Capable Guardians

I. The Theory and Its Origins

Routine Activity Theory emerged from a striking empirical puzzle. In 1979, Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson observed that official crime rates in the United States had risen sharply during the 1960s and 1970s — a period of sustained economic growth and expanding social welfare programs. On prevailing criminological assumptions, crime should have declined. It did not. Cohen and Felson proposed a structural explanation: the same postwar transformations that generated prosperity also altered the “routine activities” of daily life in ways that created new criminal opportunities. Women entered the workforce; households emptied during the day; consumer goods proliferated and became portable. More valuable items were left unguarded in more accessible places. The convergence of three elements — a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian — was not a product of poverty or moral failure. It was a product of changed social geometry.

This was a significant theoretical reorientation. Critically, they argued that crime rates could rise without any increase in offenders or in social deprivation — if targets became more accessible, or if capable guardians were removed from the picture. Control, they concluded, was the neglected variable. The question was not only who commits crime, but what structural conditions make crime possible.

The theory’s elegance lies in its parsimony. Three elements. Their convergence. The removal of any one prevents the harm.

II. The Three Elements Applied

A motivated offender is anyone with the inclination and capacity to exploit — or for whom induced opportunity produces the motivation. The distinction matters: many financial exploitation cases involve individuals who did not begin as predators but found themselves in circumstances where the means and the occasion aligned, and no capable guardian was present to interrupt that alignment. In elder financial exploitation, the motivated offender is often a family member, a trusted caregiver, a fiduciary, or a professional whose relationship to the vulnerable adult is itself the mechanism of access. Setterlund and colleagues’ Queensland study was the first peer-reviewed application of RAT to financial elder abuse in families, documenting exactly these conditions: access without oversight as the structural precondition for abuse (Setterlund, Tilse, Wilson, McCawley, and Rosenman, Ageing and Society, 2007). 

A suitable target is defined by four attributes, later formalized by Felson under the acronym VIVA: value, inertia (resistance capacity), visibility, and access. Applied to an older adult subject to exploitation, the VIVA profile is consistently adverse. 

Value is high: Americans seventy and older hold approximately $56 trillion in household wealth (Federal Reserve Z.1, April 2026). As Stephen Deane of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has documented, elder financial exploitation is not limited to the wealthy — poverty, counterintuitively, appears to increase risk, because federal benefit streams such as Social Security represent a reliable monthly income that can be systematically extracted. Anna Thomas, in her work as Forensic Specialist and Manager with the Georgia Division of Aging Services — Forensic Special Initiatives Unit and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Crimes Against the Elderly and Disabled Adults Task Force, investigated cases in which older adults were physically seized by perpetrators, removed from their own homes, held in basements, rendered entirely inaccessible — so that their federal benefit payments could be claimed month after month, sometimes for years. This is benefits trafficking in its most literal form: not the theft of accumulated assets but the capture of a person for the recurring income their existence generates. Thomas now serves as Executive Director of the National Center for State and Tribal Elder Justice Coalitions, Inc. — administered by Lifespan of Greater Rochester, the same organization that co-administers the CEASe Elder Abuse Helpline for Concerned Persons under VOCA funding from New York State, and a formal consortium partner of CEASe itself. The forensic specialist who documented the harm and the organization that built the institutional response are part of the same network.

The value extracted in benefits trafficking cases is what the legal scholar Charles A. Reich identified, sixty years ago, as “the new property”: government largess — Social Security, disability payments, veterans’ benefits — that has become the primary form of wealth for millions of Americans (Reich, “The New Property,” Yale Law Journal, 1964). Unlike accumulated assets, this wealth flows through a living person on a fixed schedule. The perpetrator’s strategy is to capture the person in order to capture the flow. Reich argued that this form of wealth deserved the same legal protections as traditional property. Benefits trafficking demonstrates, in its most predatory form, what happens when those protections fail.

Inertia — resistance capacity — is structurally diminished in the elder financial exploitation context. Cognitive aging, health conditions, and social isolation all reduce the capacity to detect, resist, and report. Researchers describe a “doubt deficit”: older adults may become overly credulous, fail to recognize false claims, and lose the ability to infer the intentions of others. Natalie L. Denburg and colleagues have advanced this understanding through research on financial decision-making and self-evaluation capacity in older adults, documenting the neuropsychological mechanisms by which exploitation risk increases even in the absence of diagnosed dementia (Denburg, Collins, Garcia, and Cole, Frontiers in Psychology, 2022). This is not a failure of character or intelligence. It is a feature of the aging brain that exploitation is specifically structured to exploit.

Visibility operates at two levels. At the individual level, the circumstances of an older adult — living arrangement, health status, social connections — are often visible to neighbors, service providers, and community members. At the legal level, proceedings that generate public records — guardianship petitions, property transfers, probate filings — make the target’s financial and personal circumstances legible to potential offenders who know where to look.

Visibility increases when financial records, medical histories, and living arrangements become broadly accessible. In the elder exploitation context, visibility operates at multiple scales: at the level of the individual target, whose circumstances may be known to neighbors, service providers, and the broader community; and at the level of the legal record, where court proceedings, property filings, and benefit documentation render an individual’s financial profile legible to anyone with access to public records. Legal proceedings amplify visibility: guardianship petitions, probate filings, and conservatorship applications make detailed financial and medical information accessible in ways that routine private life does not.  

Access approaches totality when a legal instrument removes all barriers between the offender and the target’s assets. A durable power of attorney, used legitimately, authorizes an agent to act on another’s behalf. Used exploitatively, it eliminates every structural barrier between the offender and the target’s financial life — while simultaneously insulating that access from the oversight that a court-supervised proceeding would otherwise impose. Plenary guardianship is the most complete expression of this dynamic: a court order that removes the legal personhood of the person under guardianship, installs the guardian as the sole decision-maker, and — if the guardian is the exploiter — creates a target whose exploitation is structurally guaranteed in the absence of an external capable guardian.

The financial regulatory system has begun to recognize this structural vulnerability. FINRA Rule 4512 requires brokerage firms to obtain a trusted contact person for every customer account — someone the firm can reach if it has concerns about the account holder’s capacity or potential exploitation. In Lewin’s force field terms, this is a restraining force installed at a precise point of structural weakness: the moment when financial access, absent a relational check, becomes an open door. Rule 4512 does not prevent exploitation directly. It installs a capable guardian function at the threshold of the financial relationship — an acknowledgment, embedded in the architecture of regulation, that access without oversight is a structural failure waiting to happen. The rule’s limitation is equally instructive: it reaches only brokerage accounts, only at the point of account opening, and only if the firm acts on its concern. The structural gap it identifies is far wider than the remedy it provides.

The capable guardian is the critical third element — anyone whose presence or attention makes exploitation less likely. Cohen and Felson specified that guardians need not be law enforcement or formal authorities. They specifically named “a brother, a friend, or a passer-by” as paradigm cases. This grounding in ordinary social relationships is theoretically significant. Guardianship, in the RAT framework, is not a professional function. It is a relational one.

A note on the distinction between the bystander and the capable guardian is warranted here. The bystander is a stranger whose relationship to the situation is incidental and transient. The capable guardian, in the elder justice context, is the Concerned Person: the individual already in relationship with the vulnerable older adult, whose presence is not accidental but structural. This distinction will be developed further in the companion essay on Upstandership, where attention — the first act of guardianship — is addressed directly.

In his 1995 work, Felson refined and renamed this role the personal handler: “family or friends of a potential offender spending time nearby.” This clarification shifts the guardian’s function from passive deterrence to active relational presence. The personal handler is not simply someone who witnesses; they are someone whose relationship to the potential offender constitutes a form of social control.

Capable guardians are the people in the relational orbit of the older adult — what Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory would recognize as the microsystem: the immediate relational setting in which daily life unfolds. Bronfenbrenner’s framework, which maps developmental outcomes through nested layers of relationship across time and setting, will be developed more fully in the companion essay, Circles of Support — the author’s prosocial term for the relational architecture Bronfenbrenner’s model describes, applied to elder justice. 

The connection here is structural: both Routine Activity Theory and ecological systems theory identify the attenuation of close relational networks as the condition that produces harm — one framing it as criminogenic, the other as developmentally damaging. The convergence is not coincidental. Both frameworks are theories of social geometry: they locate the determinants of harm and protection not in individual psychology but in the structure of social relations.

Cohen and Felson found that crime follows the thinning of the capable guardian network — what Routine Activity Theory identifies as the criminogenic condition: the structural gap that forms when personal guardians are removed from the equation, leaving the motivated offender and the suitable target in unmediated proximity. Bronfenbrenner found that developmental harm follows the disruption of the microsystem — what he called ecological disruption: the disturbance of the nested relational structure that sustains healthy development, applied here to the older adult whose innermost ring of daily contact, close relationship, and mutual knowledge has been thinned to a single relationship.

Neither was writing about elder financial exploitation. Both were describing its precondition.

The attenuation of the close relational network does not need to be total. It needs only to be sufficient — sufficient to reduce daily contact, fragment mutual knowledge, and prevent the coalition of Concerned Persons whose coordinated presence would have disrupted the convergence before it completed. The criminogenic condition and the ecological disruption are, in elder financial exploitation, the same event described in two disciplinary vocabularies. What exploitation produces in the social environment before the first financial transaction occurs is both simultaneously: a guardian removed and a microsystem breached.

What remains, when the network has been thinned to a single relationship, is the dyad. And the dyad, as this series has argued throughout, is the most fragile form. 

III. The Felson Synthesis: Three Control Functions at Once

In Felson’s own formulation of what an offender must overcome, the structural logic is precise: “an offender has to get loose from his handlers, then find a target unprotected by guardians in a place free from intrusive managers.” The Concerned Person disrupts all three conditions simultaneously. They are the personal handler who, by presence and relationship, deters the potential offender. They are the capable guardian who protects the vulnerable adult. And they are, in many cases, the person most likely to notice when the amenable place — the older adult’s home, finances, or legal situation — is being arranged to facilitate harm. Removing them from the equation does not merely reduce protection. It eliminates two, and often three, control functions at once.

Felson’s responsibility hierarchy makes this explicit. He ranked guardianship effectiveness by level of responsibility: personal (owners, family, friends) at the apex, descending through assigned, diffuse, and general. Personal guardians — those with the closest relationship to the person being protected — are the most effective. This is not sentiment. It is the theory’s own logic, supported by empirical data.

Felson’s framework has continued to develop. A second generation extended Routine Activity Theory into environmental design and situational crime prevention — CCTV surveillance, defensible space, target hardening — treating the guardian function as partly architectural and technological rather than purely relational. A third generation has addressed the digital environment, where financial exploitation and fraud operate across networks without physical convergence in time and space. 

Here, new forms of capable guardianship have emerged: AI-driven transaction monitoring that identifies anomalous patterns before a human investigator could detect them; the trusted contact framework embedded in FINRA Rule 4512, which builds a capable guardian function into the architecture of every brokerage account; bank exploitation officers and financial institution protocols trained to recognize the signatures of coercion and undue influence; and the Senior Safe Act of 2018, which formalized the institutional capable guardian function at the federal level by providing safe harbor protection to financial institutions and their employees who, in good faith, report suspected exploitation to regulators or law enforcement — removing the liability barrier that had discouraged institutions from acting on what their employees already observed.

These are capable guardians operating at the transaction point, at scale, without prior relationship to the person they protect. They represent a genuine and significant extension of the guardian function into the digital age, and they are increasingly embedded in the institutional infrastructure of financial services and elder justice alike. But they do not — and cannot — substitute for the personal guardian that Felson’s hierarchy places at the apex. The algorithm detects the anomalous transaction at two in the morning. It does not know that the account holder's voice has changed over the past three months, that a new and controlling presence has appeared at the door, or that the phone calls have a new and unfamiliar urgency. It cannot recognize the baseline because it has no relationship from which a baseline could be established. The digital capable guardian and the human capable guardian are not competitors — they are the formal and informal networks that, working together, constitute the field’s most complete and most durable response to exploitation. 

IV. The Mechanism of Personal Discouragement

What makes personal guardianship most effective is not legal authority, professional training, or designated responsibility. It is discouragement — and Felson is precise about what discouragement means in this context.

Discouragement is not detection. It is not intervention. It is not reporting. It is the disruption of conditions before harm can occur, through the ordinary presence of someone who knows the potential victim, who knows what normal looks like, and whose presence in the environment makes exploitation less likely before any calculation of risk is ever completed by a potential offender. The family member who stops by on Thursday afternoons, who notices that the mail has piled up, who asks why the car in the driveway has been there for three days — is practicing personal discouragement. The mechanism is entirely different from assigned or diffuse guardianship. It does not require that anything has gone wrong. It requires only that someone who has a stake in the outcome is present.

Felson distinguishes four types of discouragement ranked by effectiveness. Personal discouragement — exerted by family and friends through relationship and daily proximity — sits at the apex. The gradient is not arbitrary. It tracks the presence or absence of the one variable that makes personal discouragement irreplaceable: knowledge of the baseline.

The family member knows what normal looks like. The APS caseworker does not. The pharmacist does not. The bystander does not. That knowledge — accumulated over years of relationship, embedded in the texture of daily contact — is what allows deviation to be noticed before it rises to the level of a reportable incident. Most elder financial exploitation that is ever discovered is discovered not by professionals but by people who already knew the older adult and noticed that something had changed.

This is why the removal of the concerned person from the older adult’s daily environment is not merely a loss of emotional support. It is a loss of discouragement capacity — specifically, the type of discouragement that no professional can replicate and no legal appointment can restore. Relationship cannot be appointed.

V. The Chronicity Problem: Re-victimization and the Structural Relationship

The scale of underreporting in elder financial exploitation is well-documented — it is among the most underreported categories of crime. But that underreporting obscures a further structural reality: most elder financial exploitation is not a one-time event. The research literature consistently identifies chronicity as the defining characteristic of elder abuse across its forms — not isolated incidents but sustained patterns of harm, often escalating in frequency and severity over time.

Lachs and Pillemer’s foundational research established that mistreated older adults were three times more likely to die within three years than those who had not experienced abuse, even after controlling for comorbidity — a finding that underscores the cumulative, compounding nature of harm (Lachs, Williams, O’Brien, Pillemer, and Charlson, JAMA, 1998; Lachs and Pillemer, N Engl J Med, 2015). Victimization is rarely a closed chapter. The same conditions that made a person a suitable target — cognitive vulnerability, social isolation, legal arrangements that remove barriers to access — persist after the first exploitation, and often worsen as a result of it. Financial depletion reduces the resources available for protection and care; shame and self-doubt reduce the likelihood of disclosure; and the offender, having established access and encountered no capable guardian, is positioned to exploit repeatedly.

A two-wave study of elder mistreatment recurrence found that of participants who had experienced mistreatment at baseline, more than a quarter reported repeated mistreatment within two years — and that increasing financial independence was associated with lower odds of recurrence, while functional impairment was associated with higher odds (Li, Le, and Dong, Innovation in Aging, 2021, conference abstract). Research on financial exploitation specifically confirms the pattern: older adults in their seventies and eighties are measurably more likely to experience repeat victimization than younger adults, a risk that persists independently of underreporting bias. This study is notable for its method: it merged four longitudinal databases of Americans who paid money in response to mail scams over twenty years, avoiding underreporting entirely by working from perpetrator-side data (Burnes et al., Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 2024).

Felson’s convergence model does not describe a momentary collision. It describes a structural relationship that, once established, tends to persist. The absence of capable guardianship does not merely fail to prevent the first harm. It creates the conditions in which re-victimization is not an exception but a probability.

VI. Cohen and Felson’s Macrolevel Finding and the Elder Justice Parallel

Cohen and Felson’s data were unambiguous on one point: risk of victimization varies dramatically by proximity and relationship. Activities performed at home, among family and known others, carry dramatically lower risk than activities performed elsewhere among strangers. Personal larceny rates were, in their 1974 data, 350 times higher at the hands of strangers on streets than at the hands of nonstrangers at home.

Cohen and Felson’s macrolevel finding was that the dispersion of activities away from households and family correlated directly with rising crime rates — not because of more offenders, but because capable guardianship capacity declined. The parallel in elder financial exploitation is precise: the deliberate or structural removal of Concerned Persons from a vulnerable adult’s daily life recreates exactly the conditions Cohen and Felson identified as criminogenic. The motivated offender, finding no capable guardian, finds a suitable target.

This parallel requires one important complication, however. The data on elder financial exploitation do not support a simple stranger-danger model. Family members and trusted others are among the most common perpetrators. The NCEA fact sheet on elder financial exploitation — produced with federal support and revised in March 2026 — explicitly lists “misuse of authority” by those with a duty to act in the victim’s best interests, including agents under power of attorney and guardians, as a primary category of exploitation method. DeLiema’s 2018 study — the first empirical test of RAT against forensic case data in elder financial victimization, drawing on combined law enforcement, neuropsychological, and medical records from an elder abuse forensic center — found that fraud victims were significantly more likely to be childless and socially isolated, while financial exploitation victims were more likely to be living with the perpetrator: two distinct opportunity structures, each produced by a different configuration of capable guardian absence (DeLiema, The Gerontologist, 2018).

This is where the RAT analysis requires extension. The “trusted other” can become the motivated offender — and when the legal system installs that offender while simultaneously excluding the Concerned Person, it has not merely failed to protect. It has structured the conditions of exploitation. The capable guardian — the family member, the friend, the neighbor who would otherwise disrupt the convergence — is excluded by the very proceeding that purports to provide protection. The dyad is reinstated. The triad collapses.

VII. The Mosqueda Extension: From AIM to Structural Prevention

Laura Mosqueda’s Abuse Intervention Model (AIM) represents the field’s most systematic effort to apply graduated intervention logic to elder financial exploitation. Mosqueda’s model distinguishes three levels of intervention: reactive (responding to harm after it has occurred), intermediate (interrupting ongoing harm), and proactive (reducing or eliminating risk factors before harm occurs). The model’s virtue is its recognition that effective intervention cannot be limited to the reactive. The most consequential work happens upstream.

Routine Activity Theory provides the structural logic for Mosqueda’s proactive level. Prevention — genuine prevention, not merely awareness — requires the presence of capable guardians before the convergence occurs. It requires Concerned Persons to be recognized, supported, and given institutional pathways through which their concern can become protective action.

Where Mosqueda’s model requires extension is precisely in recognizing that the “trusted other” can become the offender — and that when the legal system installs that offender while simultaneously excluding the Concerned Person, it has not merely failed to intervene. It has inverted the protective logic entirely. The super controller — the legal system — has become the mechanism of harm.

Master Plans for Aging — MPAs, as the movement is now known — represent one such structural pathway. By early 2026, more than half of U.S. states have initiated an MPA process, driven by organizations including the Center for Health Care Strategies, the SCAN Foundation, and the John A. Hartford Foundation. These plans reflect a recognition that aging well is a systems-design challenge, not a judicial one — that vulnerability is best addressed upstream, through coordinated policy across health care, housing, long-term services, caregiving, and community life, rather than downstream through crisis-driven legal substitution. In this framing, guardianship is not the center of the aging system. It is the failure condition: what appears when the infrastructure of autonomy — housing stability, nutrition access, care coordination, social connection — has not been built or has broken down. The federal legislative vehicle for this work is the Strategic Plan for Aging Act, S.3337, introduced in December 2025 by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — ranking member of the Senate Aging Committee, co-author of the GUARD Act on elder financial exploitation, and a sustained legislative voice for elder justice since 2011. 

The bill amends the Older Americans Act to fund state and tribal MPA development, with Elder Justice as a mandated pillar. Modern MPAs are shifting, deliberately, from totalizing guardianship toward models that prioritize autonomy: Supported Decision-Making as the primary legal standard, enhanced oversight through statewide registries, and restoration of rights through mandatory review. What MPAs have not yet done, systematically, is recognize Concerned Persons as a policy category: individuals whose presence is preventive, whose absence is criminogenic, and whose support — before exploitation occurs, not only after — is the structural ask that Routine Activity Theory makes plain. Where state plans embed that recognition in their Elder Justice pillar, they build the infrastructure of autonomy that makes guardianship unnecessary. Where they do not, the failure condition persists — and the field continues to measure success by how efficiently it transfers control, rather than how rarely it must.

VIII. RAT 3.0: The Digital Capable Guardian

The fraud prevention field has spent two decades building digital guardians: fraud alerts, transaction monitoring systems, artificial intelligence detection tools. These are real tools and they matter. But a fraud alert that fires into a void is not a capable guardian. It becomes one only when it reaches a person who knows the older adult’s baseline and has the standing to act on what they know.

Routine Activity Theory has gone through two major iterations in its application to financial exploitation. RAT 1.0 — Cohen and Felson’s original formulation — identified the personal capable guardian as the most effective protective element. RAT 2.0 — the digital extension developed in the 2000s — identified technology as a form of guardianship, hardening targets through firewalls, monitoring, and alerts. The limitation of RAT 2.0 is that technology does not know the baseline. It can detect anomalies in financial patterns. It cannot detect the relational changes that precede the financial ones.

RAT 3.0 — proposed here as the elder justice extension — connects the digital alert to the concerned person who holds the relational knowledge. The technology is the assigned guardian. The concerned person is still the personal guardian. A fraud alert that reaches a concerned person with standing is not a replacement for relationship. It is relationship, extended.

VIII. VOCA and the CEASe Proof of Concept

The theoretical argument for recognizing Concerned Persons as capable guardians with a legitimate stake in protective proceedings has a practical proof of concept. The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), enacted in 1984 and codified through a 2016 Final Rule (28 CFR Part 94), establishes the federal framework for victim assistance funding. VOCA is funded entirely from the Crime Victims Fund — federal criminal fines, penalties, and assessments, with no general tax revenue — and distributed to states through a formula grant administered by the Office for Victims of Crime.

The 2016 Final Rule (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 131, July 8, 2016) is the governing instrument. Under 28 CFR § 94.102, “crime victim or victim of crime” is defined as a person who has suffered physical, sexual, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime. The rule’s preamble makes clear that this definition is intentionally broad — retained, in OVC’s own words, because it “has been sufficiently broad to encompass the harm from various crimes on a wide and diverse range of individuals.” The rule does not use the term “secondary victim,” nor does it explicitly designate non-primary victims as a distinct eligible category. The eligibility mechanism for Concerned Persons rests on two features of the rule’s architecture working together: the breadth of the § 94.102 definition, and the flexibility of the allowable direct service categories at § 94.119 — particularly crisis intervention and hotline counseling — which do not restrict eligibility to the primary crime victim. Section 94.104(c) explicitly lists victims of elder abuse among previously underserved populations eligible for directed allocation, establishing elder abuse as a recognized VOCA priority.

The empirical foundation for extending this framework to Concerned Persons is established in the peer-reviewed literature. A nationally representative study of 1,000 adults found that nearly 30% knew a relative, friend, or neighbor who had experienced elder mistreatment — extending, when projected to the U.S. adult population, to approximately 73 million adults with personal knowledge of a victim, and approximately 44 million who became involved in helping. Two-thirds of those who knew a victim reported personal distress at the highest levels of measurement. Critically, assuming a helping role was associated with significantly higher distress than not helping — the act of assisting the victim compounds the harm to the helper. The study’s authors concluded that professionals typically do not provide assistance tailored to the needs of Concerned Persons, and that the resulting disengagement by distressed helpers would further isolate and imperil the primary victim (Breckman, Burnes, Ross, Marshall, Suitor, Lachs, and Pillemer, The Gerontologist, 2018). Concerned Persons are not merely witnesses. They suffer measurable emotional harm as a direct result of the crime. That is precisely what the § 94.102 definition — a person who has suffered emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime — reaches.

CEASe — the Center for Elder Abuse Solutions, formerly the New York City Elder Abuse Center (NYCEAC) — has operationalized exactly this structure. Through the New York State Office of Victim Services (OVS), VOCA funding was extended to support a helpline for Concerned Persons: family members, friends, and neighbors worried about the mistreatment of an older adult in their lives. This was not a workaround. It was a precise application of the statutory framework to a population that the field had structurally excluded.

The mechanism for VOCA eligibility in this context flows through the “secondary victim” classification — the operational gloss that New York State OVS applies to extend direct service funding to individuals who are not themselves the primary victims but whose stability and capacity to support the primary victim are essential to that victim’s safety and recovery. 

Operational gloss, in this context, names a precise administrative practice: OVS is not amending the statute or the rule. It is reading the existing framework — the broad harm definition, the secondary victim classification, the flexibility of allowable service categories — and concluding that Concerned Persons fall within it. The gloss does not change what VOCA says. It determines what VOCA means in a specific application. That reading is both the proof of concept and its limitation: durable enough to fund the CEASe helpline, not yet durable enough to guarantee that the next state agency, or the next administration, will read the framework the same way. The gloss needs to become law. The Concerned Person's eligibility needs to be written into statute rather than depending on the continued generosity of a single administrative interpretation.

For the CEASe helpline, every call is documented as an effort to mitigate harm caused by a crime; services are provided at no cost; and the victimization link — reasonable belief that a crime has occurred — is maintained as an eligibility condition.

CEASe is uniquely positioned to serve as the national pilot for the next structural step: the inclusion of Concerned Persons in Enhanced Multidisciplinary Team (E-MDT) dialogue. E-MDTs bring together law enforcement, adult protective services, legal, medical, and financial professionals — in New York, enhanced specifically with geropsychiatrists, geriatricians, a forensic accountant, and a civil attorney — to review complex elder abuse cases. The statewide initiative now operates through eleven regional hubs across 62 counties, overseen by NYSOFA and coordinated by Lifespan of Greater Rochester, with CEASe providing technical assistance and training statewide. They are among the most sophisticated institutional responses the field has developed. But the Concerned Person — the family member, friend, or neighbor who first noticed the harm, who sustained the relationship through the crisis, who made the call to the helpline — is not at that table. CEASe is the one institution that operates both an E-MDT program and the Helpline for Concerned Persons. Those two programs currently run in parallel. The structural argument is that they should be in dialogue: the helpline caller who has been counseled and supported is exactly the Concerned Person who could inform and be informed by the E-MDT review. Recognizing that connection — and building the institutional pathway that joins them — would make New York the proof of concept for a national model. OVS has committed dedicated VOCA funding to support the management and technical assistance provided by CEASe (Weill Cornell) and Lifespan of Greater Rochester. As of early 2026, the helpline continues to operate under CEASe, though — like many victim service programs in New York — it is navigating a period of fiscal adjustment: OVS issued a 2026 VOCA Request for Applications after previous award cycles were rescinded, requiring programs to reapply for multi-year funding through 2028. 

What CEASe demonstrates is that the structural argument can be operationalized within existing legal frameworks. VOCA does not require legislative amendment to support Concerned Persons. It requires the recognition — at the state administering agency level — that Concerned Persons are secondary victims whose support is essential to the safety of primary victims. That recognition, once made, activates the full suite of VOCA-allowable direct services: crisis intervention, hotline counseling, personal advocacy, navigation assistance, and facilitation of participation in protective proceedings. The author has served on the Board of Advisors of the CEASe Helpline for Concerned Persons in New York City.

The field’s challenge is to generalize from the New York model. Where Concerned Persons lack an institutional pathway for their concern — no helpline, no E-MDT, no VOCA-funded program that recognizes them as eligible — the capable guardianship of family, friends, and neighbors is structurally inert. The concern exists. The relationship exists. The willingness to act may exist. But without an institutional pathway, the capable guardian has nowhere to direct that capacity. The harm proceeds.

The concerned person who calls the CEASe helpline is enacting two dimensions of trust simultaneously. They confide — placing their fear, their observation, and their relationship in expert hands. And they are working toward confidence — the agency and capacity to act on behalf of the older adult they are trying to protect. The gap between those two states is the gap the Standing essay addresses directly: legal threshold, barely. Standing — not yet.

IX. The Structural Ask

Routine Activity Theory’s policy implication is direct. Control is the neglected variable. If the capable guardian is the most effective preventive element — and the personal capable guardian, the Concerned Person, is the most effective of all — then policy must do three things. 

First: recognize Concerned Persons, before they are needed, as having a legitimate stake in protective proceedings. This means legal standing to participate, to receive information, and to raise concerns in the formal proceedings that affect the people they know.

Second: provide support — services, information, and institutional pathways — before exploitation occurs, not only after. The CEASe helpline is one model. Master Plans for Aging that embed Concerned Person recognition in their preventive architecture are another. FINRA Rule 4512’s trusted contact framework is a third. The common thread is structural recognition before harm.

Third: stop treating the presence of Concerned Persons as interference and start treating it as infrastructure. The most effective capable guardian is the person who already knows, already cares, and already has a relationship. The field’s task is to support that relationship, not to displace it.

The field has invested significantly in the technological guardian. It has not yet invested adequately in the human one. The essay that follows, Circles of Support, is about the Concerned Person already in relationship, already present, already watching — and the ecological structure that makes their presence protective. 

Sources

Breckman, Risa, David Burnes, Sarah Ross, Philip C. Marshall, J. Jill Suitor, Mark S. Lachs, and Karl Pillemer. “When Helping Hurts: Nonabusing Family, Friends, and Neighbors in the Lives of Elder Mistreatment Victims.” The Gerontologist 58, no. 4 (2018): 719–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw257

Burnes, David, et al. “Fraud Victimization Across the Lifespan: Evidence on Repeat Victimization Using Perpetrator Data.” Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 36, no. 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2024.2321923

Center for Elder Abuse Solutions (CEASe). “Elder Abuse Helpline for Concerned Persons.” Weill Cornell Medicine. https://elderabuse.weill.cornell.edu/programs/elder-abuse-helpline-concerned-persons. Accessed May 2, 2026. Call 844-746-6905, Monday–Friday, 9am–5pm Eastern.

Code of Federal Regulations. Title 28, Part 94, Subpart B — VOCA Victim Assistance Program. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-94/subpart-B · § 94.102 Definitions: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/section-94.102 · § 94.119 Allowable direct service costs: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part-94/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR617572e154b392d/section-94.119

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 44, no. 4 (1979): 588–608. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094589

Deane, Stephen. Elder Financial Exploitation: Why It Is a Concern, What Regulators Are Doing About It, and Looking Ahead. Washington, DC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Investor Advocate, June 2018. https://www.sec.gov/files/elder-financial-exploitation.pdf

DeLiema, Marguerite. "Elder Fraud and Financial Exploitation: Application of Routine Activity Theory." The Gerontologist 58, no. 4 (2018): 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw258

Denburg, Natalie L., Sam M. Collins, Norma P. Garcia, and Prescott Cole. “Enhancing Older Adult Financial Decision Making Through the Use of Self-Evaluation Worksheets.” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022): 790088. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.790088

Felson, Marcus. “Those Who Discourage Crime.” In Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 4, edited by John E. Eck and David Weisburd. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1995. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248079176_Those_who_discourage_crime

Federal Reserve. Financial Accounts of the United States: Flow of Funds, Balance Sheets, and Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts (Z.1). Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Accessed April 2026.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/z1/balance_sheet/chart/

FINRA. Rule 4512: Customer Account Information. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/4512

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. “Gillibrand, Alsobrooks, Kim Introduce Bill to Incentivize States to Help Seniors and People with Disabilities Live with Dignity.” Press release. January 12, 2026. https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/gillibrand-alsobrooks-kim-introduce-bill-to-incentivize-states-to-help-seniors-and-people-with-disabilities-live-with-dignity/

Lachs, Mark S., and Karl A. Pillemer. “Elder Abuse.” New England Journal of Medicine 373, no. 20 (2015): 1947–56. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1404688

Lachs, Mark S., Christianna S. Williams, Shelley O’Brien, Karl A. Pillemer, and Mary E. Charlson. “The Mortality of Elder Mistreatment.” JAMA 280, no. 5 (1998): 428–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.5.428

Li, Mengting, Qun Le, and XinQi Dong. “An Ecological Model of Risk Factors in Older Adults With Repeated Exposure to Elder Mistreatment.” Innovation in Aging 5, suppl. 1 (2021). Conference abstract. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.1652

Leukfeldt, E.R., and Marvin Yar. "Applying Routine Activity Theory to Cybercrime: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis." Deviant Behavior 37, no. 3 (2016): 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409

Lifespan of Greater Rochester. “Helpline for Concerned Persons.” https://www.lifespan-roch.org/helplineforconcernedpersons. Accessed May 2, 2026. Call 844-746-6905, Monday–Friday, 9am–5pm Eastern.

New York State Enhanced Multidisciplinary Team Initiative. https://www.nysemdt.org. Overseen by the New York State Office for the Aging (NYSOFA); coordinated statewide by Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc. Accessed May 2, 2026.

Marshall, Philip C. “Designing Support Systems That Make Guardianship Unnecessary.” BeyondGuardianship. Medium, February 2, 2026. http://bit.ly/4cXyTQG

Marshall, Philip C. “If New York Gets Aging Right, Guardianship Should Become Obsolete.” BeyondGuardianship. Medium, February 1, 2026. https://bit.ly/4n5AJn5

Marshall, Philip C. “Deference Without Due Process: Appellate Review and the Constitutional Failure of Adult Guardianship.” Submitted to Members of the New York State Assembly and Senate. January 2026. https://bit.ly/4cJN9xE

Mosqueda, Laura, Kerry Burnight, Melanie W. Gironda, Alison A. Moore, Jehni Robinson, and Bonnie Olsen. "The Abuse Intervention Model: A Pragmatic Approach to Intervention for Elder Mistreatment." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 64, no. 9 (2016): 1879–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14266

National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA). Elder Financial Exploitation: Trusted Others. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: NCEA, March 2026. https://ncea.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/NCEA-Elder-Financial-Exploitation-Trusted-Others.pdf

Nerenberg, Lisa. Elder Justice, Ageism, and Elder Abuse. New York: Springer Publishing, 2019. https://www.springerpub.com/elder-justice-ageism-and-elder-abuse-9780826147561.html

Office for Victims of Crime. “Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance Program: Final Rule.” Federal Register81, no. 131 (July 8, 2016): 44515–44535. 28 CFR Part 94. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/08/2016-16085/victims-of-crime-act-victim-assistance-program

Reich, Charles A. “The New Property.” Yale Law Journal 73, no. 5 (1964): 733–787. https://www.jstor.org/stable/794645

Senior$afe Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-174, § 303, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78q. Originally introduced as S. 223, 115th Congress, by Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/223

Setterlund, Deborah, Cheryl Tilse, Jill Wilson, Anne-Louise McCawley, and Linda Rosenman. “Understanding Financial Elder Abuse in Families: The Potential of Routine Activities Theory.” Ageing and Society 27, no. 4 (2007): 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X07006009

S.3337, Strategic Plan for Aging Act, 119th Congress (introduced December 3, 2025). Referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3337

Stickle, Ben, and Marcus Felson. "Crime Rates in a Pandemic: The Largest Criminological Experiment in History." American Journal of Criminal Justice 45 (2020): 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09546-0