AARP Applauds Passage of Abuse Registry Law in Mississippi

By Natalie Missakian

En español | Family members in Mississippi who need to hire a caregiver for their loved ones will soon have a new way to screen out people who have the potential to do them harm.  

A new AARP-backed law, which takes effect July 1, will create the state’s first vulnerable person abuse registry, similar to a sex offender registry. Those convicted of abusing, neglecting or exploiting a vulnerable person — including older adults unable to care for themselves and anyone living in a nursing home — must register with the state Department of Public Safety or face additional penalties. 

Under the law, care facilities such as nursing homes will be able to check the registry to screen current employees or when hiring new workers. Members of the public can request access when hiring a caregiver for a vulnerable person. 

Roughly 1 in 10 Americans 60 and older have experienced some form of elder abuse, which can include physical, emotional and financial abuse, according to the National Council on Aging. Those who are socially isolated or have dementia are especially at risk.  

“AARP Mississippi supported the Mississippi Vulnerable Person Abuse Registry to help families protect their loved ones in care facilities or at home,” said AARP Mississippi State Director Kimberly L. Campbell. “This is another tool that family caregivers can use to keep their loved ones safe.” 

Learn how to spot and report elder abuse, and keep up with our advocacy work in Mississippi. 

Full Article & Source:
AARP Applauds Passage of Abuse Registry Law in Mississippi

Adult Protective Services Abuse Registry National Report

By Kathleen Quinn, President, NAPSA Board of Directors

April 01, 2019

Over half the states (26) now have abuser registries for perpetrators of elder and vulnerable adult abuse. In 2016, NAPSA’s Regional Representatives Advisory Board created a volunteer ad hoc committee which examined abuser registries in detail and produced the first-ever, comprehensive report on this recent trend. [1]

To be considered, a state registry had to fit the following definition: “a system for maintaining the identity of individuals who are found, only as a result of an APS investigation, to have abused, neglected or exploited seniors or adults (18 and older) with disabilities living in the community or in a facility.”

Registries in 26 states met these criteria; of those, 21 agreed to submit information to the project. Data was collected through surveys and telephone interviews.

Consistent with APS Programs in general, the committee found that APS registries across the country differ in significant ways, including coverage in terms of age, disability, location of the abuse, offender type, the nature of abuse, the levels of funding and staffing, and more. For example, some registries are limited to offenses which take place in state-regulated facilities only.

The Committee found three components common to APS abuse registries:

1. A requirement that the perpetrator be notified that they are being placed on the registry;
2. Due process provisions governing the administration of the registry; and
3. A specified time limit for appeals.

Challenges were noted:

• Some responders stated that abuser registries conflict with APS’ primary role of protecting victims and respecting clients’ wishes.
• Several felt that the creation, funding and maintenance of registries takes resources away from victims and shifts it to perpetrators, and
• Some thought registries create a false sense of security, as some abusers could continue to be employed and have access to vulnerable adults.

The Ad Hoc Committee completed their report with the following recommendations and suggestions for research:

1. An APS abuse registry must be adequately funded in accordance with its mission, structure, and goals in order to insure that critical resources are not diverted from already-overburdened APS systems.
2. An APS abuse registry must provide for dedicated registry staff: APS staff already have full workloads.
3. States need to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of APS abuse registries.

Areas Requiring Further Research:

• Measuring the efficacy and efficiency of APS abuse registries
• States’ approaches to due process
• The overlap between APS and other abuser registries, including the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) for perpetrators paid through Medicaid
• The question of varying employment restrictions; e.g., in some states, employers could hire a person on the registry if that person did not provide direct care
• A closer analysis of people directly hiring their own care staff. Some states omit privately-hired perpetrators from the registry, while others allow listed perpetrators to be directly employed by a vulnerable adult

To read the entire report, see NAPSA ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES ABUSE REGISTRY NATIONAL REPORT (MARCH 2018)

[1] The NAPSA AD HOC COMMITTEE ON Adult Protective Services Abuse Registries: Catherine Bingle (Texas), Andrew Capehart (NAPSA), Linda Chun (Hawaii), Lori Delagrammatikas (California), Steve Fisher (Kentucky), Marta Fontaine (Missouri), Mariah Freark (Massachusetts), Lynn Koontz (New Hampshire), Paige McCleary (Virginia), Catherine Stack (Iowa), Mandy Weirich (West Virginia) and Sharon Zanti (Colorado). Mariah Freark was the principal author of the final report.

Full Article & Source:
Adult Protective Services Abuse Registry National Report

As I See It: Protections for our most vulnerable

As parents, there are few moments that cause more anxiety than entrusting your child to the care of someone else. Regardless of the circumstances your first concern is always their well-being, and your worst fear is always a phone call from a caregiver, teacher or babysitter that something is wrong.

For parents like the Chans of Auburn, whose son, Nicky, is intellectually disabled and non-verbal, that fear is magnified many times over. Every parent can understand the terror that the Chans felt in reading a report by the Disabled Persons Protection Commission confirming that their son, Nicky, had been inappropriately restrained and struck by a caretaker. The abuse involved incidents on at least two different days.

Like any parents, the Chans sought to ensure their Nicky was safe, and that this abuser could never take advantage of their or another family’s trust again. The man who abused their child was fired from the day program. But when the Chans asked what would prevent him from finding employment at another provider, the lack of an answer was deafening.

This is what led Nicky’s mother, Cheryl Chan, to tell her story to a state legislative committee.

Research shows that individuals with disabilities, like other vulnerable populations, are more likely to be abused. Additionally, cognitive or speech difficulties in communicating what happened, and the burdens disabled people have in accessing the judicial system, and consequently lower rates of police follow-up and prosecution make criminal convictions extremely difficult. Despite these challenges, a criminal conviction history currently is the only way to prevent an abusive caretaker from being hired by an unknowing provider.

We commend the efforts of those who work with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, especially the talented and compassionate caretakers who often work difficult hours for little pay. However, it is deeply concerning that there are no other means to prevent an abuser from switching agencies or providers to once again gain access and abuse individuals with disabilities.

That is why we have filed legislation to establish, for the first time in Massachusetts, a registry of individuals found by the state’s Disabled Persons Protection Commission to have committed substantiated abuse or financial exploitation on individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. We have worked extensively with victim families, disability advocate organizations and the relevant state agencies to address this critical issue. It was to help achieve such legislation that Cheryl Chan jointed us in testifying at a recent public hearing before the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities in support of the legislation and to share her son’s troubling experience.

The registry would be based on the findings of the Disabled Persons Protection Commission, which already investigates all allegations of abuse against individuals with disabilities. The legislation would mandate that providers serving these populations would be required to check the registry, which would be managed by the state Department of Developmental Services, during the application process. Providers would be prohibited from hiring such individuals listed in the registry. The bill also creates a robust appeals process for those who are listed, and includes important whistleblower protections for those reporting abuse.

Despite the Commonwealth’s history of leading on issues of injustice, we have fallen behind the pack on this issue. At least 13 states have a disability abuse registry and 40 percent of the states in this country have some form of developmental abuse registry, including New York and New Jersey.

Stories like Nicky’s are not uncommon. At the public hearing, another parent testified about an individual being arraigned on charges of abuse in the morning and applying for a new job at another hiring agency the same afternoon. As state legislators who are tasked with the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, and as parents, these stories offend our conscience.

But the evidence for action goes beyond these anecdotes. A federal audit of Massachusetts group homes from January 2012 to January 2014 found that an alarming number of emergency room visits by developmentally disabled Medicaid beneficiaries that involved reasonable suspicion of abuse and neglect were not reported by employers to the state DPPC.

Enacting this registry will help disrupt a cycle of abuse of individuals with disabilities, and put in place common-sense protections that families in the Commonwealth deserve.

Now is the time for Massachusetts to live up to its moral obligations, and care for those who are not always able to care for themselves.

Full Article & Source:
As I See It: Protections for our most vulnerable