Development of a National Adult Protective Services Data System: Namrs Pilot Final Report (volume 1). 4. Key Indicators Data Elements and Recommendations

09/25/2015

The plan for full implementation of NAMRS recognizes that not all states will be able to complete the Case Component in the first few years of national implementation. Therefore the Key Indicators Component was designed to collect a select number of statistics, which would help ACL establish national estimates. This chapter discusses the following topics:

  • The Key Indicators Component
  • Findings from the Key Indicators Component
  • Level of Effort to Report

The Key Indicators Component

The NAMRS Pilot Key Indicators Component collected aggregated data on clients, victims, and perpetrators from states that did not provide the Case Component. Victims were defined as those clients for whom there was at least one substantiated allegation of maltreatment. There were a total of 19 data elements, and respondents were able to also comment on each data element. (See Appendix B for more detail on each of the data elements.) The data elements in the Key Indicators Component were:

  • Clients who received an investigation.

  • Clients who received interagency coordination.

  • Clients by case closure reason.

  • Victims by age.

  • Victims by race.

  • Victims by ethnicity.

  • Victims by gender identity.

  • Victims who received one or more public benefits.

  • Victims with one or more disabilities.

  • Victims with one or more screened behavioral conditions.

  • Victims by maltreatment type.

  • Victims with guardian or conservator at start of investigation.

  • Victims who received services or were referred for services by APS.

  • Perpetrators by age.

  • Perpetrators by gender identity.

  • Perpetrators who had a kinship relationship to the victim.

Findings from the Key Indicators Component

The NAMRS Pilot Key Indicators Component collected aggregated data on three topics:

  • Clients
  • Victims (clients who are found to have one or more substantiated maltreatments)
  • Perpetrators

     

The automated data collection form allowed comments to be added for each data element. Four states--Georgia, Massachusetts (Disabled Persons Protection Commission), Missouri, and Montana--were invited to submit the Key Indicators Component, based on past conversation and the perceived level of effort to do so. Appendix D includes the data elements completed by the states.

Finding 1. All states were able to provide data on clients who received an investigation and case closure reason, but only two states were able to submit data on interagency coordination.

Action: No changes were recommended.

Finding 2. All states were able to provide data on the basic demographics of victims, including number, age, race, ethnicity, and gender identity. States did not use the value of transgender under gender identity.

Action: The values for race were changed to be more consistent with the Case Component. The value "multiracial" was deleted and the data element was made multiple response. No other changes were recommended.

Finding 3. All states were able to report on victims by maltreatment type.

Action: The values for maltreatment type were adjusted to be in alignment with the Case Component. The revised values allow for exploitation in general or financial exploitation and other exploitation to be distinguished. The user guide instructions will need updating.

Finding 4. Three states were able to complete victims with one or more disabilities.

Action: No changes were recommended.

Finding 5. Fewer states completed the remainder of the victim data elements: Two states completed victims who received one or more benefits; one state completed victims with one or more screened behavioral conditions; two states completed victims with guardianship or conservator at start of investigation; and two states completed victims who received services or were referred services by APS.

Action: No changes were recommended.

Finding 6. Three of the four states completed two data elements on perpetrators: perpetrators by gender identity and perpetrators with kinship relationship. The remainder of the data elements pertaining to perpetrators were completed by only 1-2 states: perpetrators by age (two states); perpetrators with one or more associations to the victim (two state); and perpetrators with one or more legal remedies (one state).

Action: No changes were recommended.

Finding 7. Although the Key Indicators Component collected data on the number of clients who received an investigation and the number of clients who were found to be victims, it did not collect information on the number of investigations that were completed during the reporting period. All three data points are available through the Case Component.

Action: Number of investigations completed during the reporting period was added to the future NAMRS Key Indicators Component.

Finding 8. Comment field boxes were not extensively used.

Action: No changes were recommended; states will be able to clarify their responses.

Finding 9. Leaving a data cell blank or inserting a zero into a data cell was not consistently done by the pilot states.

Action: During the future implementation of NAMRS, the technical support team will provide additional guidance on these topics.

Level of Effort to Report

The level of effort expended by the states depended upon the extent to which the statistics were already routinely available in the agency. If the state already had extant reports addressing the data in the Key Indicators Component, then completing the 19 data elements, or as many that were readily available in the state system, was not time consuming. However, if the state did not have these data already computed it took significant effort to complete the Key Indicators.

In two of the four states that completed the Key Indicators, the majority of the statistics had already been computed and the level of effort was very low, 6 and 12 hours respectively. In the remaining two states, the data were available in the information system, but needed to be computed for the Key Indicators. In both of these states, significantly greater level of effort was expended, 65 and 103 hours respectively.

The future implementation of NAMRS could assist states in choosing whether the level of effort that might be needed to complete the Key Indicators Component could be more productively used in completing the Case Component, which does not involve any computations. Nevertheless, the Key Indicators Component should be retained because it is unlikely that all states will be able to complete the Case Component in the first few years of the NAMRS implementation.

View full report

Preview
Download

"NAMRSpilot-V1.pdf" (pdf, 2.72Mb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®