DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37167.v1
title: The Impact of a Forensic Collaborative for Older Adults on Criminal Justice and Victim Outcomes: A Randomized-Control, Longitudinal Design, Denver, Colorado, 2014-2018
title: Version 1

description: Initially funded in 2013 by the National Institute of Justice, the primary purpose of this project was to conduct a randomized-control test of the impact of a victim-focused, forensic collaborative relative to usual care (UC) on older adult victims' health, mental health, and criminal justice outcomes. During the course of the project, researchers responded to enrollment and consent challenges by implementing Arm 2 that focused on collecting caseworker and victim advocate perceptions of cases as well as administrative data from Adult Protective Services (APS). This collection contains 6 datasets: Arm 1 (DS1) contains survey results from victim-focused interviews of 40 older adults who were reported to be victims of abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation over 4 time points. Variables describe victim and case characteristics, service use/needs, risk factors for abuse, consequences of abuse and exploitation, and criminal justice process and outcomes.; Arm 2 (DS2) includes a survey of APS caseworkers reporting on a case of older adult abuse, such as client (older adult victim) and perpetrator demographics, mistreatment details (verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, and/or housing exploitation), and service use.; Collateral assessments (DS3) surveyed a trusted individual related to the older adult respondent in Arm 1. This included data on the perceptions of the older adult's functioning and use of services; and the quality of decision-making procedures, desired treatment, and outcomes in the criminal justice system. Of the 40 Arm 1 participants interviewed, 33 gave collateral contact information. Of those 33, 16 could not be reached, one failed the consent quiz, and two declined to participate. Of the 14 who participated in an initial interview, only three participated at the follow-up nine months later.; Revictimization and Prosecutorial Outcome Data (DS5) includes information on new incidents reported to law enforcement over the nine months following the original incident report and prosecution outcomes, gathered from publicly-accessible police reports and court information for Arm 1 and Arm 2 cases.; APS administrative data (DS6), such as the demographics of the older adult victim and the primary perpetrator, assessment scores for risk and safety, the alleged mistreatment type, whether mistreatment was substantiated, and APS case status. The data included overall risk/safety scores and summary scores for the domains of physical functioning, environmental context, financial resources, mental health, cognition, medical issues, and mistreatment.; Arm 1 demographic variables includes age, gender, education, employment status, marital status, household size, ethnic minority, and income source. Arm 2 surveys reported ethnicity, gender, age, education, marital status, and employment status; APS data reported age and gender.
description: Multi-agency collaborative teams have emerged nationally to respond to older adult abuse and exploitation cases to protect victims and contain offenders. The primary purpose of this study was to conduct a randomized-control test of the impact of a victim-focused, forensic collaborative relative to usual care (UC) on older adult victims' health, mental health, and criminal justice outcomes. The collaborative studied was the Denver Forensic Collaborative (DFC) for At-Risk Adults, which brings together professionals from the criminal justice system, social services, the city, and community-based agencies monthly to coordinate responses to elder mistreatment.
description: For Arm 1, cases were randomized if referral information (e.g., police reports) suggested that the older adult (age 60 and older) spoke English and that a safe location for the interview was possible. Older adults were sent a lead letter describing a study on older adult health, stress, and service needs ahead of a phone invitation. Interviews were scheduled at locations preferred by the older adults (e.g., homes, libraries). A consent quiz was used to assess understanding. Time 1 (T1) interviews focused on demographics, social support, physical and mental health, cognitive function, alcohol use, and service use and needs. Time 2 (T2) focused on maltreatment history, post-traumatic symptoms, post-trauma appraisals, and beliefs and participation in the criminal justice system. Time 3 (T3) and Time 4 (T4) interviews focused on social support, physical and mental health, cognitive function, alcohol use, post-traumatic symptoms, post-trauma appraisals, beliefs and participation in the criminal justice system, and service use and needs. Follow-up interviews occurred one (T2), six (T3) and nine (T4) months after T1. The original project design (referred to as Arm 1) relied on victim-focused methods to interview older adults whose cases were randomized to the DFC review or UC. However, the cases that rose to the level of DFC attention for randomization typically had characteristics that did not allow for victim interviews (e.g., unable to be reached directly, did not understand consent information, had home environments that were too dangerous for interviewers). In light of these challenges in Arm 1, researchers implemented Arm 2 of the study that involved (1) collecting caseworker and victim advocate perceptions of cases and (2) abstracting Adult Protective Services (APS) assessment data. System-based victim advocates and APS caseworkers were invited to report on cases randomized between August 2015 and March 2018. Follow-up surveys were sent to advocates one- (T2) and four- (T3) months after T1. Arm 2 also included data abstracted from the APS' administrative data. Denver County APS provided de-identified abstracted data for cases involving a victim at least 60 years old and a person of trust/alleged perpetrator; thus, cases with only self-neglect were excluded. Publicly-accessible police report and court data for Arm 1 and Arm 2 cases were examined to identify new incidents reported to law enforcement over the nine months following the original incident report and prosecution outcomes.
description: Arm 1 (DS1 and DS3) variables include victim characteristics, case characteristics, risk factors for/consequences of abuse/exploitation consequences, service use/needs, criminal justice process and outcomes, collateral assessments, and case file review. Arm 2 (DS2) variables include client demographics (older adult victim), mistreatment, and service use. Housing dataset (DS3) variables include demographics and details on older adult abuse such as relationships of the perpetrator and reporting party, type of abuse and/or exploitation. Revictimization and Prosecutorial Outcome (DS 6) variables include data on the number of unique reports, the charges, and outcome.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ) Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System: Trail Making Test (D-KEFS) Medical Outcome Study Short-Form 12 (MOS SF-12) Lubben Social Network Scale-Revised (LSNS-R) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, subscales focused on Executive Function (WAIS) Wason Selection Task Post Traumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Trauma Appraisal Questionnaire (TAQ) Response to Research Participation Questionnaire (RRPQ) Functional Capacity of Activities of Daily Living (FC-ADL)
description: Response Rates: For Arm 1, 272 older adults were referred; 71 had missing or incorrect contact information. Of the 201 who appeared to have correct contact information, 79 could not be reached and 65 declined or were not eligible. 57 scheduled an initial interview; however, 17 did not participate (e.g., due to inability to consent). Forty older adults participated in Arm 1. In Arm 2, advocates reported on 253 cases. De-identified APS data from 669 APS case reports resulted in 302 cases that were screened in for investigation/assessment during the Arm 2 period. From these, 146 cases met study criteria, with 156 cases excluded for self-neglect only.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Arm 1: Victim Interview Data DS2: Arm 2: Caseworker and Victim Advocate Survey Data DS3: Collateral Survey Data DS4: Housing Data DS5: Revictimization and Prosecutorial Outcome Data DS6: Adult Protective Services (APS) Administrative Data
description: record abstracts
description: cognitive assessment test
description: face-to-face interview
description: mixed mode
description: paper and pencil interview (PAPI)
description: on-site questionnaire
description: telephone interview
description: Adults aged 60 and older experiencing abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: The multidisciplinary team coordinators identified cases for randomization of older adults (60 and older) who were reported to be victims of abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation if the offender was in a position of trust, there was potential danger to older adult, and/or there were other factors that increased risk for patterns of abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation. The majority of cases were identified through police reports. At T1, participants gave collateral information of a trusted individual to be contacted for an initial and follow up interview. In Arm 2, system-based victim advocates and APS caseworkers were invited to report on 253 cases randomized between August 2015 and March 2018. De-identified APS data from 669 APS case reports resulted in 302 cases that were screened in for investigation/assessment during the Arm 2 period. From these, 146 cases met study criteria, with 156 cases excluded for self-neglect only.