2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services Definition

Purpose

Adult Protective Services protect vulnerable adults from exploitation, neglect, and abuse.

Definition

Adult Protective Services provide services to adults who are partially or completely unable to protect their own interests or who are vulnerable to exploitation, neglect, or injury. Organizations offer screening, investigation, and intervention, as appropriate, to adults who have been mentally, emotionally, physically or sexually abused or neglected by themselves or others with responsibilities towards them; exploited financially or otherwise; or abandoned. When appropriate, Adult Protective Services assist guardians and caretakers in fulfilling their roles.

Note:Please see the  APS Reference List  for the research that informed the development of these standards.


Note:For information about changes made in the 2020 Edition, please see the APS Crosswalk.  


2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 1: Person-Centered Logic Model

The organization implements a program logic model that describes how program activities and interventions will meet the needs of persons served and support the achievement of positive outcomes.
NotePlease see the Logic Model Template for additional guidance on this standard.  
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.

Logic models have been implemented for all programs and the organization has identified at least two outcomes for all its programs.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,  
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • Logic models need improvement or clarification; or
  • Logic models are still under development for some of its programs, but are completed for all high-risk programs such as protective services, foster care, residential treatment, etc.; or
  • At least one client outcome has been identified for all of its programs; or
  • All but a few staff have been trained on use of therapeutic interventions and training is scheduled for the rest; or
  • With few exceptions the policy on prohibited interventions is understood by staff, or the written policy needs minor clarification.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Logic models need significant improvement; or
  • Logic models are still under development for a majority of programs; or
  • A logic model has not been developed for one or more high-risk programs; or
  • Outcomes have not been identified for one or more programs; or
  • Several staff have not been trained on the use of therapeutic interventions; or
  • There are gaps in monitoring of therapeutic interventions, as required; or
  • There is no process for identifying risks associated with use of therapeutic interventions; or
  • Policy on prohibited interventions does not include at least one of the required elements.
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • Logic models have not been developed or implemented; or
  • Outcomes have not been identified for any programs; or
  • There is no written policy or procedures for the use of therapeutic interventions; or 
  • Procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or
  • Documentation on therapeutic interventions is routinely incomplete and/or missing; or
  • There is evidence that clients have been harmed by inappropriate or unmonitored use of therapeutic interventions.
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • See program description completed during intake
  • Program logic model that includes a list of client outcomes being measured
  • Policy for prohibited interventions
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel

 

APS 1.01

A program logic model, or equivalent framework, identifies:
  1. needs the program will address;
  2. available human, financial, organizational, and community resources (i.e. inputs);
  3. program activities intended to bring about desired results;
  4. program outputs (i.e. the size and scope of services delivered); 
  5. desired outcomes (i.e. the changes you expect to see in service recipients); and
  6. expected long-term impact on the organization, community, and/or system.
Examples: Please see the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide and COA’s PQI Tool Kit for more information on developing and using program logic models.  

Examples: Information that may be used to inform the development of the program logic model includes, but is not limited to: 
  1. needs assessments and periodic reassessments; 
  2. risks assessments conducted for specific interventions; and
  3. the best available evidence of service effectiveness.

 

APS 1.02

The logic model identifies client outcomes in at least two of the following areas:

  1. change in clinical status;
  2. change in functional status;
  3. health, welfare, and safety;
  4. permanency of life situation; 
  5. quality of life; 
  6. achievement of individual service goals; and 
  7. other outcomes as appropriate to the program or service population.

Interpretation: Outcomes data should be disaggregated to identify patterns of disparity or inequity that can be masked by aggregate data reporting. See PQI 5.02 for more information on disaggregating data to track and monitor identified outcomes. 


 
Fundamental Practice

APS 1.03

Organization policy prohibits:
  1. corporal punishment;
  2. the use of aversive stimuli;
  3. interventions that involve withholding nutrition or hydration, or that inflict physical or psychological pain;
  4. the use of demeaning, shaming, or degrading language or activities;
  5. forced physical exercise to eliminate behaviors;
  6. unwarranted use of invasive procedures or activities as a disciplinary action;
  7. punitive work assignments;
  8. punishment by peers; and
  9. group punishment or discipline for individual behavior.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 2: Personnel

Program personnel have the competency and support needed to provide services and meet the needs of the person served.
Interpretation: Competency can be demonstrated through education, training, or experience. Support can be provided through supervision or other learning activities to improve understanding or skill development in specific areas.
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,  
  • With some exceptions, staff (direct service providers, supervisors, and program managers) possess the required qualifications, including education, experience, training, skills, temperament, etc., but the integrity of the service is not compromised; or
  • Supervisors provide additional support and oversight, as needed, to the few staff without the listed qualifications; or 
  • Most staff who do not meet educational requirements are seeking to obtain them; or 
  • With few exceptions, staff have received required training, including applicable specialized training; or
  • Training curricula are not fully developed or lack depth; or
  • Training documentation is consistently maintained and kept up-to-date with some exceptions; or
  • A substantial number of supervisors meet the requirements of the standard, and the organization provides training and/or consultation to improve competencies when needed; or
  • With few exceptions, caseload sizes are consistently maintained as required by the standards or as required by internal policy when caseload has not been set by a standard; or
  • Workloads are such that staff can effectively accomplish their assigned tasks and provide quality services and are adjusted as necessary; or
  • Specialized services are obtained as required by the standards.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards.  Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • A significant number of staff (direct service providers, supervisors, and program managers) do not possess the required qualifications, including education, experience, training, skills, temperament, etc.; and as a result, the integrity of the service may be compromised; or
  • Job descriptions typically do not reflect the requirements of the standards, and/or hiring practices do not document efforts to hire staff with required qualifications when vacancies occur; or 
  • Supervisors do not typically provide additional support and oversight to staff without the listed qualifications; or
  • A significant number of staff have not received required training, including applicable specialized training; or
  • Training documentation is poorly maintained; or
  • A significant number of supervisors do not meet the requirements of the standard, and the organization makes little effort to provide training and/or consultation to improve competencies; or
  • There are numerous instances where caseload sizes exceed the standards' requirements or the requirements of internal policy when a caseload size is not set by the standard; or
  • Workloads are excessive, and the integrity of the service may be compromised; or 
  • Specialized staff are typically not retained as required and/or many do not possess the required qualifications; or
  • Specialized services are infrequently obtained as required by the standards.
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards.
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • List of program personnel that includes:
    • Title
    • Name
    • Employee, volunteer, or independent contractor
    • Degree or other qualifications
    • Time in current position
  • See organizational chart submitted during application
  • Procedures or other documentation relevant to continuity of care and case assignment
  • Table of contents of training curricula
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel
  • Review personnel files

 

APS 2.01

Personnel that provide adult protective services are qualified in accordance with state requirements.

 

APS 2.02

Supervisors have an advanced degree in social work or another human service field or are registered nurses.
Interpretation: If program staff do not include an individual with an advanced degree in social work, a person with an advanced degree is available, as necessary, to provide consultation on complicated cases.

 

APS 2.03

Personnel are trained on, or demonstrate competency in:
  1. providing preventive and supportive services to ensure maximum participation and self-determination; 
  2. communicating and working with vulnerable adults, including adults with disabilities;
  3. recognizing mental, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, neglect and self-neglect, financial exploitation, and abandonment;
  4. investigative techniques, including evaluating risk;
  5. the rights of vulnerable adults;
  6. working with individuals and families who may resist social, medical, and legal services;
  7. using the organization’s authority to intervene on behalf of vulnerable adults who are abused, exploited, or neglected; and
  8. working with law enforcement.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 2.04

Supervisory personnel are available by telephone 24 hours a day.

 

APS 2.05

Caseload size are sufficiently small to permit direct service personnel to respond flexibly to differing service needs of individuals, including frequency of contact, and to support the achievement of client outcomes.
Examples: Examples of factors that may be considered when determining employee workloads include, but are not limited to:
  1. the qualifications, competencies, and experience of the worker, including the level of supervision needed;
  2. the work and time required to accomplish assigned tasks and job responsibilities; and
  3. service volume, accounting for assessed level of needs of persons served.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 3: Community Partnerships

The organization develops and implements a community approach to preventing abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and identifying and protecting vulnerable adults.

Currently viewing: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Viewing: APS 3 - Community Partnerships

VIEW THE STANDARDS

1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • For the most part, established timeframes are met; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations and training; or
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Timeframes are often missed; or
  • Several client records are missing important information; or
  • Client participation is inconsistent. 
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • No written procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or 
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing.      
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
No Self-Study Evidence
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel

 

APS 3.01

The organization makes a systematic effort to educate the community about the needs of vulnerable adults and how they can be protected including:
  1. preventing and recognizing abuse, neglect, and exploitation;
  2. how to report cases of suspected abuse or neglect;
  3. legal responsibilities for mandated reporters; and
  4. services available.

 

APS 3.02

The organization’s leadership works with the leadership of other agencies to identify common issues, develop opportunities for collaboration, and resolve any administrative or inter-organizational issues that hinder service collaboration and use.
Examples: Community partners may include, but are not limited to, courts and law enforcement agencies, mental and physical health providers, domestic violence programs, and substance use services.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 4: Screening

Reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation are promptly screened.
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • For the most part, established timeframes are met; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations and training; or
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Timeframes are often missed; or
  • Several client records are missing important information; or
  • Client participation is inconsistent. 
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • No written procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or 
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing.      
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • Access line information/ publication materials
  • Screening procedures
  • Decision making criteria for reviewing reports
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel
    3. Persons served
  • Review case records

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 4.01

The organization maintains a 24-hour hotline to receive reports directly, or through other community organizations, and trained personnel are available 24 hours a day to respond to emergencies.
Examples: In a small community with limited resources, a collaborative arrangement for the planned use of public safety resources may be used to meet this need.

 

APS 4.02

Reporters are informed about:
  1. the organization’s responsibilities, including protection of the reporter’s identity;
  2. the process used to screen and investigate reports and the role of the reporter in this process;
  3. the types of services or interventions the organization can provide; 
  4. the result of the screening or investigation, unless prohibited by law or court order; and
  5. whether the reporter can have an ongoing role in the screening or investigation process.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 4.03

The individual:
  1. takes an active role in screening and in subsequent decision making; and
  2. is informed of his or her rights, including the right to refuse service as long as the individual has the capacity to understand the consequences of refusal.
Interpretation: The organization will sometimes file a court petition when personnel have determined that the person is in imminent danger. In such cases, the individual's right to self-determination is respected to the fullest extent possible.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 4.04

Screening procedures address:
  1. critical indicators or risk factors in abuse and neglect;  
  2. prevention of abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 
  3. the appropriate level of response for individual cases.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 4.05

The protective service worker promptly reviews the report, conducts an initial screening including a review of safety and risk factors, and:
  1. identifies priority cases;
  2. reports to other authorities or initiates court action when required; and
  3. determines if the case will be screened out within 24 hours, referred to other providers for an alternative response, or assigns it for investigation.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 5: Investigation and Risk Assessment

An investigation is completed in a timely and efficient manner to determine if the reported abuse, neglect, or exploitation has occurred and if services are needed to keep the individual safe.
NA The organization does not conduct investigations.
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • For the most part, established timeframes are met; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations and training; or
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Timeframes are often missed; or
  • Several client records are missing important information; or
  • Client participation is inconsistent. 
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • No written procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or 
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing.      
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • Investigation procedures
  • Assessment procedures
  • Copy of assessment tools
  • Procedures for safety management plans
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel
    3. Persons served
  • Review case records

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 5.01

The investigator visits the home of the individual at least once during the investigation process and conducts interviews with the reporter, collateral contacts, and all members of the family.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 5.02

Persons served participate in an individualized, culturally and linguistically responsive assessment that is:
  1. completed within established timeframes;  
  2. updated as needed based on the needs of persons served; and
  3. focused on information pertinent for meeting service requests and objectives.

Interpretation: The Assessment Matrix - Private, Public, Canadian, Network determines which level of assessment is required for COA’s Service Sections. The assessment elements of the Matrix can be tailored according to the needs of specific individuals or service design.


 
Fundamental Practice

APS 5.03

The investigator completes a report based on the reason for the initial report, that includes, but is not limited to:
  1. physical safety;
  2. capacity for making decisions;
  3. perpetrator factors;
  4. how the person is being affected by the situation;
  5. individual, family, and environmental factors; and
  6. if the adult is in danger, in need of protection, or should be removed immediately.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 5.04

Appropriate action is taken when the need arises, that include:
  1. legal or law enforcement intervention;
  2. the arrangement for guardianship, conservatorship, commitment, or fiduciary responsibility for persons served;
  3. securing an alternative living arrangement;  
  4. obtaining resources or services immediately when there are unmet basic needs;
  5. initiating a safety management plan when there are concerns about the individual's safety; or
  6. withdrawal from the case and provision of referrals.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 6: Service Planning and Monitoring

Families participate in the development and ongoing review of a service plan that is the basis for delivery of appropriate services and support.
NA The organization does not facilitate or monitor service planning.
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • For the most part, established timeframes are met; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations and training; or
  • In a few instances, client or staff signatures are missing and/or not dated; or
  • With few exceptions, staff work with persons served, when appropriate, to help them receive needed support, access services, mediate barriers, etc.; or
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Timeframes are often missed; or
  • In several instances, client or staff signatures are missing and/or not dated; or
  • Quarterly reviews are not being done consistently; or
  • Level of care for some clients is clearly inappropriate; or
  • Service planning is often done without full client participation; or
  • Appropriate family involvement is not documented; or  
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing; or
  • Individual staff members work with persons served, when appropriate, to help them receive needed support, access services, mediate barriers, etc., but this is the exception.
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • No written procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or 
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing.  
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • Service planning and monitoring procedures
  • Procedures, including criteria, for determining the most beneficial and least intrusive service
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel
    3. Persons served
  • Review case records

 

APS 6.01

An assessment-based service plan is developed in a timely manner with the full participation of persons served, and their family and additional service providers when appropriate, and includes:
  1. goals and outcomes for personal safety, stability in living arrangements, and well-being;
  2. services and supports provided to improve care and avoid loss of independence, and by whom;
  3. formal and informal support systems that can aid in safe and appropriate caretaking;
  4. possibilities for maintaining and strengthening family relationships and connections with other informal social networks; 
  5. procedures for expedited service planning when crisis or urgent need is identified; and
  6. the signature of the person served and his or her guardian, as applicable
Interpretation: Individuals with limited ability to make independent choices receive help with making decisions and assuming more responsibility for making decisions.

 

APS 6.02

The organization works in active partnership with persons served to:
  1. assume a service coordination role, as appropriate, when the need has been identified and no other organization has assumed that responsibility;
  2. ensure that they receive appropriate advocacy support;
  3. assist with access to the full array of services to which they are eligible; and
  4. mediate barriers to services within the service delivery system.

 

APS 6.03

The organization provides or recommends the most beneficial and least intrusive service that maintains the individual's safety in the least restrictive environment.

 

APS 6.04

The worker and a supervisor, or a clinical, service, or peer team, review the case quarterly, or more frequently depending on the needs of persons served, to assess:
  1. service plan implementation;
  2. progress toward achieving service goals and desired outcomes; and
  3. the continuing appropriateness of the agreed upon service goals.
Interpretation: When experienced workers are conducting reviews of their own cases, the worker’s supervisor must review a sample of the worker’s evaluations as per the requirements of the standard.

 

APS 6.05

The worker and individual, and his or her family when appropriate:
  1. review progress toward achievement of agreed upon service goals; and 
  2. sign revisions to service goals and plans.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 7: Intervention

The organization works with the person to identify problems leading to the report of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and provides services, directly or by referral, that help alleviate those problems.
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • For the most part, established timeframes are met; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations and training; or
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Timeframes are often missed; or
  • Several client records are missing important information; or
  • Client participation is inconsistent. 
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • No written procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or 
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing.      
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • Procedures for establishing voluntary agreements and submitting court petitions
  • Removal procedures
  • Procedures for referring individuals to services
  • Home visit procedures
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel
    3. Persons served
  • Review case records

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 7.01

The adult protection services worker establishes a voluntary agreement, or petitions a court of proper jurisdiction, to obtain appropriate care when the individual is unable to care for or protect himself/herself.
Interpretation: Adult protective service workers should be mindful of an individual’s right to refuse treatment and respectful of the individual’s wishes should they not be a danger to themselves or others.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 7.02

When removal of the individual from the home is necessary, negative effects are reduced by:
  1. providing information about the removal process;
  2. identifying personal items the individual will bring, including medication and medical equipment, as necessary;
  3. obtaining information about the individual's daily routine, preferred foods and activities, and needed therapeutic or medical care; and
  4. discussing continued contact with family and friends.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 7.03

The organization provides, either directly or by referral:
  1. health services;
  2. substance use and mental health services;
  3. victim support groups;
  4. financial assistance and money management;
  5. legal services;
  6. home care;
  7. nutritional services; and
  8. other community support services.

 

APS 7.04

The organization maintains a written list or file of community resources with experience responding to the needs of neglected, abused, or exploited adults.
Interpretation: The organization should have readily available contacts with law enforcement agencies, providers of legal, medical, and mental health services, domestic violence organizations, financial institutions, and community organizations.

 
Fundamental Practice

APS 7.05

The organization conducts in-person visits once a month, at a minimum, or more frequently depending on the needs of and risk to the individual to:
  1. assess safety and well-being;
  2. monitor service delivery; and
  3. support the achievement of agreed upon goals.
Interpretation: Visits may be planned or unannounced.
2023 Edition

Adult Protective Services (APS) 8: Case Closing and Aftercare

The organization works with persons served and family members, when appropriate, to plan for case closing and, when possible, to develop aftercare plans.
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice Standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,   
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions, procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations and training; or
  • In a few instances, the organization terminated services inappropriately; or  
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent; or
  • A formal case closing evaluation is not consistently provided to the public authority per the requirements of the standard.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Services are frequently terminated inappropriately; or  
  • Aftercare planning is not initiated early enough to ensure orderly transitions; or
  • A formal case closing summary and assessment is seldom provided to the public authority per the requirements of the standard; or  
  • Several client records are missing important information; or
  • Client participation is inconsistent. 
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice Standards; e.g.,
  • No written procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or 
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing. 
Self-Study Evidence Site Visit Evidence On-Site Activities
  • Case closing procedures
  • Aftercare planning and follow-up procedures
No Site Visit Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel
    3. Persons served
  • Review case records

 

APS 8.01

Planning for case closing:
  1. is a clearly defined process that includes assignment of staff responsibility;
  2. begins at intake; and
  3. involves the worker, persons served and others, as appropriate to the needs and wishes of the individual.

 

APS 8.02

Upon case closing, the organization notifies any collaborating service providers, as appropriate.

 

APS 8.03

If an individual has to leave the program unexpectedly, the organization makes every effort to identify other service options and link the person with appropriate services.
Interpretation: The organization must determine on a case-by-case basis its responsibility to continue providing services to persons whose third-party benefits are denied or have ended and who are in critical situations.

 

APS 8.04

When appropriate, the organization works with persons served and their family to:
  1. develop an aftercare plan, sufficiently in advance of case closing, that identifies short- and long-term needs and goals and facilitates the initiation or continuation of needed supports and services; or
  2. conduct a formal case closing evaluation, including an assessment of unmet need, when the organization has a contract with a public authority that does not include aftercare planning or follow-up.

 

APS 8.05

The organization follows up on the aftercare plan, as appropriate, when possible, and with the permission of persons served.
NA The organization has a contract with a public authority that prohibits or does not include aftercare planning or follow-up.
Examples: Reasons why follow-up may not be appropriate, include, but are not limited to, cases where the person’s participation is involuntary, or where there may be a risk to the individual such as in cases of domestic violence.
Copyright © 2024 Council on Accreditation