which 

11,889 included at least one interagency coordination). The interagency coordination data 

elements are Law Enforcement or Prosecutorial Offices, Protection and Advocacy or Client 

Advocacy Program, State Licensing Agency, State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Long-Term Care 

Ombudsman Program, Other Agency, and None. The three most commonly reported interagency 

coordination entities were Law Enforcement or Prosecutorial Offices at 8.8%, State Licensing 

Agency at 8.0%, and Other Agency at 0.5%. None or Unknown was noted for 86.3% of records 

submitted. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting 

system or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the 

information, presumably because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CL-25a Clients - Interagency Coordination FFY2017

Categories less than 0.1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

8.8%

8.0%

0.5%

0.2%

0.2%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

Law Enforcement or

Prosecutorial Offices

State Licensing Agency

Other Agency

Long Term Care

Ombudsman Program

State Medicaid Fraud

Control Unit (MFCU)
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 46

Clients - Interagency Coordination FFY2017 # of States that 

Submitted

Coordination 

Count

% of clients 

(N=86,993)

Law Enforcement or Prosecutorial Offices 9 7,690 8.8%

State Licensing Agency 8 6,963 8.0%

Other Agency 7 438 0.5%

Long Term Care Ombudsman Program 4 193 0.2%

State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) 3 134 0.2%

Protection/Advocacy/Client Advocacy Program (CAP) 4 35 0.04%

None 3 5,733 6.6%

Unknown 8 69,371 79.7%

CL-25b Clients - Multiple Interagency Coordination

States could submit multiple interagency coordination code values for each client. Nine states

submitted 86,993 records with Interagency Coordination information. “Exhibit CL-25b Clients -

Multiple Interagency Coordination FFY2017” indicates the number of coordinations for clients.

Most client records, 86.3%, did not include a coordination and 9.8% indicated one coordination. 

Exhibit CL-25b Clients - Multiple Interagency Coordination FFY2017

Clients with Multiple Coordinations # of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=86,993)

No Coordination Submitted 3 75,104 86.3%

Only 1 Coordination 9 8,549 9.8%

2 Coordinations 8 3,186 3.7%

3 Coordinations 6 84 0.1%

4 or More Coordinations 2 70 0.1%

86.3%

9.8%

3.7%

0.1%

0.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No Coordination Submitted

Only 1 Coordination

2 Coordinations

3 Coordinations

4 or More Coordinations
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 47

CL-26a Clients - Previous Reports

Fourteen states reported on clients’ previous reports of maltreatment and the data are displayed in 

“Exhibit CL-26a Clients - Previous Reports FFY2017” (287,371 records submitted, of which 

273,788 included previous reports). Twelve states reported that 56.1% of the records submitted 

contained the No Previous Reports data element, while 13 states indicated 39.2% of clients had 

previous reports of maltreatment. Unknown was noted for 4.7% of client records submitted by two 

states. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system 

or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, 

presumably because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CL-26a Clients - Previous Reports FFY2017

Previous Reports # of States that Submitted # of Clients % of clients (N=287,371)

Yes 13 112,569 39.2%

No 12 161,219 56.1%

Unknown 2 13,583 4.7%

CL-26b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Previous Report

“Exhibit CL-26b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Previous Report FFY2017”

presents data submitted by 10 states representing 86,039 victims, first for all substantiated victims 

and then for all victims of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A victim may have 

substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that victim would be included in 

the column of every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation excludes 

one states’ records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). Most 

substantiated victims (51.7%) contained the No Previous Reports data element, as did victims of 

each type of substantiated maltreatment except for Abandonment (66.1% had Previous Report(s)) 

and Other Type (55.1% had Previous Report(s)).

Yes

39.2%

No

56.1%

Unknown

4.7%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 48

Exhibit CL-26b Victims - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Previous Report FFY2017 Previous Reports All Victims Abandonment Emotional 

Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

Previous Report(s) 48.3% 66.1% 37.4% 42.2% 47.8% 40.5% 41.2% 49.9% 55.1%

No Previous Report 51.7% 33.9% 62.7% 57.8% 52.2% 59.5% 58.8% 50.1% 45.0%

Total 86,039 776 5,267 6,925 7,724 5,032 500 66,356 2,692

Case Component - Maltreatment Allegations

MA-1 Maltreatment Allegation Record Submission

Twenty-six states submitted maltreatment allegations (483,455 records submitted). The NAMRS 

business convention associated with these two data elements requires that a record have both 

maltreatment and disposition types. Therefore, 100% of records included both data elements.

“Exhibit MA-1 Maltreatment Allegation Record Submission FFY2017” displays information 

about the maltreatment type and disposition type.

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

Abandonment

Emotional Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Self-Neglect

Other Type

No Previous Report

Previous Report(s)
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 49

Exhibit MA-1 Maltreatment Allegation Record Submission FFY2017

Data Element

# of States 

that 

Submitted

# of Records 

from States

# of Records 

with Data

% of 

Records 

from States 

with Data

% of Total 

Records 

(N=483,455)

Maltreatment Type 26 483,455 483,455 100.0% 100.0%

Disposition Type 26 483,455 483,455 100.0% 100.0%

MA-2 Maltreatment Allegation - Types and Dispositions

The maltreatment allegation types, displayed in “Exhibit MA-2 Maltreatment Allegation - Types 

and Dispositions FFY2017,” are Abandonment, Emotional Abuse, Exploitation (Non-Specific), 

Financial Exploitation, Neglect, Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Self-Neglect, Other Exploitation,

and Other. NAMRS requires that each record have a maltreatment type. Therefore, all 26 reporting 

states had a maltreatment type identified. Twenty-six states submitted 483,455 records. The most 

common maltreatment types reported were Self-Neglect (39.9% of records reported by 24 states),

Neglect (18.8% of records reported by 26 states), and Exploitation (11.2% reported by 19 states).

Examples of Other maltreatments provided by states include abduction, confinement/isolation, 

coercion, and treatment without consent.

Exhibit MA-2 Maltreatment Allegation - Types and Dispositions FFY2017

Maltreatment Types Total Substantiated Inconclusive Unsubstantiated Other

Abandonment 2,353 35.3% 9.1% 54.9% 0.8%

Emotional Abuse 47,025 14.1% 20.1% 49.2% 16.6%

Financial Exploitation 21,809 16.8% 6.4% 43.5% 33.4%

Exploitation (Non-Specific) 54,246 15.1% 23.0% 54.2% 7.8%

Other Exploitation 6,314 18.6% 17.1% 56.3% 8.0%

Neglect 90,756 13.2% 10.9% 62.2% 13.7%

Physical Abuse 49,236 13.9% 19.5% 54.4% 12.2%

Sexual Abuse 6,170 11.1% 21.6% 52.8% 14.5%

Self-Neglect 192,798 42.8% 6.1% 28.2% 22.9%

Other 12,748 33.5% 12.0% 40.1% 14.4%

All Maltreatments 483,455 26.2% 12.2% 44.0% 17.6%

MA-3 Maltreatment Allegation - Multiple Substantiation

Twenty-six states submitted data (361,185 clients represented) with substantiated maltreatment. 

“Exhibit MA-3 Maltreatment Allegation - Multiple Substantiation FFY2017” displays the data 

regarding multiple maltreatment allegation substantiations. There were no allegations of 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 50

maltreatment substantiated for 68.6% of clients, while 28.3% of victims had one maltreatment 

substantiated. There were multiple maltreatment substantiations for 3.2% percent of victims.

Exhibit MA-3 Maltreatment Allegation - Multiple Substantiation FFY2017

Substantiation # of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Clients

% of Clients 

(N=361,185)

Clients with Substantiation Criteria Unmet 26 247,645 68.6%

Victims with 1 Substantiation 25 102,264 28.3%

Victims with 2 Substantiations 23 9,615 2.7%

Victims with 3 or More Substantiations 22 1,661 0.5%

Case Component – Perpetrators

PR-1 Perpetrator Record Submission

Some states record self-neglecters as being both the client and the perpetrator; however, this 

practice is far from universal. For all perpetrator exhibits, data are not presented for Self-Neglect. 

The NAMRS validation conventions require that substantiated maltreatment records have a unique 

perpetrator identification number if states collect perpetrator information. It was determined that 

the best approach for presenting perpetrator information was to exclude the Self-Neglect data 

element from a record where the victim of Self-Neglect was identified as the perpetrator. If the 

client had multiple maltreatments, then only the Self-Neglect maltreatment was excluded from the 

perpetrator data exhibits.

“Exhibit PR-1 Perpetrator Record Submission FFY2017” provides an overview of the 24 states 

that provided perpetrator information (34,869 perpetrator records submitted). Of the records 

submitted, 80.9% included perpetrator age while 86% reported the perpetrators’ gender. Race was 

recorded for 61.9% of the perpetrators.

Exhibit PR-1 Perpetrator Record Submission FFY2017

Data Element

# of States 

that 

Submitted

# of 

Records 

from 

States

# of 

Records 

with 

Data

% of 

Records 

from States 

with Data

% of Total 

Records 

(N=34,869)

Perpetrator ID 24 34,869 34,869 100.0% 100.0%

Gender Identity 24 34,869 29,982 86.0% 86.0%

Race 17 31,286 19,352 61.9% 55.5%

Age 17 23,564 19,058 80.9% 54.7%

Ethnicity 12 25,628 10,914 42.6% 31.3%

Disabilities 5 12,695 5,491 43.3% 15.7%

Behavioral Health Screenings 4 8,893 1,775 20.0% 5.1%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 51

PR-2a Perpetrators - Age Group

Perpetrator age, shown in “Exhibit PR-2a Perpetrators - Age Group FFY2017,” was reported by 

17 states (23,564 perpetrators records of which 19,058 contained age information). These data, for 

Perpetrator Age Group, do not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. The age of 

the perpetrator is determined usually at the start of the investigation. The top age grouping for 

perpetrators was Unknown (19.1%). The largest age groups of perpetrators were Age 50-59 

(15.9%) and Age 40-49 (14.1%). Because not all age groups encompass the same number of years 

(e.g., 70-74 is only five years), the largest age groups do not necessarily have the highest 

concentration of perpetrators per year of age.

Exhibit PR-2a Perpetrators - Age Group FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

Age Group # of States that 

Submitted # of Perpetrators % of Perpetrators (N=23,564)

Age 17 or Younger 7 1,398 5.9%

Age 18-29 17 2,260 9.6%

Age 30-39 16 2,691 11.4%

Age 40-49 17 3,316 14.1%

Age 50-59 17 3,745 15.9%

Age 60-69 16 2,556 10.8%

Age 70-74 15 929 3.9%

Age 75-84 15 1,425 6.0%

Age 85+ 11 738 3.1%

Unknown 14 4,506 19.1%

5.9%

9.6%

11.4%

14.1%

15.9%

10.8%

3.9%

6.0%

3.1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

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+
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 52

PR-2b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group

“Exhibit PR-2b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group FFY2017” presents 

data submitted by 10 states representing 18,357 perpetrators, first for all perpetrators and then for 

all perpetrators of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A perpetrator may have substantiation 

of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that perpetrator would be included in the column 

of every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation excludes six states’ 

records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). 

The largest age group was 50-59 among all perpetrators. This was also the largest age group for 

perpetrators of substantiated Neglect and Sexual Abuse. The largest age group for perpetrators of 

other substantiated maltreatment types were: 40-49 for Emotional Abuse, Exploitation, and 

Physical Abuse; 60-69 for Abandonment; and 75-84 for Other Type. Because not all age groups 

encompass the same number of years (e.g., 70-74 is only five years), the largest age groups do not 

necessarily have the highest concentration of perpetrators per year of age.

Exhibit PR-2b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Age Group FFY2017 Age Group All Substantiated Perpetrators Abandonment Emotional 

Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Other Type

Age 17 or 

Younger 7.6% - 5.9% 7.6% 8.6% 9.6% 15.5% 5.3%

Age 8-29 11.5% 4.9% 13.4% 12.8% 10.3% 15.9% 13.0% 5.6%

Age 30-39 13.7% 8.6% 16.3% 19.7% 12.1% 17.2% 14.5% 4.7%

Age 40-49 16.9% 13.5% 19.7% 21.8% 18.2% 17.7% 9.3% 7.2%

Age 50-59 19.1% 25.6% 19.0% 20.0% 22.3% 17.0% 19.7% 13.6%

Age 60-69 13.2% 26.2% 11.3% 9.4% 14.1% 9.4% 16.6% 19.8%

Age 70-74 4.9% 9.8% 4.0% 2.0% 4.1% 3.5% 2.1% 11.5%

Age 75-84 7.6% 8.6% 6.1% 1.7% 6.1% 5.7% 4.7% 21.0%

Age 85+ 4.0% 2.7% 2.2% 2.1% 2.8% 2.7% 3.1% 10.9%

Unknown 1.6% - 2.3% 2.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.6% 0.5%

Total 18,357 732 3,340 5,231 5,546 3,487 193 2,965

PR-3a Perpetrators - Gender Identity

“Exhibit PR-3a Perpetrators - Gender Identity FFY2017” reflects perpetrator gender identity data 

reported by 24 states (34,869 records submitted, of which 29,982 contained at least one gender 

identity data value). The majority of perpetrators, 46%, were female, and 40% were male. 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 53

Exhibit PR-3a Perpetrators - Gender Identity FFY2017

Transgender not shown above.

Perpetrators by Gender 

Identity

# of States that 

Submitted

# of 

Perpetrators

% of Perpetrators 

(N=34,869)

Female 23 16,043 46.0%

Male 23 13,934 40.0%

Transgender 3 5 0.01%

Unknown 20 4,887 14.0%

PR-3b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity

“Exhibit PR-3b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity FFY 2017” 

presents data submitted by 19 states representing 26,969 perpetrators, first for all perpetrators and 

then for all perpetrators of each type of substantiated maltreatment. Note that a perpetrator may 

have substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that perpetrator would be 

included in the column of every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation 

excludes four states’ records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). The 

most frequent gender identity was Female among all perpetrators (50.8%) and for perpetrators of 

substantiated Other Type (58.7%), Abandonment (55.2%), Neglect (54.5%), and Exploitation

(54.1%).

Female

46.0%

Male

40.0%

Unknown

14.0%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 54

Exhibit PR-3b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Gender Identity FFY2017 Gender Identity All Substantiated Perpetrators Abandonment Emotional Abuse Exploitation Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Other Type

Female 50.8% 55.2% 42.5% 54.1% 54.5% 39.9% 10.9% 58.7%

Male 44.2% 44.4% 54.7% 39.3% 39.5% 56.8% 84.4% 39.2%

Transgender 0.01% - 0.04% - 0.01% 0.1% - -

Unknown 5.0% 0.4% 2.8% 6.6% 6.0% 3.3% 4.8% 2.2%

Total 26,969 768 4,903 8,614 9,441 4,823 313 2,997

PR-4a Perpetrators - Race

Seventeen states submitted data on self-identified perpetrator race (31,286 perpetrator records 

submitted, of which 19,352 included at least one race). These data, for the race of perpetrators, do

not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. According to the FFY2017 data reported 

on perpetrators’ race, most perpetrators were White (46%). The next most common perpetrator 

race reported was Black or African American (10.9%). States are permitted to report multiple races 

for one individual therefore, data tables will not total 100%. Reasons for Unknown values may 

include: race was recorded as Unknown in state reporting system because the perpetrator did not 

know or disclose their race or staff were not able to determine their race; and data records 

submitted to NAMRS did not contain race information, presumably because the information was 

not collected.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Abandonment

Emotional Abuse

Exploitation

Neglect

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Other Type

Male

Female
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 55

Exhibit PR-4a Perpetrators - Race FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

Race

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Race Count

% of 

Perpetrators 

(N=31,286)

White 17 14,383 46.0%

Black or African American 13 3,402 10.9%

American Indian or Alaska Native 12 714 2.3%

Other Race 10 694 2.2%

Asian 13 204 0.7%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 8 53 0.2%

Unknown 16 11,934 38.1%

PR-4b Perpetrators - Multiple Races

Seventeen states submitted 31,286 records, of which 19,352 included at least one race. “Exhibit 

PR-4b Perpetrators - Multiple Races FFY2017” indicates the number of perpetrators with multiple 

races. These data, for the multiple races of perpetrators, do not include victims with a substantiation 

of Self-Neglect. Most perpetrator records, 61.6%, listed only one race and 38.1% did not include 

a race.

Exhibit PR-4b Perpetrators - Multiple Races FFY2017

Perpetrators with Multiple Races # of States # of Perpetrators % of Perpetrators (N=31,286)

No Race Submitted 16 11,934 38.1%

Only 1 Race 17 19,258 61.6%

2 or More Races 6 94 0.3%

46.0%

10.9%

2.3%

2.2%

0.7%

0.2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

White

Black or African

American

American Indian or

Alaska Native

Other Race

Asian

Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 56

PR-5 Perpetrators - Ethnicity

Ten states submitted data on perpetrator ethnicity (25,628 perpetrator records submitted, of which

10,914 contained ethnicity information). These data, for the ethnicity of perpetrators, do not

include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. “Exhibit PR-5 Perpetrators - Ethnicity

FFY2017” shows that 36.8% of perpetrators were not Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish. Additionally,

5.8% were classified as Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish and the ethnicity of 57.4% of perpetrators 

was unknown. Unknown may be reported because of several reasons, including: state collected 

race and ethnicity as a single data element, so only the perpetrator’s race was recorded; state 

reporting system collects Unknown ethnicity because the perpetrator did not know or disclose their 

ethnicity or staff were not able to determine perpetrator ethnicity; and data record submitted to 

NAMRS did not contain the ethnicity information presumably because the information was not 

collected.

Exhibit PR-5 Perpetrators - Ethnicity FFY2017

Ethnicity # of States that 

Submitted Ethnicity Count

% of 

Perpetrators 

(N=25,628)

Not Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 9 9,421 36.8%

Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 10 1,493 5.8%

Unknown 10 14,714 57.4%

PR-6a Perpetrators - Race/Ethnicity

Seventeen states submitted 31,286 records of which 19,562 contained race/ethnicity information. 

The majority of perpetrators were white (41.9%), as shown in “Exhibit PR-6a Perpetrators -

Race/Ethnicity FFY2017.” These data, for the race/ethnicity of perpetrators, do not include victims 

with a substantiation of Self-Neglect.

Not Hispanic, Latino/a, 

or Spanish

36.8%

Hispanic, Latino/a, or 

Spanish

5.8%

Unknown

57.4%
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 57

Exhibit PR-6a Perpetrators - Race/Ethnicity FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. Unknown not shown above.

Race/Ethnicity

# of 

States 

that 

Submitte

d

Race/Ethnici

ty Count

% of 

Perpetrato

rs 

(N=31,286)

White Non-Hispanic 17 13,096 41.9%

Black or African American Non-Hispanic 13 3,340 10.7%

Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish 10 1,493 4.8%

American Indian or Alaska Native Non-Hispanic 9 691 2.2%

Other Non-Hispanic 10 614 2.0%

Asian Non-Hispanic 13 189 0.6%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander NonHispanic 8 53 0.2%

Multiple Races Non-Hispanic 6 86 0.3%

Unknown 16 11,724 37.5%

PR-6b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity

“Exhibit PR-6b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity FFY2017” 

presents data submitted by 10 states representing 18,434 perpetrators, first for all perpetrators and 

then for all perpetrators of each type of substantiated maltreatment. A perpetrator may have 

substantiation of multiple types of maltreatment, in which case that perpetrator would be included 

in the column of every type of maltreatment that was substantiated. This cross tabulation excludes 

eight states’ records due to the presence of too much missing data (more than 25%). The most 

frequent race/ethnicity was White Non-Hispanic among all perpetrators (53.7%) and for 

perpetrators of every type of substantiated maltreatment, including Other Type (65.7%), 

Abandonment (59.6%), Emotional Abuse (55.6%), and Exploitation (54.8%).

41.9%

10.7%

4.8%

2.2%

2.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

White Non-Hispanic

Black or African American

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic, Latino/a,

or Spanish

American Indian or Alaska

Native Non-Hispanic

Other Non-Hispanic
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 58

Exhibit PR-6b Perpetrators - Substantiated Maltreatment Type by Race/Ethnicity FFY2017 Race/Ethnicity All Substantiated Perpetrators Abandonment Emotional Abuse Exploitation Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Other Type

White Non-Hispanic 53.7% 59.6% 55.6% 54.8% 49.2% 50.1% 48.4% 65.7%

Black/African American Non-Hispanic 14.3% 12.4% 12.3% 12.5% 17.5% 16.5% 17.7% 10.2%

Hispanic/Latino 7.1% 0.6% 7.4% 4.9% 7.5% 12.5% 7.0% 0.4%

American Indian/Alaska Native NonHispanic 3.3% 15.9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 0.7% 3.2% 12.3%

Other Non-Hispanic 2.9% 5.1% 2.0% 2.5% 2.2% 2.1% 4.8% 6.4%

Asian Non-Hispanic 0.9% 3.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% - 2.1%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

Non-Hispanic 0.3% - 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% - -

Multiple Races Non-Hispanic 0.4% - 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 1.1% -

Unknown 17.1% 3.4% 20.6% 22.7% 20.4% 16.6% 17.7% 3.1%

Total 18,434 732 3,788 5,313 5,775 3,527 186 2,671

PR-7a Perpetrators - Disabilities

Five states reported data on one or more perpetrator disabilities (12,695 perpetrator records 

submitted, of which 5,491 included at least one disability). These data, for perpetrators with 

disabilities, do not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. These disabilities include 

perpetrators’ physical, emotional, and mental health issues that result in a limitation in activities 

and restrictions to fully participate at school, work, or in the community. States may submit more 

than one disability per perpetrator therefore, the data table percentages will not equal 100%. The 

three highest reported difficulties experienced by perpetrators, as shown in “Exhibit PR-7a 

Perpetrators - Disabilities FFY2017,” were Vision (20.6%), Ambulatory (14.7%), and Cognitive

(14.1%). Unknown disabilities data of 55.8% include: Unknown in state reporting system or staff 

were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, 

presumably because the information was not collected.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 59

Exhibit PR-7a Perpetrators - Disabilities FFY2017

None and Unknown not shown above.

Disability # of States that Submitted Disabilities Count % of Perpetrators (N=12,695)

Vision 3 2,618 20.6%

Ambulatory 3 1,860 14.7%

Cognitive 4 1,795 14.1%

Communication 2 439 3.5%

Hearing 3 355 2.8%

Other Difficulty 2 62 0.5%

Independent Living 1 19 0.1%

Self-Care 2 12 0.1%

None 1 115 0.9%

Unknown 5 7,089 55.8%

PR-7b Perpetrators - Multiple Disabilities

Five states submitted 12,695 records of which 5,491 records contained information for multiple 

disabilities. “Exhibit PR-7b Perpetrators - Multiple Disabilities FFY2017” indicates the number of 

perpetrators with multiple disabilities. These data, for perpetrators with multiple disabilities, do

not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. No disability was reported in 56.7% of 

perpetrator records and 33.3% of records indicated only one disability.

20.6%

14.7%

14.1%

3.5%

2.8%

0.5%

0.1%

0.1%

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

Vision

Ambulatory

Cognitive

Communication

Hearing

Other Difficulty

Independent Living

Self-Care
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 60

Exhibit PR-7b Perpetrators - Multiple Disabilities FFY2017

Perpetrators with Multiple 

Disabilities

# of 

States

# of 

Perpetrators

% of Perpetrators 

(N=12,695)

No Disability Submitted 5 7,204 56.7%

Only 1 Disability 5 4,224 33.3%

2 Disabilities 3 919 7.2%

3 Disabilities 3 298 2.3%

4 or More Disabilities 2 50 0.4%

PR-8a Perpetrators - Behavioral Health Conditions

NAMRS has eight distinct behavioral health screening or diagnosis data elements plus the Other

Condition category. States may submit multiple behavioral health conditions for each perpetrator

therefore, the data table percentages will not equal 100%. Three states reported on perpetrators’

behavioral health screenings or diagnoses (8,893 perpetrator records submitted, of which 1,775 

contained behavioral health information). These data do not include victims with a substantiation 

of Self-Neglect. “Exhibit PR-8a Perpetrators - Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017” shows 

that the top two behavioral health conditions of perpetrators were Other Condition (13.9%) and 

Substance Use Disorder (5.0%). State examples of Other Condition include specific behavioral 

health conditions not listed as a NAMRS data element value.

Exhibit PR-8a Perpetrators - Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017

Categories less than 0.5% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Perpetrators - Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017

Behavioral Health Condition # of States that 

Submitted

Behavioral Health 

Condition Count

% of Perpetrators 

(N=8,893)

Other Condition 3 1,235 13.9%

Substance Use Disorder 3 442 5.0%

Schizophrenia and Other 

Psychotic Disorders 1 53 0.6%

Dementia 1 40 0.4%

13.9%

5.0%

0.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Other Condition

Substance Use Disorder

Schizophrenia and Other

 Psychotic Disorders
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 61

Behavioral Health Condition # of States that 

Submitted

Behavioral Health 

Condition Count

% of Perpetrators 

(N=8,893)

Alcohol Use Disorder 1 18 0.2%

Traumatic Brain Injury 1 3 0.03%

Anxiety 0 - -

Bipolar Disorder 0 - -

Depression 0 - -

None 1 790 8.9%

Unknown 3 6,328 71.2%

PR-8b Perpetrators - Multiple Behavioral Health Conditions

Four states submitted 8,893 perpetrator records of which 1,775 contained multiple behavioral 

health conditions information. “Exhibit PR-8b Perpetrators - Multiple Behavioral Health 

Conditions FFY2017” indicates the number of perpetrators with multiple behavioral health 

conditions and does not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. No condition was 

included for 80.0% of perpetrator records and 19.8% indicated only one condition.

Exhibit PR-8b Perpetrators - Multiple Behavioral Health Conditions FFY2017

Perpetrators with Multiple 

Conditions

# of 

States

# of 

Perpetrators

% of Perpetrators 

(N=8,893)

No Condition Submitted 4 7,118 80.0%

Only 1 Condition 4 1,760 19.8%

2 or More Conditions 2 15 0.2%

Case Component - Client-Perpetrator Relationships

CPR-1 Client-Perpetrator Relationship Record Submission

The Client-Perpetrator Relationship Entity collected data on each of the characteristics of the 

relationship between each perpetrator and each client with whom there was a relationship. The 

description of client and perpetrator relationship is referring to the client that becomes a victim 

when a maltreatment is substantiated. A perpetrator could be associated with more than one client 

with at least one substantiated maltreatment, and a client could be associated with more than one 

perpetrator. Twenty-two of the 24 states that submitted Case Component data reported on the 

kinship relationship between the client and perpetrator (29,675 relationship records submitted). 

These Client-Perpetrator-Relationship data do not include victims with a substantiation of SelfNeglect. “Exhibit CPR-1 Client-Perpetrator Relationship Record Submission FFY2017” shows 

the client and perpetrator relationship data elements which include: Relationship ID, Kinship

Relationship, Cohabitation at Start and Close of Case, Perpetrator Association at Start and Close 
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 62

of Case, Perpetrator Substitute Decision Maker at Start and Close of Case, and Perpetrator Legal 

Remedy.

Exhibit CPR-1 Client-Perpetrator Relationship Record Submission FFY2017

Data Element

# of States 

that 

Submitted

# of 

Records 

from 

States

# of 

Records 

with Data

% of Records 

from States 

with Data

% of Total 

Records 

(N=29,675)

Kinship Relationship 22 29,675 26,700 90.0% 90.0%

Cohabitation at Close 4 3,919 3,762 96.0% 12.7%

Perpetrator Association at Start 7 10,439 4,855 46.5% 16.4%

Cohabitation at Start 4 2,869 2,020 70.4% 6.8%

Perpetrator Association at 

Close 3 3,695 1,850 50.1% 6.2%

Perpetrator Legal Remedy 3 3,545 695 19.6% 2.3%

Perpetrator Substitute Decision 

Maker at Start 4 3,005 154 5.1% 0.5%

Perpetrator Substitute Decision 

Maker at Close - - - - -

CPR-2 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Cohabitation

NAMRS data include both client and perpetrator cohabitation status at the start of the investigation 

and close of the investigation. “Exhibit CPR-2 Client-Perpetrator - Cohabitation FFY2017”

displays the information provided by four states (29,655 relationship records submitted, of which

2,290 submitted the cohabitation both at the start and end of the investigation). It shows that at the

start of the investigation cohabitation was present in 26.8% of relationships and close-ofinvestigation cohabitation was present in 22.8% of relationships.

Exhibit CPR-2 Client-Perpetrator - Cohabitation FFY2017

Unknown not shown above.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

No

Yes at Start

at Close
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 63

Client-Perpetrator 

Cohabitation

Start 

Counts

% of Relationships 

(N=2,290)

Close 

Counts

% of Relationships 

(N=2,290)

No 828 36.2% 1748 76.3%

Yes 613 26.8% 522 22.8%

Unknown 849 37.1% 20 0.9%

CPR-3 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Kinship Relationship

The kinship relationship between the client and perpetrator was reported by 22 states (29,675

relationship records submitted, of which 26,700 contained kinship relationship information). The 

top three kinship relationships displayed in “Exhibit CPR-3 Client-Perpetrator - Kinship 

Relationship FFY2017” were client’s child at 22.5%, Other Relative at 12.5%, and Spouse at 

9.4%. The client-perpetrator relationship was reported as None or Unknown for 41.4% of client 

records. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting system 

or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the information, 

presumably because the information was not collected. The Kinship Relationship data do not 

include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect.

Exhibit CPR-3 Client-Perpetrator - Kinship Relationship FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Client-Perpetrator 

Kinship

# of States that 

Submitted

Relationship 

Count

% of Relationships 

(N=29,675)

Child 19 6,672 22.5%

Other Relative 19 3,723 12.5%

Spouse 21 2,791 9.4%

Parent 18 1,430 4.8%

Grandchild 15 955 3.2%

Kinship (Non-Specific) 4 827 2.8%

Sibling 15 715 2.4%

22.5%

12.5%

9.4%

4.8%

3.2%

2.8%

2.4%

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

 Child

 Other Relative

 Spouse

 Parent

 Grandchild

Kinship (Non-Specific)

 Sibling
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 64

Client-Perpetrator 

Kinship

# of States that 

Submitted

Relationship 

Count

% of Relationships 

(N=29,675)

Domestic 

Partner/Civil Union 12 254 0.9%

Grandparent 4 15 0.1%

None 16 9,318 31.4%

Unknown 6 2,975 10.0%

CPR-4 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Association at Start

NAMRS data provide information about the association between the client and perpetrator at the 

start of the investigation and close of the investigation. These data indicate if the perpetrator has a 

caregiving relationship to the client at the start of the investigation. Seven states submitted this 

data element (10,439 relationship records submitted, of which 3,404 included at least one 

perpetrator association). These data do not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect. 

“Exhibit CPR-4 Client-Perpetrator - Perpetrator Association at Start FFY2017” shows that 10.1% 

of client perpetrators were Unpaid, Nonrelative Caregivers at the start of the investigation. Relative 

Caregiver (Non-Specific) accounted for 5.4% of perpetrators and 53.5% of relationships were 

reported as Unknown. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state 

reporting system or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain 

the information, presumably because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CPR-4 Client-Perpetrator - Perpetrator Association at Start FFY2017

Categories less than 1% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

10.1%

5.4%

3.9%

3.8%

3.1%

2.5%

1.8%

1.7%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

Unpaid Nonrelative

Caregiver

Relative Caregiver

(Non-Specific)

Nursing Home Staff

Other Relationship

Paid Relative Caregiver

Unpaid Relative Caregiver

Nonrelative Caregiver

(Non-Specific)

Paid Nonrelative Caregiver
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 65

Perpetrator Associations at Start # of States that 

Submitted

Start 

Count

% of Associations 

(N=10,439)

Unpaid Nonrelative Caregiver 3 1,052 10.1%

Relative Caregiver (Non-Specific) 1 565 5.4%

Nursing Home Staff 2 410 3.9%

Other Relationship 3 396 3.8%

Paid Relative Caregiver 2 323 3.1%

Unpaid Relative Caregiver 1 264 2.5%

Nonrelative Caregiver (Non-Specific) 2 183 1.8%

Paid Nonrelative Caregiver 4 173 1.7%

Residential Care Community Staff 1 38 0.4%

None 1 1,451 13.9%

Unknown 6 5,584 53.5%

CPR-5 Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Association at Close

Client Perpetrator Relationship data indicate if the perpetrator has a caregiving relationship to the 

client at the close of the investigation. Two states provided 3,695 records of which 1,850 

relationship records submitted included at least one perpetrator association. “Exhibit CPR-5 

Client-Perpetrator - Perpetrator Association at Close FFY2017” specifies that 22.9% of records 

indicated an association of Other Relationship, 15.3% as Relative Caregiver (Non-Specific), and 

6% as Nursing Home Staff. These data do not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect.

The client-perpetrator relationship at the close of investigation was unknown for 49.9% of records 

submitted. Reasons for Unknown values may include: recorded as Unknown in state reporting 

system or staff were not able to determine; and data submitted to NAMRS did not contain the 

information, presumably because the information was not collected.

Exhibit CPR-5 Client-Perpetrator - Perpetrator Association at Close FFY2017

22.9%

15.3%

6.0%

3.8%

1.4%

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

Other Relationship

Relative Caregiver

(Non-Specific)

Nursing Home Staff

Unpaid Relative Caregiver

Residential Care

Community Staff
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 66

Categories less than 1% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Perpetrator Associations at Close

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Close Count

% of 

Associations 

(N=3,695)

Other Relationship 2 846 22.9%

Relative Caregiver (Non-Specific) 1 565 15.3%

Nursing Home Staff 1 220 6.0%

Unpaid Relative Caregiver 1 141 3.8%

Residential Care Community Staff 1 53 1.4%

Unpaid Nonrelative Caregiver 1 14 0.4%

Paid Nonrelative Caregiver 1 7 0.2%

Paid Relative Caregiver 1 4 0.1%

Nonrelative Caregiver (Non-Specific) - - -

None - - -

Unknown 2 1,845 49.9%

Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Substitute Decision Maker

NAMRS requests information about perpetrators’ role as the clients’ substitute decision maker at 

the start and close of the investigation. This includes authorizations that are in effect related to 

health, personal, or financial decision making for the client. Four states submitted data for the start 

of the investigation for 154 of the 3,005 records. No state was able to submit the information at 

the close of the investigation. An exhibit was not produced due to lack of available data.

CPR-6a Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Perpetrator Legal Remedy Recommendations

Three states provided data on whether legal remedies were recommended or sought by the APS 

agency regarding the status of the perpetrator (3,545 relationship records submitted, of which 695 

included perpetrator legal remedy recommendations). States could submit multiple code values

therefore, the data table percentages will not equal 100%. “Exhibit CPR-6a Client-Perpetrator -

Perpetrator Legal Remedy Recommendations FFY2017” provides the legal remedy 

recommendations among client and perpetrator relationships. Other Legal Remedy was the highest 

at 16.4% and Restraining Order was the second highest at 2.8%. Examples of other legal remedies

include police/district attorney intervention, Ex Parte (temporary order), emergency guardianship, 

and guardianship. These data do not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect.
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 67

Exhibit CPR-6a Client-Perpetrator - Perpetrator Legal Remedy Recommendations FFY2017

Categories less than 0.5% not shown above. None and Unknown not shown above.

Legal Remedy 

Recommendations

# of States 

that 

Submitted

Legal Remedy 

Recommendation 

Count

% of 

Relationships 

(N=3,545)

Other Legal Remedy 3 581 16.4%

Restraining Order on Perpetrator 3 98 2.8%

Eviction of Perpetrator 1 24 0.7%

Removal of Guardianship Rights 1 14 0.4%

Restitution by Perpetrator - - -

None 2 1510 42.6%

Unknown 2 1340 37.8%

CPR-6b Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Multiple Perpetrator Legal Remedy 

Recommendations

Three states submitted 3,545 records of which 695 contained Legal Remedy Recommendations 

information. States could submit multiple legal remedy code values for each client. “Exhibit CPR6b Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Multiple Perpetrator Legal Remedy Recommendations

FFY2017” indicates that legal remedy recommendations were either not known or were not sought 

in 80.4% of records submitted and 19% sought one legal remedy recommendation. These data do 

not include victims with a substantiation of Self-Neglect.

Exhibit CPR-6b Client-Perpetrator Relationships - Multiple Perpetrator Legal Remedy

Recommendations FFY2017

Relationships with Multiple 

Remedies

# of 

States

# of 

Relationships

% of Relationships 

(N=3,545)

No Remedy Submitted 3 2,850 80.4%

Only 1 Remedy 3 674 19.0%

2 or More Remedies 1 21 0.6%

16.4%

2.8%

0.7%

0.4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Other Legal Remedy

Restraining Order on

Perpetrator

Eviction of Perpetrator

Removal of Guardianship

Rights
NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component 68

End of NAMRS FFY 2017 Report 3: Case Component

For more information about NAMRS please direct inquiries to 

ACL Program Officer Stephanie Whittier Eliason