U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–551 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–135 

PROTECTING OUR SENIORS: SUPPORTING EFFORTS 

TO END ELDER ABUSE 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HARTFORD, CT 

AUGUST 23, 2011 

Serial No. 112–8 

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

BOB CASEY, Pennsylvania 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KRISTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

ORRIN HATCH, Utah 

MARK KIRK III, Illnois 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

RONALD H. JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

DEBRA WHITMAN, Majority Staff Director 

MICHAEL BASSETT, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Richard Blumenthal ............................................ 1 

PANEL OF WITNESSES 

Statement of Kathy Greenlee, Assistant Secretary for Aging, Administration 

on Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Robert Matatva, Connecticut Resident and Elder Abuse Survivor, Unionville, CT ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement of Sandra Timmerman, Ed.D., Assistant Vice President and Executive Director, Metlife Mature Market Institute, Westport, CT ........................ 14 

Statement of Pam Giannini, Director, Bureau of Aging, Community and Social Work Services, Connecticut Department of Social Services, Hartford, 

CT .......................................................................................................................... 21

Statement of Neysa Stallman Guerino, Executive Director, Agency on Aging 

of South Central Connecticut .............................................................................. 25 

Statement of Bob Blancato, National Coordinator, Elder Justice Coalition, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 28 

WITNESS STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: 

Kathy Greenlee, Assistant Secretary for Aging, Administration on Aging, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC ............... 40 

Robert Matatva, Connecticut Resident and Elder Abuse Survivor, Unionville, 

CT .......................................................................................................................... 51

Sandra Timmermann, Ed.D., Assistant Vice President and Executive Director, Metlife Mature Market Institute, Westport, CT ......................................... 53 

Pam Giannini, Director, Bureau of Aging, Community and Social Work Services, Connecticut Department of Social Services, Hartford, CT ....................... 57 

Neysa Stallmann Guerino, Executive Director, South Central Connecticut 

Agency on Aging, representing the Connecticut Association of Area Agencies on Aging, New Haven, CT ............................................................................ 63 

Robert B. Blancato, National Coordinator, The Elder Justice Coalition, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 66 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Jeanne Franklin, Member, Connecticut Commission on Aging, Connecticut 

Coalition on Aging and the Board of the Southwestern Connecticut Agency 

on Aging ................................................................................................................ 70 

Robert ‘‘Buddy’’ Harkness, Waterbury, CT ............................................................ 72 

Carol Hennessey, RN, Sunset Shores Adult Day Health Center, Stratford, 

CT .......................................................................................................................... 73

Diane McHone, Groundwork Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT .................................... 74 

Laura Snow, MPH, Program Director, Center for Elder Abuse Prevention, 

The Jewish Home for the Elderly, Fairfield, CT ............................................... 78 

(1) 

PROTECTING OUR SENIORS: SUPPORTING 

EFFORTS TO END ELDER ABUSE 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, Hartford, CT 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

2C, Legislative Office Building, 300 Capital Avenue, Hon. Richard 

Blumenthal, presiding. 

Present: Senator Blumenthal [presiding]. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to welcome everyone here today. 

Wonderful for me to be back in Connecticut and to be with some 

of the advocates in an area that I consider to be really one of the 

most important to this Congress during this session, and certainly 

to me. Even though I’m a freshman Senator, I’ve been very privileged to be working with Senator Herb Kohl, who is chairman of 

the Aging Committee, and I want to express my appreciation to 

him for the great work that he has done on the subject we’re going 

to address today, and also for giving me the opportunity to have 

this hearing. 

We’re convened today on the subject of elder abuse. We have 

some extraordinarily important and informative witnesses, and I 

want to just tell you that I will welcome your questions and comments for the second panel. Unlike most legislative hearings in this 

building when they are done by state committees, we are not going 

to have public testimonies. This hearing will have only invited testimony. But the second panel will be available for your questions 

or comments that can be submitted in writing, and we welcome 

them and hope that you will submit them. 

And I want to say how grateful I am to the advocates and the 

professionals who are here today, as well as a number of the victims, because your contribution will be extraordinarily important. 

We’re going to begin with Assistant Secretary Kathy Greenlee 

from the Department of Health and Human Services, who is well 

known for both her passion and her experience, extraordinary experience over many years on this subject, and who has come to Connecticut to be with us. 

I want to also thank Robert Blancato, who is a long-time national 

advocate and original architect of the Elder Justice Act, for lending 

his expertise and voice to this hearing; and, of course, to our other 

witnesses, Sandra Timmermann, Pamela Giannini, and Ms. Neysa 

Stallman Guerino, for the great work that they’ve done here in 

2 

Hartford, our state capital, and on the front lines on this subject 

across the state. 

But, of course, first and foremost I want to thank the victims 

who are here today for their courage and perseverance in coming 

forward, your strength in telling your story and lending your voice. 

I see that we’ve just been joined by Senator Edith Prague. I 

thank her for being here. She is a long-time advocate on this subject. And the victims who are here today, Robert Matatva of 

Unionville, a hero, a veteran who fought for this country, is going 

to be talking as part of the second panel. 

But a number of others who are not going to be on the panel but 

who are here to lend their support and their personal account, 

Diane McCone of Bridgeport, who was harassed and threatened 

and really beaten by her landlord’s son in a horrific ordeal that left 

her homeless and terrified when she should have been respected 

and revered, thank you for being here. 

And I want to thank James Beck, the conservator of the estate 

of Buddy Harkness, Robert Harkness, who is here for Mr. 

Harkness today. He is a quadriplegic and was the victim of absolutely horrendous abuse at the hands of a nurse, a supposed professional who physically and emotionally abused him and is now actually serving a prison term as a result. But that kind of punishment 

will never compensate for the harm that she did, and Mr. Beck is 

here as the conservator of his estate. 

I want to just put in context the problem that we’re here to discuss today. This problem of elder abuse is the crime of the 21st 

century. Some have called it that with great truth. It is literally 

epidemic in our country, and it is a problem that is unseen, invisible, often ignored, disregarded. One in 10 seniors will suffer this 

year from elder abuse, but in the vast majority of cases the abuse 

will go unreported. In fact, for every case that’s reported, 13 will 

be unreported, and that is a tragedy, and it is itself an indictment 

of our society. 

Connecticut can be proud of a lot of what it’s done, but it’s failed 

to do enough. We had the fourth lowest budget among 35 states 

surveyed in 2009 to combat elder abuse. Out of 3,800 cases, only 

446 were properly resolved in our state that year. So we have a lot 

of work to do. We’re one of five states that received no Federal 

funding in that year for the work that we do on elder abuse, or insufficient funding, and just to give you some idea of the dimensions 

of this problem nationwide, it will affect thousands, perhaps millions of our seniors, and often the victim will be in the family, a 

family member, with the perpetrator. Often it will be a relative 

who commits elder abuse, and people in positions of trust, whether 

it’s guardians or family members or caregivers, need to be more 

carefully scrutinized and given attention. 

The lack of awareness is an enemy here, and one reason we’re 

here today is to combat that lack of awareness. We need to sound 

an alarm so that family members will be aware of it, look at bank 

accounts and credit card records so that they can see instances of 

financial exploitation within the family. Three billion dollars is lost 

by seniors who are victims of financial abuse every year, and that 

is an amount that is growing, as is the physical and emotional 

abuse. 

3 

So I have some proposals. I’ve been privileged to join with Senator Kohl in offering a number of proposals, and I think there’s a 

potential to go beyond them. There’s been a lot of work done by the 

Federal Government in this area, but I think that strengthening 

our Federal justice system and enabling states to do more in criminal enforcement is very, very important. 

We proposed, for example, establishing an Office of Elder Justice 

in the United States Department of Justice to provide support to 

state prosecutors, and I believe that that Office of Elder Justice can 

be empowered not only to support state prosecutions but also Federal prosecutions with enhanced penalties through the Mail Fraud 

Act and other kinds of Federal statutes that are designed to combat elder abuse. And Connecticut can actually provide a model in 

providing for those enhanced penalties because we’ve done it here, 

as you know, and I know that Senator Prague was instrumental in 

supporting that effort, as I was when I was attorney general, very 

supportive. 

So I think there is a tremendous potential to do here what we 

did for child abuse. Child exploitation enterprises are prohibited. 

So should be senior and elder exploitation enterprises, and that 

kind of effort which I’ll be describing in greater detail at the end 

of the hearing. 

I would welcome your ideas, your comments, your thoughts, your 

questions. And after that opening statement—I apologize for its 

length—I would like to invite Kathy Greenlee to testify. 

She is an extraordinary professional. Before becoming Assistant 

Secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services and 

confirmed by the Senate in June of 2009, she was the Secretary of 

Aging for the State of Kansas. And in that capacity, she led a Cabinet-level agency with 192 full-time staff members and a total budget of $495 million. She has literally devoted her life to this subject, 

with tremendous results in Kansas and nationally. She is now the 

fourth Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health and 

Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Aging, and she has not 

only tremendous experience but also integrity and passion for the 

subject. 

Thank you for being here, Secretary Greenlee. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY GREENLEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR AGING, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Secretary GREENLEE. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for inviting 

me. It’s not only nice to be here with you this morning in Hartford, 

but it was very nice to meet with you earlier this summer, and I 

think, hopefully, you can tell from our meeting that I share both 

your personal and professional commitment and passion to this 

particular issue. 

I would also like to acknowledge the people sitting behind me 

even though I can’t see them directly, the state leaders that are 

here, the advocates and the seniors themselves that are also critical to working with us all on this particular cause. 

The Administration on Aging is dedicated to protecting the rights 

of older people and to preventing their abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Elder abuse is a substantial global public health and human 

4 

rights problem. The World Health Organization has declared that 

elder abuse is a violation of one of the most basic and fundamental 

human rights, to be safe and free from violence. Yet, in a recent 

study, 1 in 10 older Americans reported being abused or neglected 

in the past year, and many of them experienced different kinds of 

abuse. 

Unfortunately, elder abuse appears to be on the rise. Available 

data from state adult protective services agencies show an increasing rate in the reporting of elder abuse. In spite of the accessibility 

of adult protective services in all 50 states, as well as mandatory 

reporting laws for elder abuse, an overwhelming number of cases 

of abuse, neglect, and exploitation go undetected and untreated 

each year. You mentioned the same statistic in your opening comment, that for every 1 case that is reported, or comes to the attention of law enforcement and other professionals, 13 others do not 

ever get public attention or professional attention. 

These trends are particularly alarming considering what we 

know about the negative consequences of experiencing abuse. Older 

victims of even modest forms of abuse have up to 300 percent higher mortality and morbidity than a nonabused person. Victims of 

elder abuse have had significantly higher levels of psychological 

distress and lower perceived self-efficacy than older adults who 

have not been victimized. Older adults who are victims of violence 

have additional health care problems than other adults, including 

increased bone and joint problems, digestive problems, depression 

and anxiety, chronic pain, high blood pressure, and heart problems. 

The direct medical costs associated with violent injuries to older adults are estimated to add over $5.3 billion to the nation’s annual 

health expenditures, and the direct costs associated with elder financial exploitation were estimated to be $2.9 billion in 2009, an 

increase of 12 percent over 2008. 

For nearly 40 years, the Administration on Aging has provided 

Federal leadership in elder justice programming designed to prevent and address elder abuse and their consequences. Over the last 

20 years, in particular, AoA programs have taken a more active 

role in supporting first responders, those programs of adult protective service that are directly responding to cases of elder abuse. 

Over two-thirds of adult protective services programs at the state 

level are housed in a state unit on aging. 

The National Adult Protective Services Association has been a 

partner with us, as I said, for 20 years. This has resulted in a number of projects and activities specifically targeted to enhance APS 

programs such as national training, core competency, and live Web 

seminars on emerging issues for adult protective services. In fact, 

the 2006 amendments to the Older Americans Act authorized 

states to use part of their Federal funding allotments for adult protective services, and many states report doing so. 

Despite these efforts and the critical role of APS’ first responders, programs across the country report many unmet needs. For 

each of the past two years, Senator, since I have been serving as 

Assistant Secretary, I hold a conference call with the states right 

after the beginning of a state legislative cycle. I have done this 

twice in a row to get all of the state directors to tell me the state 

of the states, what’s happening to state budgets. I start with MedVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
5 

icaid because that is a significant problem. I talk about the supportive services that states provide in terms of additional funding 

for nutrition. 

But in each of the last two years, probably the most scary and 

sobering number that I’ve gotten back from the states was their direct input to me with regard to APS, that as the states around the 

country are experiencing economic hardship, APS caseloads are 

going up, while many states are laying off or furloughing APS case 

workers. I have not heard of a state that treats an APS worker as 

an emergency worker, as you would law enforcement. So they are 

not exempt from furlough or layoff, just at a time when we have 

increased financial pressures on the states and increased problems 

with elder abuse, especially financial exploitation. 

Also, what I know from talking to states and in my work in my 

home state of Kansas, we have a national problem with lack of consistent data both at the state level and the national level on case 

statistics or program outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate 

how very important this program is to vulnerable adults and seniors. 

In response, this administration continues to try to increase the 

effectiveness of elder justice and APS programs across the country. 

On July 1st of this year, the Administration on Aging published a 

program announcement to fund the first Federal Adult Protective 

Services Resource Center. This center will be dedicated exclusively 

to supporting APS programs with the purpose of enhancing and improving the consistency and quality of APS programs. The center 

will be funded with $200,000 a year for up to three years, and we 

will begin our operation by the end of next month. 

In addition, the President’s 2012 budget includes a request for 

$50 million for APS demonstration grants to the Administration on 

Aging to help implement the Elder Justice Act. This would be the 

first-ever Federal request for dedicated funding for adult protective 

services. The President’s 2012 budget also recommends an increase 

of $5 million for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, critical 

partners, and I think most of us understand that the reason we 

have the ombudsman program was in response to abuses taking 

place in nursing homes in this country in the 1970s. Their mission 

with regard to adult abuse is paramount to their particular charge. 

The President’s budget also recommends $1.5 million to begin addressing elder abuse in Indian Country. We are looking forward to 

making a grant announcement soon about looking at elder abuse 

in Indian Country from a way that is culturally competent to address the issues with Native Americans in a way that works for 

them and their particular culture so that we can work on APS in 

all settings. 

It’s important to note that elder rights programs are but one of 

a larger component of other formal and informal supports authorized by the Older Americans Act that help older individuals maintain their health and independence. The Older Americans Act programs remain one of the most important home- and communitybased services programs that we have for seniors in this country. 

Older Americans Act programs are efficient, and they help build 

system capacity. 

6 

I’m committed to working with you, with other members of the 

Special Committee on Aging, as well as the HELP Committee to 

work on reauthorizing the Older Americans Act as a critical anchor 

for all of the services that we need for seniors. I also look forward 

to working with you on this particular issue. 

I am committed to working on promoting the dignity and independence and health of seniors, and there is nothing that underpins that more than helping someone live a life free of abuse of any 

sort. I look forward to your ideas and more opportunities to work 

with you as we both return to Washington. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Kathy Greenlee appears in the Appendix on page 40.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Great. Thank you so much. I have some 

questions which are designed to draw on your experience not only 

in the Federal Government but as a state official who knows firsthand and brings this passion and commitment to addressing this 

problem. 

I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about why you think it 

is so underreported. Is it because family members are often involved? Is it simply that it’s difficult to detect? If you could, perhaps expand a bit on that subject. 

Secretary GREENLEE. I don’t think there’s one answer to why it’s 

so underreported. I think one of the complexities of elder abuse is 

that it doesn’t fit neatly into any one category, and you can thread 

it out to multiple things like financial exploitation; self-neglect, 

which we don’t see with younger populations when we talk about 

abuse; physical abuse; and late-life domestic violence. The problem 

that we have is that we have not been able to isolate and look specifically at elder abuse as a social movement and work with seniors 

in settings where they live. 

I know from working in the area of mental health, for example, 

that seniors won’t come to a mental health clinic or service. We 

must go to the primary care physicians. I think what’s lacking is 

the ability to embed in other systems where seniors naturally 

occur, the opportunity to screen and provide services and training 

and law enforcement in a variety of settings. 

That’s why you see in communities like the triad approach where 

you’ve got multiple types of professionals who are intervening, because you will see this in a church setting, you’ll see this in a doctor’s office, you’ll get a call from law enforcement occasionally, or 

it will be unseen. 

I am passionate also in talking about family caregivers because 

80 percent of the long-term care that we have in this country for 

people comes from the family, and that’s a core component of our 

long-term care system. But unfortunately, when you talk about 

caregivers, you also have to talk about elder abuse. So I think family caregivers are also a new partner at the table that we must 

work with to make sure that caregivers provide support, that we 

can provide intervention with caregivers, and also understand as a 

society that when someone receives care from an individual, they 

are tremendously vulnerable, and we must have other supports in 

place to help protect them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. ‘‘Vulnerable’’ I think is exactly the right 

word. When a family member is involved, the problems of detection 

7 

and apprehension may be even more difficult. So I wonder if you’ve 

thought at all about ways that that kind of problem can be detected. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Senator, I will give you my personal ideas. 

I have not had the opportunity to move forward on those at all. I 

have experience working in the field of domestic violence in the 

1980s, and at that point, working with law enforcement, we were 

encouraging law enforcement to interview the victim and the alleged perpetrator separately so that we could get honest information from the victim. 

I would like to, in the area of elder abuse and caregivers, reach 

out to the medical community to talk specifically to doctors and 

nurses and others who see seniors and encourage them to examine 

seniors physically and emotionally by themselves, outside of the 

presence of a caregiver, perhaps with the caregiver because we 

often need the caregiver, but to understand that just because someone has dementia doesn’t mean we should automatically shift all 

of the conversation to the caregiver and leave the senior out of the 

conversation. 

Those are my ideas about protocols that we could look to so that 

we have the professionals who can help us do the screening and 

help us identify if someone is being abused. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you be in favor of expanding the 

mandatory reporting features of the current law, analogizing it to 

some of the child abuse protections that we have where school officials or nurses or doctors are actually required to report? Would 

you similarly expand the Federal mandatory reporting? 

Secretary GREENLEE. I think so, but I’d want to take a look at 

it. There is an issue with elders that’s different than with children, 

and that’s the fact that they are adults and they have the right for 

autonomy and self-determination, and that always underpins any 

sort of discussion about whether it’s appropriate to intervene on 

their behalf against their wishes. 

So there are some policy issues there that are complicated, but 

also a law enforcement role that’s critical. Finding that balance and 

being able to respect the independence of the seniors is important. 

So I’d be willing to be at the table as we work through those kinds 

of questions. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I think that’s an important area to 

consider. 

You mentioned very appropriately the fact that workers in adult 

protective services and similar kinds of state agencies are not given 

the emergency status or may not receive the kind of priority that 

other law enforcement officials do. And I wonder whether there are 

some states that do provide that kind of status. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Senator, I don’t know because I’ve not 

polled all of the states. Based on my personal experience in Kansas 

with APS workers, I was not running the APS program, but I know 

that they were not exempted or considered to be law enforcementtype first responders. Certainly in the national call that I’ve had 

with states, we ask about this specifically, and I have not had a 

state identify that they’re treated separately. There may be some 

that are, but certainly I have been alerted to this concern of growVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
8 

ing case loads, decreasing staff members and the severe budget crisis that states are facing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit 

about the Older Americans Act and why it’s so important to reauthorize that bill in light of the comments that you’ve made already. 

Secretary GREENLEE. The Older Americans Act was passed in 

1965 as a part of three laws that are critical to seniors and their 

health and longevity, Medicare and Medicaid being the two that 

are larger certainly. The Older Americans Act was passed to provide preventive services for seniors, to provide supportive services 

to seniors who are vulnerable and at-risk, to help them stay 

healthy and independent in their homes, to avoid worse outcomes 

if they stay at home and they don’t have support, or avoid needing 

to move to a nursing home. 

That need for seniors has not decreased. In fact, we have the 

same commitment and the same desire voiced by seniors, with increasing numbers needing those supports. 

I think it’s important we provide good programs, we have good 

outcomes. But having a meal, having in-home supports, transportation to the doctor, ombudsman services, preventive health services, these are critical components of helping very at-risk seniors 

remain independent and healthy. We have wonderful programs, 

good best practices, and this is a good time to talk about what we 

can do in this country in a positive, bipartisan way for our seniors 

to help them retain their dignity and longevity in the community. 

It’s a very, very good program. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. When you think about the elder abuse 

problem and reauthorizing the Older Americans Act or providing 

the kind of resources that you suggested, in a way reducing the 

cost of elder abuse in terms of injury that requires hospital care 

sometimes but certainly medical care almost always, and other 

kinds of costs that may be more difficult to quantify, it’s really very 

cost effective to reauthorize the Older Americans Act and take 

stronger action to prevent this kind of abuse. 

Secretary GREENLEE. I’m glad you put both of those together in 

your question. I think it’s important to look at the services that we 

provide and be able to quantify the savings to the medical system 

or to the Medicaid system. That’s valuable for Federal and state 

governments to be able to demonstrate that this is cost effective 

and efficient. 

It’s also the right thing to do for people. I personally believe that 

especially when you’re talking about elder abuse and some of these 

basic services, that that’s the role of government, to provide a protective level to help people, and I think that’s equally important as 

we talk about elder abuse. 

The Older Americans Act has a long history of working in this 

field of elder abuse and elder justice. The passage of the Elder Justice Act as a part of the Affordable Care Act gives us new mechanisms to move forward. That’s why I was so excited about the 

President’s budget recommendation to provide the first dedicated 

Federal funding for adult protective services so that we can use our 

background, our expertise, and move forward with APS. 

As I mentioned, two-thirds of the state units on aging run both. 

I know Ms. Giannini is going to talk today, because she’s in charge 

9 

of both programs here. And in the states that run both, they will 

tell you that critical tools for an adult protective service worker are 

Older Americans Act programs that they can offer to help someone 

get out of a situation of abuse and maintain their independence. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about 

the resource center idea, because for many of us here it may be a 

new concept, and what it would do, how it would impact this problem. 

Secretary GREENLEE. I talked a lot in my testimony about adult 

protective services. That is a government-supported intervention 

for elder abuse that fits in the confines of a much broader topic, 

a much broader conversation. We want to support a National Center on Elder Abuse that considers all settings, much like you and 

I were discussing, with doctors and other professionals, but also 

have the expertise to work directly with APS to provide assistance 

for them on training, and to look at what sort of data we need to 

be gathering. 

As I talk to APS workers and have gone to the APS conference, 

I often hear that the fractured nature of the state-by-state system 

makes it difficult to identify best practices and training. I think the 

role of the Federal Government can be to pull this up and distribute it back out so that all states can benefit from the good practices of other states and help them share among themselves as we 

look for new opportunities to continue to expand our support for 

them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And a number of states actually like Connecticut have enhanced penalties punishing elder abuse. I know it’s 

not a new construct to you, but I wonder what you would think 

about adapting it to the Federal Government. 

Secretary GREENLEE. You know, Senator, you’re asking me about 

law enforcement and criminal questions, which I really cannot—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It’s unfair. 

Secretary GREENLEE [continuing]. Well, I cannot respond to that 

issue. But I would like to work with the Department of Justice in 

any venue and sit at the table and talk about what that would 

mean if penalties were enhanced. Anything we can do to increase 

the support for law enforcement I believe we should do, whether 

that’s the police, an investigating body, or the prosecutor. I’m quite 

willing to help and look at those partnerships. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You know, so many of these problems are 

related, if only because some of the people who commit these 

crimes may have committed other kinds of crimes that also prey on 

vulnerable people. The people who prey on seniors may be the 

same people who prey on children. And so enhancing the penalties 

for crimes against children may be very appropriate for people who 

prey on seniors. And I think that, again, the Adam Walsh Act, 

where we have enhanced at the Federal level the penalties for 

crimes committed against children, provides a useful model for how 

we can avoid some of the constitutional problems but still provide 

really tough, effective penalties at the Federal level that in turn 

can influence what happens at the state level. 

You know, we have with us today a conservator for Buddy 

Harkness, who was the victim of some horrific abuse, and yet the 

person who committed that crime is serving only a 14-year senVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
10 

tence, which, in my view, knowing the facts as a one-time prosecutor, it’s certainly less than I think a lot of folks would think was 

merited. So I think that the more we can impact the awareness 

and the kind of attention that’s given to this problem, as you’re 

doing today, as you’ve done for a long time, is very, very important. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Senator, I agree with you. I think that the 

penalty needs to reflect the seriousness of the crime. It shouldn’t 

be excused in some way or overlooked because the person is old. 

I also believe that when we talk about law enforcement, that we 

have to deal with the very complicated issue of families because 

that’s what you and I both have been talking about this morning. 

We need to make it very clear to families that these are criminal 

behaviors, that it’s not okay to spend your loved one’s money or to 

take advantage of them, and that they will be treated as criminals 

and prosecuted as appropriate, that this is something, not necessarily a crime of strangers or acquaintances but a very personal 

crime of families, and that becomes more heartbreaking but also 

more complicated to resolve, I think. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I think your reaching out to prosecutors is very important because it really has to be a multidisciplinary effort, which I know you’re encouraging to be done. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You mentioned in your testimony the idea 

of a national plan, which suggests that you’re working on even 

more in terms of what HHS will do, and I’d like to give you the 

opportunity to expand on that. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Senator, I was just very excited that the 

Elder Justice Act passed as a part of the Affordable Care Act, and 

my excitement was tempered by the fact that it was passed without 

an appropriation. The states do get some money federally to deal 

with adult protective services, but it’s a state-by-state decision 

based on how they spend their Social Services Block Grant. 

The goal of the Elder Justice Act was to provide dedicated funding to make sure that we have the resources in every state. The 

President’s budget recommendation for 2012 was a down payment 

of a way for us to get started on implementing the Elder Justice 

Act by providing demonstration grants. I’m committed to continuing to work on that issue, to bring it to the attention of the administration, to work with the advocates. There were some major 

victories in passing this law, and I hope to see them realized. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. My hope is that this Congress will also reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I think we need to do 

that, which again is related to elder abuse. So perhaps you’d like 

to comment from your experience. I know in my experience and 

from what I’ve read, women are more likely actually than men to 

be victims of elder abuse. Would you agree, or not? 

Secretary GREENLEE. There were two murders last week in 

Washington, D.C. of elders, a woman who was 91 who was killed 

by her husband who was 20 years younger—this is a domestic violence situation—and a woman who was killed allegedly—I mean, 

these are investigations at this point—by a neighbor who was a 

teen. 

So we have domestic violence going up, we have acquaintances 

taking advantage of seniors, and we have strangers who are perpeVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
11 

trating violence. We have seniors who are sexually assaulted. We 

must work with the two major movements, both domestic violence 

and sexual assault, to make sure that those movements recognize 

and serve the growing number of seniors who are victims. We have 

increasing numbers of seniors coming with the aging of the baby 

boom, and those domestic violence and sexual assault services are 

critical and very supportive. 

I know the Vice President has been someone who has been a 

champion especially of the Violence Against Women Act. I think he 

was one of the primary sponsors of that law. So I’m also looking 

forward to being able to work with the Vice President’s Office to 

bring attention to elder abuse. It’s the third version of a very significant problem that we all need to address. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I think your discussion today has 

been enormously helpful, and I really want to say how much I am 

looking forward to continuing this work with you, and I know that 

Senator Kohl as chairman of the committee is absolutely committed to it. He’s very enthusiastic about you being here today and 

about this hearing. So I want to congratulate you and Secretary 

Sebelius for the great work that you’ve been doing, and again 

thank you for being here today. If you have anything you’d like to 

say in closing, I would welcome it. 

Secretary GREENLEE. I had mentioned the support of the President in the budget, the Vice President with the Violence Against 

Women Act, but I appreciate you bringing up the Secretary. As 

most people know, I’ve had the privilege of working with Kathleen 

Sebelius for 16 years, so I have many titles with her—commissioner, governor, secretary. She and I have worked well together 

for a long time, and she knows of my commitment. And I likewise 

know of hers, that these issues of abuse are important to her. She’s 

always been very supportive of this work, and I look forward to 

generating every idea we can think of so that I can take those 

ideas to her and find other ways for HHS to be supportive. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I hope this message reaches the supercommittee that’s been established by the Congress to propose solutions to the debt and the deficit, and as much as I am in favor of 

reducing unnecessary and wasteful government spending, and we 

have to reduce the deficit, we have to reign in the debt, I think we 

need to do it in smart ways that are also cost-effective in preventing additional spending and cost, which stopping elder abuse 

clearly does. 

And so I hope that your message will reach the Congress even 

before we come back and before the plan is submitted in November, 

and anything I can do to help you in that way I’d be happy to do. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Thank you. Let’s hope it reaches the supercommittee in a good way and not a bad way. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Right. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, thank you so much for being here. 

Secretary GREENLEE. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. We are going to go to the second panel. 

[Applause.] 

And I’ll invite them to come forward. 

[Pause.] 

12 

Let me—I think since the space is limited here, maybe what we 

can do is take two and then the remaining three members of the 

panel separately. 

So let me first welcome, and I really mean welcome, Robert 

Matatva, who is a resident of Unionville, where he moved in 1928. 

He served in the United States Marine Corps during World War 

II, joined after Pearl Harbor, was stationed in Guadalcanal, and 

then fought in the South Pacific, and with good reason is a member 

of the Iwo Jima Association, Survivors Association. He married 

Elizabeth Bette Deegan in May of 1946. They had four children, 

and he started the Edward Motor Service in Unionville, Connecticut, in 1948. So he’s been a resident of Connecticut for a long 

time, although he lived for a while in Florida, a veteran who fought 

with tremendous courage and distinction in World War II and truly 

deserves to be called one of the members of the Greatest Generation. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Matatva. 

And we are also going to hear from Sandra Timmermann, who 

is Assistant Vice President at MetLife and Executive Director of 

MetLife Mature Market Institute. She’s a nationally recognized 

gerontologist with over 25 years experience in the field of aging. 

Before joining MetLife she held senior staff positions with several 

national aging organizations, including the American Society on 

Aging, AARP, and SeniorNet, and earlier in her career she worked 

for various corporate clients as an account supervisor and in public 

relations and marketing. She’s now responsible for research, education, and consulting on aging at MetLife and its business partners, and she has a B.A. degree from the University of Colorado, 

and she has an M.A. and a doctorate in education degree from Columbia University. 

Thank you both for being here. And why don’t we begin, Mr. 

Matatva, with your testimony, if you would be kind enough. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MATATVA, CONNECTICUT RESIDENT 

AND ELDER ABUSE SURVIVOR 

Mr. MATATVA. Good morning. My name is Robert Matatva, and 

I’m from the great Connecticut town of Unionville, the town where 

I grew up, started a business, built a home, and raised a family. 

This is a state and a country that I love, and I’m the one who 

served with honor and dignity as a World War II veteran. 

I come to you to testify as a proud survivor. I survived World 

War II, serving in the 3rd Marine Division in the South Pacific. I 

survived a gunshot wound in the back which left me 87 percent 

disabled and made me a Purple Heart veteran. I survived the loss 

of my kid brother at the Battle of Iwo Jima. I survived losing the 

love of my life, my soul mate, my wife, of cancer at a young age. 

I survived being diagnosed with cancer myself on two separate occasions. I share this with you because I am proud that I have always been a fighter, a survivor who could handle whatever situation may come my way no matter how big or troubling that problem may be. 

But today, I join you to share my story as a survivor of elder 

abuse. This is a story that is much harder in so many ways for me 

to share with you because I was victimized at the hands of someVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
13 

one I loved. I served my country with pride and love, and I have 

tried to serve my family the same way. But in all the 90 years, I 

could never have prepared for the hardship that I would be put 

through by a member of my family, a person that I once trusted, 

loved, and called him my son. 

He is the reason I am here today to share with you my story of 

survival and stand up for all those who have been victimized and 

for those that are still being victimized at the hands of those they 

know and trust. My son did to me what the flood of the Farmington 

River failed to do in 1955 when it threatened to take away my 

business. After that flood I developed a motto, ‘‘washed out but not 

washed up.’’ My motto stayed true for all the years that followed 

the flood in 1955 until my son, who worked for me in my business 

since he was a kid and whom I trusted and loved, washed it all 

away without me even knowing it. 

But my story starts in much simpler times, before this hearing, 

before my business, properties, and home were withheld or destroyed. It starts here in Connecticut after the war when I returned home from the South Pacific. I came home to a country I 

had fought for and was unable to get my job back because of my 

disabilities. I refused to become a victim. I decided I would start 

my own business, and in 1948 I opened up an auto repair business 

in Unionville. I named the business Edward Motor Service after my 

kid brother Eddie, who was killed on Iwo Jima. 

After starting my business, I then built a home for me and my 

late wife Bette to start a family in. I built this dream house for us 

with my own hands. I built the whole house by myself. In that 

home we raised our four children, one who years later would take 

away all that I worked for, a business and a beautiful home at the 

lake, summer home, and a home included. 

In my later years I left the business, Edward Motor Service, and 

my properties here in Connecticut to my son John, and I went to 

Florida. My son John told me that he would watch the business, 

my properties and my finances in trust for me. I never wrote anything down, demanded I have my own attorney or anything. He 

told me there was no need. It was a good faith arrangement, and 

the paperwork he was giving me to sign would be just a formality, 

and he would only look after things until I returned. 

I signed my estate over to my son, all my finances, because I 

trusted him. I had no mortgages or anything on anything that I 

owned. 

In 2010, 26 years after my wife Bette had died of cancer, and 

just a few years after I myself was diagnosed with cancer for the 

second time, I returned home to Connecticut from Florida. I returned home to spend my remaining years with my family and 

loved ones. I had planned on living out my remaining years at the 

home where Bette and I started our family and shared so many 

memories. 

However, when I arrived at my home, my son refused to let me 

in. He told me if I wanted my house back, I’d better get a good lawyer. He then began and demanded I pay him $1,000 a month if I 

wanted to live there. I was heartbroken. I was shocked to find that 

he had developed the back parts of my property as two-family 

houses without my knowledge. Strangers had more access to my 

14 

property and home than I did. I learned that he had also done 

what the flood of Farmington had failed to do. I felt washed up. 

I had fought all my life to make a better country, state, and town 

for my kids to grow up and start their own families in. I trusted 

my children, as any father would. I’m lucky to have three wonderful children, Robert, Patricia, and Mary-Jo, who are with me today 

here. They have made me proud and have been taking care of me. 

However, their brother, my son, failed me and hurt me in a way 

that no amount of words or testimony could appropriately describe 

and do justice. 

I gave him everything I had worked so hard for. My other three 

children did not ask or expect anything, any properties or any business from me, and what I gave him to take care of and preserve 

he took over ownership 100 percent. I have nothing left. He left me 

out in the cold and demanded I pay him or get a good lawyer if 

I wanted to stay in a home which I built with my own two hands 

and raised him in. He left me out in the cold. I never thought that 

I would be a victim. I never thought that my own son would turn 

me into a victim of abuse. However, as I testify today, I’d like to 

think that I am doing so as a survivor. 

While this situation is not resolved, I have not given up. I will 

not give up. If today’s hearing helps one person in a familiar situation and helps another to prevent this from happening to them, I’ll 

be happy and proud. I will have survived this horrible experience 

and all of us will have won a great victory. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Robert Matatva appears in the Appendix on page 51.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Matatva. Thank you. 

I have some questions for you, but I’m going to ask that Sandra 

Timmermann give her testimony before I go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA TIMMERMANN, Ed.D., ASSISTANT 

VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, METLIFE MATURE MARKET INSTITUTE 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. Thank you very much, Senator. I’m very 

pleased to be here today, and I compliment the committee for focusing on elder abuse. 

And in addition, I’m a constituent and a representative of a constituent employer, so I want to thank you for your long history in 

addressing this topic in our state. 

And then I also want to thank Mr. Matatva for putting a human 

face on what I’m going to talk about, which is a study that we conducted on financial abuse. So I thank you very much for sharing 

your story. 

Mr. MATATVA. Thank you very much. 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. The Mature Market Institute of MetLife is a 

research and education entity within the company, and we share 

a similar goal with the committee to create greater public awareness of the extent of the problem and steps that families, the community, and policymakers can take to tackle it. 

This morning I would like to highlight a national study that we 

recently released on elder financial abuse, and then offer some suggestions for older people and family members to help prevent it. 

15 

The main finding from the research was startling, and actually 

you referred to it earlier in your opening remarks, and that is that 

the annual financial loss by victims is estimated to be at least $2.9 

billion, and that was a 12 percent increase from the $2.6 billion we 

estimated in 2008. 

These two studies were really the first to assign a dollar value 

to the financial impact of elder abuse, and we think it’s just the 

tip of the iceberg because, as you know, it’s very difficult to document these kinds of figures. And in the case of financial elder 

abuse, we estimate that four out of five cases go unreported, so it’s 

even a higher report situation. 

We also found that 51 percent of the perpetrators were strangers, 

and this would be people like home repairmen, telephone solicitors, 

or maybe common criminals who see an elder in a shopping mall 

or something of that sort. Thirty-four percent were family members—that applies to something that Mr. Matatva spoke about—or 

were friends, neighbors, and caregivers, people that the victim 

trusts. And 12 percent were business professionals, including nursing home operators. 

You mentioned earlier about the profile of the victims in your remarks. We found that the average victim in our analysis is a 

woman in her 80s living alone, exhibiting visible signs of cognitive 

or physical impairment, and requiring some type of assistance, yet 

still trying to be independent. These are all conditions that give the 

perpetrator a good opportunity to strike. 

We know that elder abuse can affect people of all walks of life, 

but I think the greatest impact is on those who have limited incomes, and then they find themselves wiped out of their savings. 

You put a good story forward for us, but I also wanted to talk 

about a few other cases that we analyzed for the study as an example of putting another human face on what we found, and I’ll just 

read a few of these off. I think they’re quite interesting. 

Two water purification salesmen were arrested for taking more than $37,000 from an 88-year-old woman for filtration equipment 

valued at no more than a few hundred dollars. 

A 29-year-old woman pleaded guilty to stealing more than 

$100,000 from two disabled people. She married one of her victims, 

a 64-year-old man who suffered from mental and physical handicaps, and took more than $50,000 from his bank accounts. She also 

cashed checks worth $60,000 from a 90-year-old dementia patient. 

An 85-year-old woman received a phone call from her granddaughter saying that she was out of the country and needed money 

to get home, and it turns out it wasn’t her granddaughter at all 

and she’d wired money to a con artist. 

Two nursing home operators left over 300 residents without basic 

necessities such as food and medicine as they attempted to defraud 

Medicare and Medicaid for over $30 million. 

Policy interventions are important, and we’re gratified that 

you’re addressing those. There are also some preventive measures 

that can be taken by older people themselves and family members. 

For example, we recommend that people make it a point to carefully monitor their financial affairs. They should check credit card 

and bank statements regularly, use direct deposit to prevent mail 

theft, and not let anybody sign checks on their behalf. 

16 

For telephone scams, we suggest using an answering machine 

and caller I.D. to screen the calls and then sign up for the National 

Do Not Call Registry, and of course put legal documents and important papers in a secure location, and consider the benefits of a 

durable power of attorney so that a trusted individual can make financial decisions if needed. 

And, of course, family members have a role to play as well, although we do know so many family members are the perpetrators. 

But many caring family members are not aware that their loved 

one has been financially mistreated. So it’s really important to be 

on the lookout for signs of abuse. Things like changes in mood or 

appearance may suggest abuse. Other signs are hesitation in 

speaking openly, anxiety, changes in sleeping and eating patterns, 

that sort of thing. 

One’s decreased ability to manage financial matters is often an 

early sign of dementia, so observing changes in managing daily activities, paying bills, losing papers, forgetting appointments are red 

flags that families should be aware of and might call for a cognitive 

evaluation. 

Tip sheets on preventing elder financial abuse, as well as the full 

MetLife Elder Financial Abuse study, conducted with the National 

Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, our website. They 

can be downloaded from www.maturemarketinstitute.com. 

In conclusion, elder financial abuse can decimate incomes and assets, both great and small, can fracture families, and cause premature institutionalization. And despite the growing public awareness stemming from high-profile financial abuse cases—Mickey 

Rooney and the philanthropist Brooke Astor are examples—it still 

remains underreported, underrecognized, and underprosecuted. 

Thanks again for sponsoring the hearing. It takes a really important step in calling attention to the problem. 

[The prepared statement of Sandra Timmermann appears in the 

Appendix on page 53.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. Thank you to both 

of you. I have some questions, and I would invite folks who want 

to submit other questions to do so in writing, and we’ll collect them 

from you if you just raise your hand. 

I’m going to begin with you, Mr. Matatva. You used a very important word in your testimony, ‘‘trust.’’ I gather that there were 

no indications that you could not trust one of your children. 

Mr. MATATVA. Well, originally I was informed by a family attorney that what I was doing was to protect my other children from 

taxes when I died, and I said, well, what if I want to come back? 

He advised me that no matter what—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. By the way, I don’t want you to talk too 

much about what lawyers told you because—— 

Mr. MATATVA. No, no. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. I don’t want to impact what 

may be occurring in your life so far as your legal status is concerned. 

Mr. MATATVA. No. I just want to say that I was victimized and 

didn’t realize what I was doing. It was a very bad mistake, and as 

I said, it took me my 90 years to realize that you can be taken 

today. You have to be very careful, be very careful with anything 

17 

that you do, or don’t sign anything until you get a lot of respect 

and talk from people that know or can help you out. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So sometimes it helps to seek counsel 

from a professional before you—— 

Mr. MATATVA. That’s right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Sign something when you’re 

dealing with a family member. 

Mr. MATATVA. That’s for sure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, that’s where I’m going because I 

know that you have very strong support, as you mentioned earlier, 

from other family members who, by the way, are here today. Three 

of your children are here today in support of what you’re doing, 

and without belaboring the obvious, your courage and strength and 

fortitude in coming forward today is really remarkable because it 

sends a message to others who may be victims that they should 

come forward as well and seek help. 

Mr. MATATVA. Well, that’s what my reason for being here is, to 

try to prevent someone else from the same thing happening to 

them that just has happened to me. And as I say, if we do save 

one or two people, we have a victory. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And your family helped you when—— 

Mr. MATATVA. They helped me. They certainly helped me 100 

percent, and that’s why they’re here today. They’re here today to 

help me. And as I told you, I don’t have that many more years left. 

I’ve got to try to get this thing resolved so that the rest of my family can benefit a little from all my hard work. And I thank you very 

much for inviting me. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I will be very blunt, which is that 

a lot of people would not want what they might see as the embarrassment, even though it shouldn’t be, of coming forward and telling their story, or the public attention that might be entailed, and 

it takes a very big man, I mean not big in stature, big in character 

to do what you’re doing today. 

Mr. MATATVA. Thank you very much. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Timmermann, I wonder if you could 

comment, because the MetLife study that—and, by the way, I recommend it very strongly—comment on the likelihood of women 

versus men being victims of elder abuse. We have obviously both 

women and men represented here today, and I think that the 

MetLife study, if I’m not mistaken, says that men are more likely 

to be the perpetrators. Sixty percent of the perpetrators are men. 

But women are more likely to be the victims, and if you could talk 

a little bit about that. 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. Yes. We found that there were twice as many 

victims who were female as opposed to male, and of course part of 

it is longevity because women do live longer, and unfortunately it’s 

likely that as you live longer, you do develop some chronic conditions. I thought what Secretary Greenlee mentioned was important 

too. So many of us want to be independent as long as possible and 

age in place. It’s our life to live, and sometimes we want to be 

home even though there are some dangers around us. But many elders are in a very tenuous situation because they are showing some 

signs of vulnerability, yet they still are hanging on to their hope 

18 

that they can stay at home. Also many people were very trusting 

in the generation that I’m talking about are very trusting. 

So when someone is coming to the house, particularly a woman 

who needs home repairs who might very well be a widow because, 

again, woman outlive men, a nice young man who wants to help 

with home repairs, or a nephew, I think the vulnerability shows because they do need help. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. One of the questions that really, I think, 

follows from that comment and is a question from Laura Snow, 

who is the program director of the Center for Elder Abuse Prevention at the Jewish Home for the Elderly, what role do you think 

financial institutions can and should play in the detection of these 

kinds of problems? 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. I think that’s very important and really one of 

the reasons that we were interested in the study as well, because 

financial professionals are interacting with older clients, and many 

of their clients have been with them for years and years, and they 

have the client relationship. If a client walks into the office of 

someone they’ve known for years and asks them to change the 

name of the beneficiary on their will or on some legal papers, the 

financial advisor is really on the front line. 

And so there’s no easy answer to that. They really do need to report it certainly to a compliance officer, to the manager of their 

agency, and then of course adult protective services. And we tried 

to help the advisors think about the ethical issues involved, because it’s so important for them to respect the desires of their client without breaking the confidence. At the same time, you don’t 

want to put someone in danger. So it is something we all care 

about in the field of financial services. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What do you think about mandatory reporting requirements? It would not have helped Mr. Matatva because his transaction didn’t go through a financial institution or 

other kind of service that might have reported the problem if they 

could have detected it. But financial institutions have access to 

checking accounts and other records that can reflect either sizeable 

or untoward kinds of use of money, and should they have some 

kind of mandatory reporting requirement or, for example, doctors 

or others who may see physical abuse? 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. It seems to make sense in principle. I’m not 

a financial service advisor. I’m a researcher and educator and was 

brought into the company for that reason. So I’m not able to answer that definitively, but I really do feel that advisors need to be 

strongly encouraged at this point to do something, because if they 

don’t, they’re not only putting the client in danger but they’re also 

endangering their practice, and I think it makes sense to me that 

we need to move forward in this direction. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you think that institutions of the kind 

for which you work are doing enough? Should they do more? Can 

they do more? 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. I think that the whole area of ethical behavior 

is very important in all the professions. Every company that wants 

to continue to operate ethically needs to have this high on their 

agenda. The reason we did the study was to call public attention 

to it—that’s the role that my department plays—but we also wantVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
19 

ed to make people within the company more aware of issues like 

this because as you have pointed out, this is the crime of the 21st 

century. People are not as aware of this as they should be. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And do you have an explanation as to why 

financial exploitation seems to be underreported based on your experience and your study? 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. I think it’s hard to find dollar figures. I also 

think some of the things you mentioned about elders’ embarrassment really have something to do with it. And then the amounts 

may seem small, but for many people the smaller amounts really 

impact their retirement security. Financial exploitation hasn’t been 

addressed in the same way physical and emotional abuse, and I 

think as time goes on we’ll see more and more reporting of the 

issue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. One of the other questions that we had, 

actually again from Laura Snow, is related to the methods of your 

study, the methods of the MetLife study, which used a survey of 

newspapers and public reports. Do you think it accurately reflects 

the type of perpetrators that we discussed a little bit earlier? 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. We’ve worked with the top researchers because in my department I don’t have experts in every area. So for 

this study we worked with the National Committee to Prevent 

Elder Abuse, and that is a consortium of many organizations, as 

well as some academics from Virginia Tech and the University of 

Kentucky. And as we met about this, we thought how we were 

going to get a handle on monetary losses because on a state by 

state basis, it’s very difficult to get these figures. The methodology 

is outlined in the study if people want to look into it. I know it 

sounds unusual, but it was our best way of beginning to chip into 

this, and we did our best to extrapolate the losses for a period of 

time and then analyze what this would mean on an annual basis. 

We also looked on the holidays to see if there was an uptick in 

this type of activity based on the news analysis, and there was— 

mainly by strangers. They were incidental crimes that took place, 

robberies or burglaries. As we continue with this research—we’ll do 

it every few years—we are working really hard to call attention to 

the issues so there will be more reporting of figures—and I hope 

other researchers will try to dig into this on a state by state basis 

as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Was the uptick around the holiday time 

in—you mentioned thefts and robberies. Was it primarily home intrusions, or were they financial exploitation of other kinds? 

Dr. TIMMERMANN. It included things that happened on the outside—in shopping malls, parking lots—as well as some home intrusions. I think, too, that family members who are long-distance caregivers come home at Christmas, and more aware at the time of 

what might have happened. If you’re a long-distance caregiver and 

you’re away for six months and come home for the holidays, realize 

something is happening, you may be more likely to report. So I’m 

hoping that journalists will also be tuned into this issue more than 

they have been and increase their coverage. That’s what we were 

hoping as a secondary outcome. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Great. Do we have any other questions 

from the audience? 

20 

[No response.] 

I guess not. 

Again, I want to thank both of you for being here today. Again, 

Mr. Matatva, thank you for your service to our nation and for being 

here today, and hopefully we can keep in touch with you. Contrary 

to what you mentioned a little while ago, you’re around for a long, 

long time and eventually regain access to your home. And we’ll be 

fighting for you and working with you in that endeavor as well. 

Thank you. Semper fidelis. 

Mr. MATATVA. I want to thank you both for myself and my family. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. MATATVA. Thank you very much. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

We have three more participants in today’s hearing, and we’re 

going to pull a chair up. 

I mentioned earlier that we were joined by the co-chairman of 

the Aging Committee, Edith Prague, State Senator Edith Prague, 

who has been just a tremendous leader in this area and has really 

contributed enormously to the work of our state legislature. I’ve 

been very privileged to work with her, and anybody who has questions about elder abuse or any other subject affecting seniors, she 

is a resource. So catch her while she’s here. 

Senator PRAGUE. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’m also grateful to Senator Kelly, who is 

here today. I’ve spent time with him. If you could, raise your hand. 

You may be less well known. Thank you for joining us. 

Now I want to express my appreciation to the three next witnesses, and let me introduce them maybe not in the order that 

they’re sitting, but I’ll ask you to testify in this order. 

First of all, Pam Giannini, who has been Director of the Bureau 

of Aging, Community and Social Workforce in the State Unit on 

Aging in the Connecticut Department of Social Services. That long 

title I think fails to do justice—I hope I got it right—to the enormous contribution that she has made over the 32 years that she’s 

been in state government in various capacities, but all of them 

dealing with human beings and human welfare, and particularly 

our seniors. She’s been responsible for elderly nutrition, caregiver 

support, Alzheimer’s respite, legal service development, really in 

dealing with the management of all the Older Americans Act responsibilities and programs. She now has responsibility and has 

had responsibility over the years for many of those areas and 

brings tremendous experience and expertise to her testimony today. 

I’d like to thank Neysa Guerino, who is at the Yale Management 

and Training Institute in New Haven. She is Executive Director of 

the Agency on Aging at South Central Connecticut, whose acronym 

is AASCC. I hope I got that right. She’s responsible for that agency’s $46 million budget, which employs about 150 people, and she 

oversees the implementation of Federally mandated programs, 

state and local requirements for fiscal program operation, and she 

represents AASCC as a liaison to state and local governments, as 

well as area planning groups and community initiatives. 

21 

She actually began with the organization in 1988 as the assistant 

director, and she was appointed executive director in 1998, and she 

has a variety of other community involvements with organizations 

and initiatives which are truly too lengthy to mention. But she is 

a graduate of the University of California, and she has a B.S., a 

Bachelor of Science in social work. 

Finally, Mr. Bob Blancato, welcome to you again. 

He is the president of Matz, Blancato and Associates, a full-time 

firm integrating strategic consulting, government affairs, advocacy 

services, and association and coalition management. And he is the 

national coordinator of the Elder Justice Coalition, which is a bipartisan, 650-member organization. He has had a long-time involvement in organizations that deal with the problems that we’ve 

been discussing today in the private sector, but he’s also been 

former House staff member, House of Representatives, and spent 

17 years on the House Select Committee on Aging staff. So he, too, 

brings a wealth of experience. He’s received many awards for his 

work, including the Arthur Flemming Award and Advocate of the 

Year Award from the Older Women’s League. 

Welcome to all three of you. And why don’t we begin with you, 

Ms. Giannini? 

STATEMENT OF PAM GIANNINI, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

AGING, COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 

Ms. GIANNINI. Good morning, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It’s still morning. 

Ms. GIANNINI. I know. I just checked to see. It was still morning. 

I want to thank you for inviting us all here today to talk about 

this very important topic. It’s been a large percentage of my career 

that I’ve spent on protective services for the elderly. One of my 

past experiences was as the coordinator of protective services for 

the entire State of Connecticut and wrote the first, with the assistance of staff, the first training manual for protective services in the 

State of Connecticut. 

So I am absolutely thrilled that you have placed a spotlight on 

this issue, not only for the State of Connecticut but nationally, and 

I hope that you will be able to bring the information from Connecticut back to your committee and share it with those that will 

make some great decisions about how we can move forward with 

this program because we need your help. Even though we have 

some good work being done on the ground right now, we can always build upon that and make it much better. 

I’d like to start my presentation this morning by just providing 

an overview of the Protective Services for the Elderly program here 

in Connecticut. Protective Services for the Elderly was established 

in 1978 in Connecticut, and it’s in the General Statutes at 17b-450. 

Since the beginning, the protective services program has served elders over the age of 60. Our program activities include investigation of situations of abuse, neglect, abandonment and exploitation, 

and facilitating related crisis intervention and stabilization. 

The Protective Services Program for the Elderly seeks to help 

vulnerable elders to prevent injury, maintain health, and preserve 

legal rights. Within that context, the program espouses values that 

respect the elders’ rights to self-determination, dignity, confidenVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
22 

tiality, and independence. This includes the right of competent elders to refuse services and make their own decisions. Service interventions are meant to support elders in the least restrictive environment, facilitate informed decision-making, and utilize family 

and community resources. The program in Connecticut is termed a 

short-term crisis intervention and stabilization program. 

And while most PSE services are provided to elders living in the 

community, social work staff also conduct investigations in longterm care facilities. 

Our philosophy in Connecticut about protective services is that 

it’s solution focused and places resources on partnering with the 

elder to ameliorate the circumstances that have brought them to 

Protective Services for the Elderly. There is less emphasis on determining culpability. However, when circumstances rise to the level 

that requires legal recourse against alleged perpetrators, law enforcement is contacted for further investigation and potential prosecution. 

You referred in your opening comments to some statistics about 

protective services in Connecticut and the number of confirmed 

cases of abuse. We in Connecticut look towards—you know, we had 

allegations this past year of 4,600 cases. Of those, about 3,600 were 

investigated as being termed in need of protective services. But we 

don’t use the term as other states do regarding substantiation, and 

therefore that’s how we get into that data reporting issue that Assistant Secretary Greenlee talked about. We’re not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges here. 

So we need some kind of consistency nationally about how we do 

our reporting and how we collect that reporting; and, of course, 

there’s always a cost associated with that, and that’s what we have 

to recognize. 

We have specific definitions of elder abuse here in Connecticut 

by statute. The definitions include abuse, which is the willful infliction of physical pain, injury or mental anguish, or the willful deprivation by a caretaker of services which are necessary to maintain 

physical and mental health of an elderly person. 

Neglect refers to an elderly person who is either living alone or 

not able to provide the services which are necessary to maintain 

physical and mental health for himself or herself, considered selfneglect, or who is living with a responsible caretaker and is not receiving such necessary services from the responsible caretaker. 

And exploitation, which we heard about this morning from Mr. 

Matatva, refers to the act of or process of taking advantage of an 

elderly person by another person or caretaker whether for monetary, personal, or other benefit, gain, or profit. 

And abandonment is just that, when someone leaves an older 

person without any recourse, where they desert them or willfully 

forsake an elderly person by their caretaker or person that is supposed to be responsible for them. 

Connecticut’s—the process here in Connecticut is that we receive 

reports both written and verbal from any person who believes an 

elder is being abused, neglected, or exploited. Upon receiving such 

a report, the Department is mandated by the Connecticut General 

Statutes to investigate that allegation. Initiation of an investigation must occur within 24 hours to 5 days, depending on the severVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
23 

ity of the allegation. The investigation includes meeting with the 

elder, investigating the complaint, and ultimately working with 

and advocating for the elder to help them to achieve their desired 

outcomes. Social workers must simultaneously assess the elder’s 

need for assistance, the immediacy of the need, the availability of 

the resources to assist the elder, and the ability and willingness of 

the elder to accept assistance. 

This past year, as I said, we had 4,607 referrals of alleged abuse 

in all the various categories, which include emotional abuse, exploitation, neglect, physical abuse, self-neglect, and sexual abuse. We 

feel that that is only the tip of the iceberg in Connecticut, just as 

all the other statistics show. Probably there are 10 times that 

many people that need these services that have gone unreported to 

our department. 

Staffing within the State of Connecticut is relatively limited. 

PSE investigations are conducted by 81 generalist social workers in 

the Department of Social Services through the regional offices. 

These direct service staff also provide support in other programs, 

including the Personal Care Assistance and Acquired Brain Injury 

Medicaid Waivers, and Individual and Family Services, the Conservator of Person Program Services, and other programs for persons 

with disabilities. 

So in Connecticut, we do not have staff that are specifically dedicated to Protective Services for the Elderly. They are generalist 

providers, and so they have to balance the different cases that they 

have and their case loads depending on the priority of those cases. 

I want to talk a little bit about the budget for Protective Services 

for the Elderly and our expenditures. The PSE budget, exclusive of 

our staff costs, is a little under $250,000 a year. That’s not very 

much funds to provide direct services to this very vulnerable population. 

The services we provide are supportive in-home and communitybased services such as homemaker, companion, home health, major 

cleaning and chore services, medical care if someone does not have 

medical coverage for a short period of time, emergency housing, 

and legal assistance. 

It should be understood that the social work staff associated with 

the provision of these services is funded by the State of Connecticut. No Federal funds are utilized to support these positions. 

My quick calculation is that for those 81 staff people that work 

partially for this program and their supervisors and management, 

it’s close to $5.5 million. 

It’s important to note here in Connecticut that there is a vital 

role that’s played by the Connecticut Homecare Program for Elders. 

It’s available and state funded and Medicaid Waiver option. It 

helps in supporting elders age 65 and older to get needed supports. 

It serves as a preventive measure because staff are often able to 

identify problems at the onset, negating the need for a PSE intervention. Moreover, the program is there as a frequent solution for 

issues of neglect and allows elders to receive support from caregivers that are not abusive or exploitive. 

So if Protective Services goes into someone’s home and finds a 

self-neglecting situation, or someone just doesn’t know about the 

services that are available and they’re willing to accept services, 

24 

our social workers work to get them eligible for the Connecticut 

Homecare Program for Elders and services are provided, and 

they’re kept safe in their own home. 

Connecticut’s Protective Service Program would be unable to successfully assist these vulnerable elders if it were not for the support and services provided through many of our partners. These include the access agencies; municipal social services and senior centers; health care providers such as homecare agencies, hospitals 

and community health centers; domestic violence service providers; 

the Department of Public Health; the Area Agencies on Aging; companion and homemaker providers; law enforcement, and all our 

other legal partners. 

One of the questions you had asked prior to us coming to this 

hearing is how could the Federal Government help, and we have 

many suggestions. You can continue, the Federal Government can 

continue by doing the good work that has begun and by advocating 

for the following. We need an infrastructure that provides a Federal home for adult protective services and supports the efforts of 

protective services through additional funding for prevention, education, outreach, and staffing needs. I must caution you, we do not 

need any more unfunded Federal mandates. We do need your assistance for some funding in support of what has passed in the 

Elder Justice Act and appropriate dollars for those things. 

We need support for Federal guidance on the development of program standards. Standards for nationwide operation of such a program need to be developed and enforced. As you can see, Connecticut’s program only serves people over the age of 60. Other states 

have APS, adult protective services, for people over the age of 18. 

In Connecticut, we just have protective services for our elders. 

We would like access to funding through Federal formula grants 

based on state population size, age of population, and number of 

persons with disabilities. 

We would like to strengthen our connection with law enforcement and coordinate much better. A mandate that firms up the relationship between protective services and the excellent work done 

by law enforcement at the local level would be very helpful to us. 

Stronger education and action on crimes against the elderly and 

those with disabilities is also needed. And Connecticut’s work with 

the Chief State’s Attorney needs to be built upon to assist local law 

enforcement in answering the ever-growing needs of this population. 

I’d also—Connecticut has a very vibrant TRIAD program, and 

you have been instrumental when you were here as the Attorney 

General in support of that, and we would like to continue that collaboration and expand it where we have community partners, the 

police and local businesses targeted to assisting the population, and 

this is valued by the entire community. 

We have some next steps here in Connecticut that we’re interested in exploring, and we’d like to work in concert to strengthen 

our relationship with our partners. This includes ongoing and increasing collaboration with Connecticut Judicial Branch and our 

legal service providers to facilitate legal advocacy and justice. We 

continue to work to expand our multidisciplinary team efforts 

where we bring groups together at all levels. Our Area Agencies on 

25 

Aging are instrumental in continuing that with the money that’s 

provided through the Older Americans Act under Title 7. It’s not 

a whole lot of money, but it is a wonderful effort when people can 

get together and talk about difficult cases and how those can be resolved, and bringing in law enforcement, bringing in social service 

providers, bringing in different representatives of the community to 

educate them in how we can resolve these issues. 

So we are in the early stages as well of exploring opportunities 

for the development of statewide financial exploitation prevention 

and awareness partnerships with the Connecticut Department of 

Banking and Connecticut financial institutions. We’re just at the 

first steps of doing that. We’ve done some work with People’s 

United Bank here in Connecticut, as you know, and we’d like to expand that to other banks. Bank employees are not mandatory reporters in the State of Connecticut presently, and there is some 

controversy over whether that would be appropriate or not, but 

we’d like to look at that as a possibility. 

We’d like to thank you for this opportunity, and I would be 

thrilled to work with you on this issue in any way I can. Thank 

you very much. 

Oh, and by the way, if anyone would like to report a case of protective services that they think there’s a need in the community, 

there’s a 1–800 number, and since this is televised, I’d like to share 

that with you. It’s 1–888–385–4225. And that goes into our regional 

offices. So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Pam Giannini appears in the Appendix on page 57.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Guerino. 

STATEMENT OF NEYSA STALLMANN GUERINO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT 

Ms. GUERINO. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, for 

this opportunity to testify on elder abuse. I am here today as Executive Director of the Agency on Aging of South Central Connecticut 

and representing my colleagues in the other area agencies in the 

State of Connecticut through the Connecticut Association of Area 

Agencies on Aging. 

We are all private nonprofits, and we touch the lives of thousands of older adults through our Aging and Disability Resource 

Centers, through our SHIP projects, through the Statewide Respite 

Program, the Medicare Savings Patrol programs, the National 

Family Caregiver programs, as well as through our Title III of the 

Older Americans Act programs. So you can see, we have a wide 

touch into the lives of older adults in our community. 

Our staffs are seeing more and more cases in the area of selfneglect, financial abuse by both paid and family caregivers, as well 

as physical neglect by caregivers not attending to the physical 

needs of the frail, older adults they care for. I’d like to share with 

you several examples of what we have experienced as Area Agencies on Aging. 

The first case. An elderly woman called the Area Agency to request help paying for a homemaker. The care manager scheduled 

26 

a home visit and found the client sitting in a recliner in the kitchen 

surrounded by clutter. Several rooms were unusable due to the extreme debris and dirt. The woman was covered in a blanket, and 

the care manager noticed several roaches on the blanket and under 

the chair. Upon removing the blanket, the care manager found that 

the client had open wounds on her legs and the roaches were rampantly crawling on her body. Of course, protective services was 

called, as well as the client’s doctor, who ordered a VNA assessment. The client was subsequently hospitalized. 

Case two. Ms. G. lived alone in elderly housing and had been diagnosed in the early stages of Alzheimer’s type dementia. Through 

the Connecticut Homecare Program that Pam mentioned earlier, 

Ms. G. received services of a homemaker who assisted her with 

cleaning, meal preparation, and grocery shopping. Ms. G.’s son assisted the client with managing her checking account. In reviewing 

the account, the son noted there were three withdrawals totaling 

$1,060. The police and elderly protective services were notified. The 

police obtained bank video showing the homemaker in the bank 

withdrawing the money. 

Case three. Ms. M. is a 74-year-old female who is legally blind 

and has multiple medical issues. She has two daughters that live 

near her and offer support. In addition to her daughters’ support, 

Ms. M. also receives care management, homemaking, home delivered meals again through the Connecticut Homecare Program for 

Elders. Another daughter is also in the area and is a suspected 

drug user, and sometimes stays with Ms. M. in her apartment. 

This daughter frequently asks Ms. M. for money, allegedly to help 

her move on in her life and get her own place to live. At times 

when Ms. M. refused to give her daughter money, the daughter 

would verbally abuse her. Ms. M. did call the police when her 

daughter yelled at her. However, no arrest was made. 

Several months later, Ms. M.’s care manager was notified that 

the daughter took her food stamp card and spent the balance of 

$312, which was her grocery money for the remainder of the 

month. She reported to the care manager that her daughter went 

into her purse and stole the card. Through encouragement by the 

care manager, Ms. M. did take action and called the police. A restraining order was issued against her daughter, and the daughter 

was required to pay the money. 

Case four. Mr. S. was admitted to the Connecticut Homecare Program, an 81-year-old widow with fairly advanced dementia. He was 

living alone in his home of 40 years. His daughter came up from 

the south to help with the program applications, as well as Medicaid applications. Mr. S. also had a son who was somewhat involved in his care. 

With the care manager’s urging, Mr. S.’s daughter took Mr. S. for 

a geriatric assessment where he was diagnosed with fairly advanced Alzheimer’s disease and recommended 24-hour supervision 

to be made. Conservatorship was also recommended, so his son and 

daughter became coconservators of the person and the estate 

through our probate courts. 

An old friend agreed to take care of him, and the daughter returned back to her home in the south. The friend was very controlling and was very resistant to accepting the programs, so we had 

27 

some trouble getting the care plan implemented for this gentleman. 

She would often threaten us that if things didn’t go her way, she 

would no longer care for him. The son was providing care when 

this friend was not able to or the formal services were not there. 

All of his personal care needs were being managed by the friend 

and his son. 

We continually tried to assess if the son was providing all of the 

care that he had assured us he was providing. An incident was discovered that Mr. S. was being left alone with a special lock on the 

door so that he would not wander. The friend/caregiver opened the 

mail one day and discovered that the son had opened up a number 

of credit cards in his name and was using them, and the bills were 

reflecting large overdue balances. 

All of this resulted in an Elderly Protective Services referral and 

multiple appearances in probate court. In the probate court, he was 

assigned a guardian ad litem to ensure that the 24-hour care was 

provided, and eventually an attorney was appointed as the conservator of the estate. The issues of financial exploitation and personal neglect concerns resulted in weekly probate appearances for 

accountability to the probate judge. 

Finally, Mr. S. was assigned a new conservator of the person 

that was not related, and it was felt that he was required to move 

to a skilled nursing facility. He subsequently passed away at the 

nursing facility. 

As you can see from this case, and like all the stories I have presented, they require intensive, timely intervention, and require a 

team of professionals in multidisciplines to safeguard the individuals, most critically individuals with cognitive impairment. 

The Agencies on Aging are just one resource in our larger network of professionals which I think Pam outlined, adult protective 

services, social workers, banks, the police, and the prosecutors, 

which are endeavoring to educate the public about, prevent, and intervene in situations of elder abuse. All of us are involved, and 

we’re greatly heartened to see the major provisions of the Elder 

Justice Act passed as part of the Affordable Care Act. 

The Elder Justice Act is intended to facilitate the coordination 

among the stakeholders, establish uniform standards for response, 

and increase the public resources that are invested into the key 

public health and safety issues. We need all of it. To meaningfully 

respond, we need full implementation of the provisions of the act 

and enhanced staffing and resources for such vital partners and 

community programs. 

Education is also needed for our community law enforcement, 

banks, home- and community-based service providers on signs of 

abuse, the reporting requirements. And finally, we’d like to recommend that a national registry for all in-home providers with 

criminal histories related to elder abuse would serve as a helpful 

tool to both our community providers and those of us serving the 

elders in our community. 

We appreciate your attention to elder abuse. It needs and certainly is deserving of that population. Thank you for giving me this 

opportunity, and I’m glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Neysa Stallmann Guerino appears in 

the Appendix on page 63.] 

28 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Blancato. 

STATEMENT OF BOB BLANCATO, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, 

ELDER JUSTICE COALITION 

Mr. BLANCATO. Thank you, Senator. Good morning again. 

Yes, we can do this. Here we go. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the nonpartisan Elder Justice Coalition. Our now more than 750 members 

appreciate the strong commitment this committee has to promoting 

elder justice by helping to prevent elder abuse. And I would also 

note that Ann Montgomery from the Senate Committee on Aging 

is here, and she has been a great champion at the staff level of this 

issue as well. 

You bring an additional level of credibility and experience to this 

issue because of your outstanding work as Attorney General of this 

state, and your efforts at combating elder abuse were very effective. 

But we commend you for your leadership on elder justice just in 

your first year in the Senate. Serving as a cosponsor of the End 

Abuse in Later Life bill, as well as the Elder Abuse Victims Act, 

and your request for a GAO study on ways the Federal Government can support state, local, and private efforts to combat financial exploitation is very important. 

We commend you not only for holding this hearing but for your 

interest in policy strengthening APS programs. We look forward to 

working further with you and your staff. In light of the fact that 

policy to strengthen APS programs could be included in the Older 

Americans Act, we are especially interested in working with you 

and members of the authorizing committee to see how this upcoming reauthorization of the Older Americans Act can further 

strengthen our commitment to elder abuse. And, in fact, this afternoon I’m going to be speaking at a listening session that they’re 

holding down in the Senate HELP Committee on this very topic. 

One thing is not in dispute, and we’ve heard a lot about this this 

morning. Elder abuse is a growing national problem. When you factor in the nonreporting issue, and we’ve heard numbers already, 

there’s a most recent New York study that says for every reported 

elder abuse, 23 or more cases go unreported. Elder abuse takes all 

forms, but financial abuse is the most prevalent in 44 of our states 

in this country. The average victim of elder abuse is an older 

woman living between 75 and 80. But today, according to the Census Bureau, 48 percent of all women 75 and over now live alone. 

Yet our Federal response to this growing problem is anything but 

growing. If you consider funds spent on adult protective services 

from the Social Services Block Grant, and funds for elder abuse 

prevention and the ombudsman program in the Older Americans 

Act, it totals less than $200 million. By contrast, we spend upwards 

of $7 billion on child abuse prevention programs. 

We are all looking for ways to save Medicaid dollars in this $330 

billion budget. Let us invest in preventing elder abuse and keeping 

some of its victims from having to turn to Medicaid. That’s something for the super committee to think about, Senator, as you 

pointed out earlier. The investment in the Older Americans Act 

and elder abuse could do a lot of good. 

29 

We most certainly appreciate your recognition of and support for 

adult protective services in our nation. An original member of our 

coalition and one of our most steadfast advocates is the National 

Adult Protective Services Association. APS is established by statute 

in every state to receive reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation 

of older persons. The work of APS is as important to vulnerable 

adults as child protective services are to children. Yet, despite its 

nationwide status as a response system for victims of vulnerable 

adults and elder abuse, as you know from the most recent GAO report, it has no national infrastructure. As a result, APS offices are 

faced with ever-increasing caseloads, shrinking state budgets, and 

are struggling to survive. 

Yet we find it both amazing and appalling that there are still 13 

states that provide no funding for APS from the Social Services 

Block Grants. 

An important missing dimension for APS is the lack of a dedicated Federal funding stream, but we are all very pleased, as we’ve 

heard today, that this was addressed with the passage last year of 

the Elder Justice Act. I know you are familiar with this landmark 

legislation. My only additional comment about the Elder Justice 

Act is our fervent hope that, with your help, we can secure firsttime funding for the act as proposed by the President in his FY 

2012 budget, as Secretary Greenlee mentioned. We have 15,000 

postcards signed by people from 39 states in our office supporting 

that very position. The main element in the President’s request is $16.5 million for 

adult protective service demonstration grants. We view this as an 

important first step in building a national infrastructure for APS 

services. There is no question that another way to enhance the 

standing of APS is to allow it to have a first-time home within the 

Federal Government. We believe this action will prove important if 

it prompts the administration to move even more quickly and implement the provision of the Elder Justice Act which calls for a permanent home within HHS for APS. 

We feel this office should collect and disseminate data on an annual basis, and do it in coordination with the Department of Justice. The absence of good data has impeded legislative action on 

elder justice, pure and simple. This needs to change, because in 

this environment, data can drive dollars. 

We also support the administration’s call for a State Adult Protective Service Resource Center. We agree such a center is needed 

by the field and think it’s important to have it codified in statute. 

We look forward to discussing with you the idea of having this APS 

resource center be an extension of the National Center on Elder 

Abuse. We await the announcement by AoA of their new national 

center, and following that we can see what possibilities may exist. 

Essentially, we see your support as a critical catalyst to aid adult 

protective services, the men and women who are on the front lines 

in each state to help investigate and help victims of elder abuse 

and prevent future victimization. It is time the perpetrators of 

elder abuse stopped having the upper hand. 

As Mr. Matatva so eloquently stated, we must never forget that 

a victim of elder abuse is never the same. And according to the 

statement of findings in the Elder Justice Act, victims of elder 

30 

abuse have three times the risk of dying prematurely. What greater motivation do we have to act, and act now? Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Bob Blancato appears in the Appendix on page 66.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Thank you all. Thank you for your very powerful and important 

testimony. 

I have a number of questions. And again, I’m going to invite the 

audience to submit questions. And I want to thank each of you 

now, and I will reiterate it, for being, as Mr. Blancato characterized 

it, in the trenches, on the front lines, because you are truly dealing 

with this problem, as Secretary Greenlee is, at a higher level, in 

a different set of trenches, and Mr. Matatva has fought his own 

battles, and Ms. Timmermann. All of you who have been here before us today really are fighters in this effort. 

So let me just begin, Ms. Guerino, by asking you. You mentioned 

that there is no—Ms. Giannini mentioned that there is no APS program as is found in other states. Would that be helpful, do you 

think, in Connecticut to the work of your agency? 

Ms. GUERINO. Certainly. We are targeted to individuals 60 and 

older. So PSE does address that. But as we’re opening up the longterm care doors and removing the silos and looking at long-term 

care for anyone over 18, we are learning and engaging with many 

more younger disabled individuals. But there is a huge gap in services for anyone under 65, really. Sixty to 65 you’re limited, but 

you’re okay. But you get under 60 and it’s particularly difficult. 

And as we are seeing early onset of some Alzheimer’s type diseases, those caregivers are in extremely stressful situations and financially very difficult situations, and there’s not a lot of help out 

there at all. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And where do you see the biggest gap in 

coordination between yourself and the state or other agencies? 

Ms. GUERINO. I think it’s more so law enforcement and the local 

towns, the way that they handle the finding and how they get it 

to us, and then the expectations. I think education is needed because everyone expects the other person has the power to do that. 

And to things that have been said a number of times today, the 

self-determination right complicates all of this. We can’t go in with 

a magic wand and say you have to remove all this clutter, and 

there’s usually—it’s a very complicated issue. But having a uniform 

response and a uniform methodology for all of us I think would be 

extremely helpful. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So more coordination with law enforcement in determining who has what responsibility, is that what you 

mean? 

Ms. GUERINO. Responsibility and what we do, who do we call 

first, who do we call second, what’s available out there, what’s our 

kind of menu of options available to us right now. I think it’s hit 

or miss with the officer that you get, with the town that you receive. We cover 20 towns in our region. All of them are going to 

respond differently, and I’m sure Pam can actually answer that 

even more eloquently, whether they call PSE, whether they call the 

31 

Area Agency on Aging, it’s all different, or whether they call their 

local social worker in their town, if their town has that. It’s really 

very different how all of them respond to the kind of case findings 

out there. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Towns respond differently, and law enforcement agencies in those towns respond differently. 

Ms. GUERINO. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And how about the state? Do you go to the 

Chief State’s Attorney’s Office or state prosecutors? 

Ms. GUERINO. We have utilized that appropriately. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. How do you decide whether you go to the 

state or to local prosecutors or to state’s attorneys? 

Ms. GUERINO. You’re asking me a question I can’t answer. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That’s fine. 

Ms. GUERINO. So I’d have to talk to my staff in order to do that, 

but Pam probably can. 

Ms. GIANNINI. I can say this, Senator, that Neysa is correct in 

that the local response is different town by town, situation by situation. In some towns they have a detective that’s designated to assist in any kinds of abuse cases, and in other towns it’s the patrol 

officer, whoever that might be. 

When we work with law enforcement, we work with the prosecutor’s office. Sometimes we call the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office to 

assist us in working with the prosecutor and getting them active 

on a case if we don’t feel they’re putting forth enough effort. 

But it’s all dependent on the resources that are available in the 

town, in the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office even. We used to have 

an elder abuse unit in the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office. That no 

longer exists. Although they are still supportive of us, it’s not as 

ultimately available as it has been in the past. So there are difficulties in that. 

Sometimes in towns, it’s just that some officer has a very deep 

interest in this population, and we know to call Officer Jones because he has been very active on another case, and that’s how protective services workers work. They find somebody that they can 

work with and they keep on going back to that source because it 

has been helpful and they find an interest in it. 

It’s all about education. It’s all about sharing that information, 

making sure officers are aware of the specific laws that pertain to 

people over the age of 60 as opposed to the younger population, and 

how to enforce those. And often we hear when we go into situations 

where it really is some criminal activity, the older person doesn’t 

want to prosecute their family member, or the older person isn’t a 

reliable witness according to a police officer. So you have to work 

all that kind of stuff together. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’m interested in your comment that Connecticut has no adult protective services, and therefore receives no 

money from the Federal Government for APS. Would it be helpful 

to redefine or recharacterize Federal programs so as to be eligible 

for that funding? 

Ms. GIANNINI. Well, I think that knowing the history since I’ve 

been around a long time, in Connecticut there hasn’t been a great 

deal of support for adult protective services from the advocacy 

groups for persons with disabilities, and I think that’s one of the 

32 

reasons why we’ve never gone down that road in Connecticut. Is 

there a need? I would say, yes, there is. From what I’ve seen and 

from what I know about the severity of the cases we’re getting on 

that younger population, there seems to be a need for that type of 

intervention. So some funding, national direction on that would be 

helpful. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And also your point about—and it may be 

related—the emphasis—I’m going to paraphrase rather than 

quote—the emphasis on service rather than what you call culpability, which I interpret to mean law enforcement or prosecution, 

would it be helpful do you think for there to be more emphasis on 

the law enforcement or deterrence aspect? 

Because really you’re dealing in your job with, in effect, providing remedies, providing care and intervention, all of you are 

really, and the deterrent aspect would be important for some of the 

scams that prey on seniors, whether they be home repair, which I 

saw commonly as Attorney General, or financial exploitation 

pitches that are often too good to be true, and are, but prey on seniors ranging from selling gold to selling stocks. The list goes on. 

So I’m wondering whether more emphasis on culpability and 

prosecution would be worthwhile. 

Ms. GIANNINI. As I said, our model here in Connecticut is more 

of a social service model. But the emphasis on culpability at the 

same time while helping the person to live in the community I 

think would raise the bar a little bit in the deterrent area. But that 

would depend on the support that we were able to get from law enforcement and the prosecution end of it. 

Gathering the evidence, looking for the evidence, staff needs a lot 

of training in that area and has to be supported with law enforcement because we do not have that model here in Connecticut. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Blancato, what do you think about 

that issue both here in Connecticut and really nationwide? You’ve 

been fighting this battle for most of your career, and fighting with 

extraordinary diligence and dedication. So perhaps you have a perspective. 

Mr. BLANCATO. Thank you, Senator. I think it’s really about the 

Federal Government playing catch-up and utilizing the resources 

that should be applied in a coordinated way to fighting elder abuse. 

I mean, one of the things that we found fascinating that was written into the Elder Justice Act was the creation of a coordinating 

council which would take all the entities in the Federal Government that have some work in dealing with elder abuse, some of 

which we know and probably some of which we don’t know, to mandate they come together and come up with a strategy inside the 

Federal Government as to how to address this, and through that 

process we might find some additional funding streams that we 

didn’t even know could be helpful in this regard. 

So I think that we’ve got to—on the law enforcement side, it’s regrettable that the Elder Justice Act split apart. At one point it was 

one comprehensive bill that included what is now the Elder Abuse 

Victims Act. That’s got to get finished. That’s as critical a bill as 

the main Elder Justice Act because of its emphasis on law enforcement, to give the ability to local communities to take models like 

they have in San Diego and in New York and in Spokane, WashVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:10 Nov 04, 2011 Jkt 070551 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\70551.TXT DPROCT
33 

ington, where they have dedicated prosecutors doing elder abuse 

cases and doing phenomenal work not only in their community, but 

they’ve become national spokespeople for how to do prosecutions 

correctly. 

We need to better train law enforcement, because you can’t stop 

what you don’t report, and that’s really the whole key with elder 

abuse. And law enforcement needs a better understanding of it so 

they can help assist in the detection and avoidance. 

So I’m for anything that’s going to bring a wider array of resources to the table. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me use that excellent comment to 

segue into some of the audience questions, and I have many more 

questions for all of you. But I have the great luxury of being able 

to talk to you personally, and I hope we will continue to work together because I’m really going to be focusing on this issue in the 

work that I do in the Senate, and I know you have spent your careers literally working on this issue. 

So the first question which really deals with exactly the point 

that you just raised comes from Senator Prague, who says that the 

State of Connecticut had a senior abuse unit in the office of the 

Chief State’s Attorney. Because of budget constraints, the unit was 

closed. And can the Federal funding to deal with elder abuse be 

used to reinstate this unit? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Well, the funding that’s out there, the Elder Justice Act funding, probably could to some degree. But I think the 

focus with Elder Justice money is the dedicated funding stream for 

adult protective services, the additional support for the long-term 

care ombudsman program, the creation of grant programs for 

things like forensic centers so we can do a better job of helping to 

detect elder abuse. So I think it may be a stretch to think the Elder 

Justice Act could do it, but there may be some other—and the 

Elder Abuse Victims Act, I suspect that could be an avenue for support. 

But I think the problem that troubles me, and I guess a lot of 

the advocates for elder justice, and this is something that we’re all 

going to confront come the fall, if you go through a whole fiscal 

year like last year, in FY 2011, with all the cuts that were made, 

not a single new program was funded last year by the Federal Government in fiscal year 2011. The Elder Justice Act is a new program. What is going to happen to new programs in this environment? Are they going to have a chance? And if so, how are you 

going to make that case? 

I mean, I think we can make the case, but there’s got to be a 

feeling that new money can still become available in a new program, and I think we have a great test model here to show where, 

if you invest properly, you can save the big-ticket programs like 

your Medicare and Medicaid dollars if you’re allowing people to remain home and getting services at home, preventing elder abuse. 

So I think that’s where we have to spend some time focusing and 

recognize that new programs do deserve to get funded even in this 

environment. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And a question also I believe from Senator 

Prague to Ms. Giannini. Is it a requirement that social workers 

34 

who work in the protective services program have any educational 

training in geriatrics so that they are sensitive to elderly issues? 

Ms. GIANNINI. When we hire social workers for protective services or any of our social work programs, we in the last five years 

or so have been looking toward hiring people based on their experience and training. Most are Master’s level social work people that 

we are hiring with either a background or are in the process of getting their Master’s in social work. And if they’re to work with these 

various populations, not only do they come with training already 

that we are looking for, but we also provide on-the-job training that 

provides sensitivity education towards those that are older and 

those with disabilities. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. I am going to try to ask as 

many of these questions as I can, and I’m going to ask them verbatim without editing them as best I can read them. 

The next question is from Helen Campbell of Colbrook. How 

much investigation has there been into abuse in long-term care facilities? What percentage are seniors that are involved in putting 

together programs and legislation? 

Ms. GIANNINI. Sounds like a two-part question to me. But our social work staff does investigate cases of abuse in long-term care facilities, but we work very closely with the Department of Public 

Health on cases where the abuse is internal to the facility. We also 

work with the long-term care ombudsman program in the identification of these cases. 

There was a second part to that that I missed, something about 

the percentage of—I’m not really sure what the—could you read 

the last part of that? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’ll read it again. 

Ms. GIANNINI. Yes. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What percentage are seniors that are involved in putting together programs and legislation? I think the 

question—— 

Ms. GIANNINI. Oh, how—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Really is how involved are 

seniors? 

Ms. GIANNINI. What percentage, how involved are seniors in the 

development of programming? Well, we work with AARP on certain 

things. We work with the Area Agencies on Aging in the development of their regional plans where they do assessments as to the 

needs of older people, and that’s how at the State Unit on Aging 

we do a three- to four-year planning document that pulls in information through focus groups that we hold around the state, and we 

build upon the regional plans that the area agencies do at the local 

level as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. This next question is from Nancy Shaffer, 

the state ombudsman, and concerns the reasons for under- or nonreporting, essentially the fear of retaliation based on the experience 

of the ombudsman and the efforts made to alleviate that fear. 

Maybe you could comment on the fear of retaliation as a reason for 

non-reporting and other reasons that there is under- or nonreporting. And that’s a question I would pose to all of you. 

Ms. GIANNINI. I’ll start and let my colleagues add. I think that 

the fear of retaliation is very strong in all environments, whether 

35 

it be in a long-term care facility, assisted living, or in the community. 

I know for a fact, I remember when my father was in assisted 

living here in Connecticut I remember him complaining about them 

not delivering his medications on time. And I said, well, dad, we 

need to talk to them and let them know about this situation so that 

you can get your medications when you need it. And he turned to 

me and said, oh no, don’t do that, I don’t want to, they’ll do something else if I complain about it. And this was a gentleman who 

was well educated, knew what he was doing, but he knew that because of his disabling condition, he knew he was in need of services 

and did not want to upset the apple cart. 

So I would say that retaliation, fear of retaliation is a component 

of why people don’t report, along with issues of they’re ashamed, 

along with issues that they don’t want to get their family members 

in trouble and they want to stay in the environment that they’re 

in and they have fear that they would have to go either into a 

nursing home or a different location in order to live. 

Ms. GUERINO. I think the dependency that many older adults 

feel, that they need someone else to care for them or to provide 

some portion of their care, is just crippling to them. And to potentially—you know, what they say is if I report that, I potentially 

won’t have anyone to care for me; or better the devil I know than 

the devil I don’t know. 

And so to change that, as Pam pointed out, to either move to another location, whether it be a nursing facility or another location, 

it’s just too much for them to really—they believe it’s not as bad, 

and I think like all of us do. We convince ourselves it’s not that 

bad. We want something to be real. We keep saying it’s not that 

bad, it could be worse. I’m very lucky my daughter comes every 

day. 

And so the retaliation is what does create those kinds of things, 

and the fear of having no one to care for them. I can’t underestimate the power of that for older adults seeking a remedy to it. It’s 

just too scary. The options are just too scary, and they don’t know 

about a lot of options that are out there, and they’re still a very 

proud group, and to allow any semblance of not the perfect family. 

It’s still just not acceptable in our communities, particularly in the 

smaller communities. 

This is a doctor who served the entire town for years. Nobody is 

going to say anything. No one is going to believe me kind of thing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Blancato. 

Mr. BLANCATO. I would concur with all of their statements, and 

I also have to interject an apology, Senator, that the Assistant Secretary and I both have a plane to get back to Washington because 

we’re involved in that Senate HELP thing this afternoon. But any 

questions that have arisen that are directed to me I’m more than 

happy to respond to for the record later, working with Rachel and 

whatever. 

But I think it’s a great service you did by having this hearing, 

and your involvement and interest I think is going to aid the cause 

tremendously, and we thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today and join you. 

36 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I have been in your situation before serving as a Senator, testifying down in Washington and having to 

catch a plane in the other direction. So I am more than sympathetic and enormously grateful to both you and the Assistant Secretary, and you’re excused with thanks. 

Mr. BLANCATO. A pleasure. Thank you very much. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. We have a couple of more questions, and 

we’re near the end of our hearing in any event. So I’m going to ask 

a few more questions. 

Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Greenlee, for being 

here and for staying as long as you did. And thank you, Mr. 

Blancato. 

I want to ask a question that’s been submitted by Laurie Julian 

of the Alzheimer’s Association, the Connecticut chapter, which refers to the GAO report on guardianships, cases of financial exploitation, neglect and abuse of seniors, fraud that results from poor 

communication between state courts and Federal agencies that 

may allow guardians to continue abusing their victims, and many 

of the patients in the study involved individuals with dementia. 

What oversight and vetting of guardians can be done? Difficult 

question, but important. 

Ms. GIANNINI. This question may be bigger than me. So I think 

that in Connecticut, where we have a conservatorship program, 

and we do have guardians for persons with developmental disabilities, but under conservatorship program, it’s the probate court’s 

responsibility to vet the conservators to make sure that they are 

providing the duties and the care that they’re supposed to be providing. And if someone is having a problem or knows of a conservator that is not appropriately caring for their assigned ward, then 

they have to request a status hearing in the probate court, and the 

probate court has been very, very responsive in keeping on top of 

this. And I think that, in Connecticut, the system is fairly good. 

I, you know—we rarely—we have heard of some instances where 

conservators have been problematic, and if it’s brought to the attention of the probate court, they answer and they work with that, 

and that’s basically how we handle it here in Connecticut. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Did you have a comment, Ms. Guerino? 

Ms. GUERINO. The only comment is to probably agree. There are 

issues with conservators in their capacity to serve in that role, and 

some take it, unfortunately, too lightly, their responsibility. Or 

again, the separation of personal choices, that the individual that’s 

conserved may still be able to make and the conservator’s responsibility, and we see clashes there sometimes, or just no response because there’s no agreement of things. So decisions are made sometimes that are not either in the best interests of the individual or 

leads to a potential neglectful abuse situation. We have had conservators that we have contacted that many months, if not years 

have gone by. They have never seen the individual in person. 

So the issue is there. Despite some good systems that we have, 

the issue is there, and it just happens. Conservators appointed 

don’t know all the people that they’re conserving. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I think you’ve answered the last question, 

or at least addressed it partially, which comes from Nancy in 

Torrington. Probate court rulings are not always in keeping with 

37 

the APS’ service provider’s recommendations, resulting in the 

progress made with the elder to be negated by the court ruling. It 

is frustrating. So you may have addressed that question. 

Ms. GUERINO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to thank you. I’m not going to give 

a detailed closing statement because we really are involved very 

much in a work in progress. So I don’t think I can conclude this 

hearing. I think the hearing will go on, and the work that we do 

together. 

Clearly, we need to raise awareness and attention. That’s been 

a theme here, as has been the need for more funding. I can’t promise as a single United States Senator, a freshman who is, by the 

way, 97th in seniority, that I can address that issue singlehandedly, but I know that we have a coalition and a group of Senators led by Senator Kohl who have a very high degree of commitment and dedication to this issue. 

I hope that we can make progress on data collection. A theme 

here has been the need for more information, as well as a resource 

center, a home for adult protective services, better cooperation between the Federal Government and the State of Connecticut, which 

is, after all, my priority. The State of Connecticut is first and foremost what interests me, and I am absolutely committed to working 

with you, the State, private agencies, others who have been here 

today, and maybe most important, the victims who are represented 

here, continuing to fight for them, whether it’s Mr. Matatva or Ms. 

McCone or Mr. Harkness. I hope he is listening from his home. 

Each of them have stories that are riveting and profoundly significant and more persuasive and powerful than anything that I can 

say here, really anything that any of our witnesses can say. 

And I want to thank you for putting a face and voice on some 

of your clients, but more importantly the folks who are here today 

to lend their support. 

I believe that there needs to be more done by the Federal Government, an Office of Elder Justice in the United States Department of Justice; more reporting, whether it’s mandatory, not unfunded mandates for sure, but mandatory reporting that enables 

the flow of information to go to you; more training and education 

of the prosecutors so they can do a better job. I realize that consultation with them is often a serendipitous process depending on 

who is the most interested and who will take your cases. 

And raising that awareness I think also may require stronger 

penalties. I believe strongly mandatory penalties may be appropriate, but certainly enhanced penalties, just as we’ve done through 

the Adam Walsh Act for child abuse, which will in turn raise the 

level of interest on the part of our state and Federal prosecutors. 

The State of Connecticut has led the way on this issue by enhancing penalties, and the Federal Government can do much the same. 

So that is a kind of preview of what I see as the agenda before 

us. I want to thank all of you for being with us today. It’s been for 

me a very informative and productive session. I realize that for 

you, for the advocates and professionals who work in this area, 

you’ve heard some of it before, maybe more than you would like 

about the shortcomings and the gaps, but I think making a record 

38 

for the United States Senate has served a profoundly important 

service, and I thank all of you for being a part of this proceeding. 

And so for the Committee on Aging, this committee is adjourned. 

The record will remain open in case anyone would like to submit 

anything in writing—this is standard procedure for a Senate committee—for the next 10 days. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39) 

APPENDIX 

40 


Insert offset folio 01 here 70551.001
41 


Insert offset folio 2 here 70551.002
42 


Insert offset folio 3 here 70551.003
43 


Insert offset folio 4 here 70551.004
44 


Insert offset folio 5 here 70551.005
45 


Insert offset folio 6 here 70551.006
46 


Insert offset folio 7 here 70551.007
47 


Insert offset folio 8 here 70551.008
48 


Insert offset folio 9 here 70551.009
49 


Insert offset folio 10 here 70551.010
50 


Insert offset folio 11 here 70551.011
51 


Insert offset folio 12 here 70551.012
52 


Insert offset folio 13 here 70551.013
53 


Insert offset folio 14 here 70551.014
54 


Insert offset folio 15 here 70551.015
55 


Insert offset folio 16 here 70551.016
56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 70551.017
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 70551.018
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 70551.019
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 70551.020
60 


Insert offset folio 21 here 70551.021
61 


Insert offset folio 22 here 70551.022
62 


Insert offset folio 23 here 70551.023
63 


Insert offset folio 24 here 70551.024
64 


Insert offset folio 25 here 70551.025
65 


Insert offset folio 26 here 70551.026
66 


Insert offset folio 27 here 70551.027
67 


Insert offset folio 28 here 70551.028
68 


Insert offset folio 29 here 70551.029
69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 70551.030
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 70551.031
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 70551.032
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 70551.033
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 70551.034
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 70551.035
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 70551.036
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 70551.037
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 70551.038
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 70551.039
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 70551.040
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 70551.041
81 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 42 here 70551.042