The Concerned Person: From Secondary Victim to Recognized Actor

The full essay is available here as a PDF.

They're already watching. Already acting. Already excluded by the systems they turned to for help. This essay names them — and asks what they are owed. Ninth in the Justifying Justice series, each essay circling the same person without quite naming them whole. This essay does. The series began with an inversion: that the legal architecture governing protective intervention too often displaces the rights it claims to serve. It drew on Georg Simmel’s sociology of the triad to show that elder abuse inhabits the dyad — the most fragile social form — and that protective systems have replicated that fragility rather than correcting it. It applied Routine Activity Theory to name the capable guardian whose presence prevents harm and whose removal enables it. It mapped the circles of support whose attenuation recreates the conditions exploitation requires. It documented what the law permits that it should not, and what it withholds that it should provide. And it proposed Upstandership℠ as the practice through which Concerned Persons — already in the network, already watching — act on what they know.

I. Who They Are

The Concerned Person is not a legal category. They are not a clinical designation. They are not assigned by a professional, verified by an institution, or confirmed by the older adult they are trying to protect.

They are the neighbor who noticed. The adult child who asked twice whether everything was all right. The friend who called and got no answer. The family member who read the bank statement and could not account for what they found. They are already in the network. They are already watching. And they are, by almost any measure, the field’s most effective protective resource — and its most systematically overlooked one.

The term “concerned persons” captures something that no clinical category quite reaches: both an affective state and a moral commitment. Concerned Persons are concerned in the full sense of the word — worried, anxious, and in many cases experiencing the kind of sustained psychological distress that comes from watching someone you love be harmed while lacking the standing, the information, or the legal tools to stop it. And it is their concern — personal and civic — that motivates intervention, or the attempt at intervention, in the face of significant relational, institutional, and legal obstacles.

They are not bystanders who noticed something and moved on. They are people whose concern produced action. The distinction matters. The bystander literature explains why people do not act (Darley and Latané, 1968). This essay is about people who did. The system’s failure to recognize that action is not an oversight. It is the subject of this essay.

II. What Happens to Them

Elder abuse — in all its forms, but most acutely in its family-perpetrated varieties, and most completely in guardianship, where the law itself becomes the instrument of isolation — isolates the older adult from the people most likely to protect them. This is not a side effect of exploitation. It is the strategy.

The perpetrator who exploits an older adult does not only take money, or health, or freedom. They take the relational world. They restrict access, redirect communications, reframe the Concerned Person’s involvement as intrusive or harmful. The Concerned Person is not merely displaced. Their removal is the mechanism. Without the third party whose relational knowledge of the older adult makes exploitation visible, the two-person structure — the dyad of older adult and perpetrator — has no buffer, no internal relay to the wider systems of protection, and no one positioned to interrupt what is happening (Simmel, 1908/1950).

This is the structure that elder abuse inhabits. And it is, critically, the structure that our protective response systems have too often replicated rather than corrected.

When the Concerned Person activates the formal system — files the report, makes the call, initiates the investigation — they expect to become part of the response. Instead, they are excluded from it. The APS investigation proceeds without them. The guardianship hearing is held without them. The case is closed. A courtesy call may or may not follow. Either way: no findings, no records, no pathway back in. 

The person who was already watching is removed from the system that claimed to be watching. The isolation the perpetrator produced is then enforced by the institution.

This double isolation of the Concerned Person — from the older adult through the perpetrator’s strategy, and from the formal response through institutional design — is not a failure of individual caseworkers or a gap in training. It is a structural consequence of how the protective system was built: around two parties, a victim and a perpetrator, with no recognized place for the third.

III. What It Costs Them

The Concerned Person’s experience is not adequately captured by caregiver burden alone. Caregiver burden describes the demands of direct care — the physical, emotional, and financial toll of providing for someone whose needs have become significant. That experience is real and well-documented and deserves the recognition it has received. And for many Concerned Persons, it is part of their experience: they are often also the caregiver, carrying both the weight of direct care and the compounding weight of witnessing abuse they cannot formally address. But caregiver burden does not capture what is distinct about the Concerned Person’s situation: the experience of watching someone you love be harmed while lacking the standing, the information, or the legal tools to stop it — and then being excluded by the very system you activated in the attempt.

What Concerned Persons are responding to is rarely a single form of harm. Research on elder abuse consistently finds that financial exploitation by family members co-occurs with physical abuse, emotional control, neglect, and isolation — what the literature calls polyvictimization (Jackson & Hafemeister, 2012; Williams et al., 2020). Isolation is not merely one element of this pattern. It is its instrument: the mechanism through which each form of abuse is enabled, each disclosure is suppressed, and the Concerned Person’s access to the older adult is progressively curtailed. The Concerned Person who noticed the bank statement also noticed the bruise, the weight loss, the unreturned calls, the new name on the power of attorney. What they are carrying is not one concern. It is the accumulated weight of a relational world being systematically dismantled.

Concerned Person is at once a witness, an advocate, and, often, someone who has been harmed by the same system they activated. Their experience is closer to what the trauma literature calls moral injury: the harm that results from witnessing or being unable to prevent a violation of one's moral code, compounded by betrayal by a legitimate authority — the formal system that claimed to be protective and proved to be indifferent (Litz et al., 2009; Nash & Litz, 2013). The framework was built for combat. The structure it describes — harm from witnessing, compounded by betrayal by an institution — applies here.

The Concerned Person who calls twenty-five times and receives a courtesy call to say the case is closed has not merely been inconvenienced. They have been structurally excluded from a proceeding that determined what would happen to someone they love — a proceeding they initiated, at personal cost, in good faith. That exclusion is a harm. It meets the definition of secondary victimization in the victims’ rights literature: injury inflicted not by the original offender but by the systems that respond to the original harm (Campbell & Raja, 1999; Henderson, 1985). The Concerned Person is, in this sense, a secondary victim of elder abuse — harmed first by the perpetrator’s strategy of isolation, and then by a formal system that has not yet developed the conceptual or legal framework to recognize them as such.

The field has no validated instrument for this experience. The moral injury literature, the secondary victimization literature, and the caregiver burden literature each capture part of it. None captures it whole. A validated instrument specific to the Concerned Person’s experience would need to reach across all three registers: the relational harm of watching someone you love be exploited by a family member; the institutional harm of being excluded by the system you activated; and the compounding harm of polyvictimization — the recognition that what the Concerned Person is responding to is rarely a single form of abuse but a pattern of interconnected harms, each enabling and deepening the others (Jackson & Hafemeister, 2012). It would need to distinguish the Concerned Person who is also a caregiver from the one who is not — and to capture what both share: the experience of concern that produced action, in the face of a system that was not built to receive it. Naming the experience is the first step toward measuring it. Measuring it is the first step toward designing a system response commensurate with the harm. And a system response commensurate with the harm is what the Concerned Person — already there, already watching, already acting — has been waiting for.

IV. Why the Violence Is Named and the Concern Is Not

There is an asymmetry at the heart of elder abuse and financial exploitation that the field has been slow to name. Coming forward has not been normalized. The violence — and the family arrangements that enable it — has.

This is not a paradox. It is a structural consequence of ageism.

Social norms are sustained by two kinds of expectations operating together: what people believe others actually do, and what people believe others think one ought to do (Bicchieri, 2017). Family financial exploitation of older adults has achieved a form of normalization at both levels: empirical expectations that family members manage, control, and make decisions for aging relatives, and normative expectations that such matters are properly handled within the family and without outside intervention. Together they converge to sustain the behavior without naming it as deviant. 

Coming forward has achieved no equivalent normalization. There are no widely shared expectations that others report family members for abuse and exploitation, and no normative infrastructure that names disclosure as what families ought to do. Without both kinds of expectations in place, disclosure lacks the social architecture that norm change requires. What the field calls an awareness campaign cannot build that architecture. Awareness is information. Norm change is a collective shift in what people believe others do and what they believe others think one should do (Bicchieri, 2017). The two are not the same intervention.

Ageism is the predicate of this asymmetry. It normalizes the conditions that make exploitation possible: the isolation of older adults from intergenerational community, the assumption that their affairs require management by others, and the cultural tolerance for diminishment that makes exploitation legible as care and removal of rights legible as protection. 

Stark’s analysis of why abusive relationships endure is instructive here. His insight was that what traps people is not the violence alone but the architecture of control — the isolation, the monitoring, the restriction of resources — that makes escape structurally difficult. Explanations of battering’s persistence converge on the recognition that this architecture is normalized in families — sociologically, through cultural tolerance; politically, through structures of power; and psychologically, through trauma’s distortion of perception and response (Stark, 2007). The same convergence applies to family-perpetrated abuse and exploitation: the familial normalization of older adults’ diminishment, the institutional normalization of their exclusion from protective proceedings, and the psychological normalization produced by isolation and dependency together create the conditions in which abuse and exploitation is not only possible but structurally predictable (Brandl & Cook-Daniels, 2002; Hightower et al., 2006).

The harm is not hidden because it is recognized as harm. It is hidden because the systems surrounding it — familial, institutional, and cultural — have organized themselves, however unwittingly, around its continuation.

V. The Self-Designated Third

The Concerned Person is self-designated. They identify themselves as such on the basis of their own perception of their relationship, their motivation, and their conduct. No professional assigns the role. No institution verifies it. The older adult does not confirm it.

This self-designation is both the framework’s strength and its most important complication.

Its strength is that it captures the full range of people who function as Concerned Persons in practice, including those whose involvement has never been formally recognized. The neighbor who has been quietly watching for months. The adult child who has been excluded from family decisions. The longtime friend whose concern has not yet produced any formal action. All may be Concerned Persons in the relational and functional sense the framework intends.

Its complication is that self-designation does not guarantee alignment with the older adult’s interests. In families fractured by exploitation — where competing factions may each present themselves as protective while pursuing conflicting agendas — multiple individuals may claim the Concerned Person role while advancing genuinely incompatible objectives. Inheritance, control of assets, caregiving arrangements, family status: these are real interests, and they may conflict both with each other and with what the older adult actually wants. They are also interests that non-professional asset managers — informal helpers already embedded in the older adult’s relational world — navigate without training, without oversight, and without the legal infrastructure the formal system has proved insufficient, to provide (Tilse et al., 2005, 2007; Setterlund et al., 2007).

The framework’s response to this complexity is not to require external verification — which would exclude precisely the people it is designed to name — but to hold the self-designation lightly. What the older adult says, when they can say it, is the governing standard. The Concerned Person’s account is a starting point, not a conclusion. The framework’s integrity depends on keeping the older adult’s voice at the center even when — especially when — the Concerned Person believes they already know what the older adult needs.

The professional Concerned Person introduces a further complication. As Harbison and colleagues observed, social conditions have long constructed older people as in need of care and protection by professionals — a construction that grants the professional Concerned Person institutional credibility the informal network lacks, but that also embeds them in a set of obligations the informal network does not share (Harbison et al., 2012). Physicians, attorneys, financial advisors, bank tellers, APS workers: these people are already functioning as Concerned Persons in practice. Their institutional credibility gives the framework access to a tier of observation and authority that informal Concerned Persons cannot match. But their conflicts of interest are structurally different in kind — institutional and economic rather than relational and familial, organized around billing relationships, referral networks, and professional affiliations that may create competing obligations (Navarro et al., 2013; Teaster et al., 2006). A physician who refers to a specific guardian, an attorney who benefits from a prolonged guardianship or estate proceeding, a care manager embedded in a closed professional network: these are not the same conflicts as an adult child who hopes to inherit. They require different safeguards, different disclosure requirements, and a different set of questions about whose interests the professional Concerned Person is actually serving.

VI. What Isolation Costs

Isolation in elder abuse is not one thing. It operates at multiple levels simultaneously, and understanding it at each level changes what intervention requires.

At the contextual level, isolation precedes exploitation — it is the condition that reduces access to the informal surveillance networks that might otherwise detect harm and removes the capable guardians — in the criminological sense, the people already present and watching, not court-appointed legal guardians — whose presence might interrupt it (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Setterlund et al., 2007). This is the level the field has documented most thoroughly: social isolation as a risk factor.

At the instrumental level, isolation is actively produced by the perpetrator during exploitation — the deliberate dismantling of the older adult’s relational world that ensures the abuse continues and goes unnamed. This is the level Simmel’s triadic sociology illuminates: the perpetrator does not find isolation, they create it, by collapsing the protective triad back into the vulnerable dyad (Simmel, 1908/1950).

At the social level, family-perpetrated exploitation suffers from a form of collective isolation: it lacks the social salience that mobilizes public attention, policy infrastructure, and research investment. It remains less visible than stranger fraud, less legible than physical abuse, and less embedded in public discourse than child abuse or intimate partner violence — not because it is less common, but because the systems organized to address it were built for a different problem. Stranger fraud has a perpetrator who is unknown and therefore unambiguous. Physical abuse leaves marks. Child abuse and intimate partner violence have decades of advocacy infrastructure, public awareness campaigns, and legal reform behind them. Family-perpetrated financial exploitation of older adults has none of these advantages: the perpetrator is known and trusted, the harm is financial and therefore less viscerally legible, the victim may not recognize or name what is happening, and the cultural assumptions that normalize family management of older adults’ affairs make the boundary between care and exploitation genuinely difficult to see — and far too easy to cross without consequence (Pillemer et al., 2016; Hightower et al., 2006).

At the disciplinary level, the field’s response to elder abuse has itself been organized in silos — and perpetrators know this, to their advantage. Elder abuse, domestic violence, consumer fraud, mental health, financial services, and healthcare have developed parallel literatures, parallel intervention models, and parallel advocacy infrastructures that rarely communicate across their boundaries — and the siloing extends even within institutions: different accounts at the same bank, different departments at the same hospital, different providers in the same care team may each hold a fragment of a picture that none can see whole (Santucci, 2018; Meyer et al., 2020). This was the central insight of a 2017 Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia conference on aging, cognition, and financial health — one at which the author of this essay was present, and at which an interview with him on his experience as a Concerned Person was produced and screened (Ney, 2017; Santucci, 2018). A financial advisor may know more about a client’s cognitive decline than that client’s physician — and neither knows what the other knows.

The perpetrator navigates these gaps with ease. The Concerned Person cannot. 

Addressing elder abuse comprehensively requires dismantling isolation at every level: relational, instrumental, social, and disciplinary. The Concerned Person is the place to start — because they are, by definition, the person who crossed the boundary the perpetrator tried to enforce. They noticed. They acted. They showed up. Recognizing their role is not merely a legal reform or a policy adjustment. It is a decision about what kind of society we want to be when older adults need protection that their own family has failed to provide.

VII. What Society Owes

The Concerned Person is the missing infrastructure of elder justice — the human architecture of detection, intervention, and support that no institutional system can replicate. Society’s obligation to Concerned Persons follows directly from that recognition: if we are asking them to do what the system cannot do, we owe them the legal standing, the information rights, the institutional support, and the cultural validation that makes that contribution sustainable.

At the legal level: recognition as having a cognizable interest in adult protective proceedings, guardianship hearings, and APS investigations — but also in the full range of civil and criminal proceedings in which the older adult’s interests are being adjudicated, including conservatorship hearings, power of attorney challenges, and elder abuse prosecutions. Not decision-making authority. The right to be heard. The right to information about outcomes. The right to participate in proceedings that directly affect the person they are trying to protect. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act already extends participation and notification rights in federal criminal proceedings to victims and, upon incapacity, to those who stand in for them — a statutory architecture that Congress built, and that can be extended by statute to the civil protective proceedings where Concerned Persons are most systematically excluded (Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 2004).

That extension has already begun — not in statute, but in practice. The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), enacted in 1984 and administered through a 2016 Final Rule, defines a crime victim as any person who has suffered physical, sexual, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime — a definition broad enough, and intentionally so, to reach Concerned Persons. The Center for Elder Abuse Solutions (CEASe) at Weill Cornell Medicine has operationalized exactly this framework: through the New York State Office of Victim Services, VOCA funding was extended to support the Elder Abuse 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 the field had structurally excluded. The mechanism rests on a secondary victim classification — the administrative reading through which New York State OVS extends direct service funding to individuals whose stability and capacity to support the primary victim are essential to that victim's safety and recovery. That reading is both the proof of concept and its limitation: durable enough to fund the 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.

At the programmatic level — and achievable without statutory change in most jurisdictions — the most immediate reforms are two. First, APS outcome notification: the person who filed the report has a legitimate interest in what the investigation found and what action was taken. In most states, that information flows in but does not flow out — a gap documented in the National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System (NAMRS), which currently collects no data on whether reporters receive outcome information (Administration for Community Living, n.d.). Second, financial institution accountability to the people who know the most. When a bank, credit union, or broker-dealer identifies suspected exploitation, federal law governs what it can report and to whom — and the Concerned Person is not among the authorized recipients of that information. The Bank Secrecy Act prohibits financial institutions from disclosing whether a Suspicious Activity Report has been filed or even whether one is under consideration. One narrow exception exists: FINRA Rule 4512 (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 2018a) requires broker-dealers to make reasonable efforts to obtain a trusted contact for customer accounts. Rule 2165 (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 2018b) then permits — but does not require — firms to place a temporary hold on suspicious disbursements and to reach out to that trusted contact when exploitation is suspected. It is a foothold, not a framework. The trusted contact must be designated in advance, applies only to broker-dealers, and carries no guarantee that the person who actually raised the alarm will be the one the firm calls — or that they will receive any meaningful information when they do. The regulatory architecture was designed to serve law enforcement. It was not designed to serve the neighbor who called the bank, the adult child who flagged the unusual transactions, or the friend who drove to the branch to raise the alarm. The information flows to the government. The person who made the call goes home without an answer — and without the legal right to one.

At the structural level: circles of support, formally recognized and resourced — the institutional expression of the truth that resilience comes not from a single relationship but from relationships within relationships (Simmel, 1908/1950; Cohen & Felson, 1979). The Concerned Person is not only a member of that circle. They are frequently its connector — the person who noticed that a circle was needed and began assembling one informally, without recognition, without resources, and without the legal standing to formalize what they built. But connection requires access, and access is precisely what the system makes difficult. Before abuse occurs and after it is identified, Concerned Persons face institutional silos that are hard to navigate even for trained professionals. As Marrs and colleagues observe, increasing awareness of and accessibility to resources and supports that safeguard older adults is not merely helpful — it is a necessary strategy for prevention (Marr et al. 2024). The system that excludes the Concerned Person does not only lose a witness and an advocate. It loses the person most motivated to connect the circle — and then fails to give them the map.

The system should be built around them, not against them.

At the cultural level: a norm shift. Not an awareness campaign. A change in what people believe others do and what they believe others think one should do (Bicchieri, 2017) — a change that makes noticing and acting expected, valued, and supported rather than exceptional, and that recognizes the Concerned Person who speaks up as performing a civic function rather than committing a family betrayal. Speaking up in the face of institutional pressure and the pull of family loyalty is not merely a moral instinct. It is a learnable practice — what Mary Gentile called Giving Voice to Values (Gentile, 2010).

The primacy of norms is not a concession to law’s limits. It is a structural fact about how protection actually works. Laws reach conduct after the fact; norms shape it before harm occurs — and entrenched practices that legal prohibition failed for decades to dislodge have collapsed within a generation once the underlying norms shifted (Mackie, 1996). The lesson for elder justice is direct: the legal reforms this essay proposes — standing, notification, statutory recognition — will function only as well as the norms beneath them. 

The research base for this shift in norms is stronger than the field has yet fully absorbed. High-quality social support does not merely comfort older adults who have been victimized — it nullifies the negative effects of abuse on mental and physical health outcomes, as if the abuse had not occurred (Acierno et al., 2017). Low social support, conversely, is among the strongest predictors of elder abuse victimization in the first place (Acierno et al., 2010). 

And Concerned Persons — the non-abusing family members, friends, and neighbors in the lives of older victims — are themselves affected by the victimization: directly harmed, distressed, and negatively impacted simply by knowing what has happened to someone they love. They need support too. Services that expand beyond the victim to encompass those trying to help — of whom there may be tens of millions in the United States — are not a luxury. Risa Breckman and colleagues, including the author of this essay, documented precisely that (Breckman et al., 2018). They are the logical extension of what the evidence already shows (Hernandez-Tejada et al., n.d.; Burnes et al., 2018). 

The most important implication of this evidence is one that Melba Hernandez-Tejada, who co-authored the National Elder Mistreatment Study’s longitudinal findings, has stated precisely: social support is a modifiable construct. It is not a fixed feature of a person’s life. It can be built, strengthened, and institutionally resourced. A culture that values the Concerned Person — that expects noticing, supports acting, and names both as civic rather than familial obligations — is not an aspiration. It is a public health intervention. 

The evolution of the field’s language — from elder abuse to elder justice to rights — traces the arc of an incomplete but directional escape from ageism’s assumptions (Connolly, 2024). Each shift names something the prior frame could not. Elder abuse names the harm. Elder justice names the systemic failure and the obligation to respond to it — encompassing financial exploitation alongside every other form of maltreatment, and insisting that the remedy not be located in the perpetrator’s conduct alone but in the older adult’s rights: to financial autonomy, to the protection of assets accumulated over a lifetime, and to a legal and institutional response commensurate with the gravity of the harm.

But rights names what the Concerned Person has been denied throughout: not merely protection, but standing — the recognized legal personhood that would allow them to act on what they know, in the systems built to address the harm they have named. 

The term was introduced through the Elder Abuse Helpline for Concerned Persons, founded by Risa Breckman at what was then the New York City Elder Abuse Center (NYCEAC) — now the Center for Elder Abuse Solutions (CEASe) at Weill Cornell Medicine — a helpline made possible, in part, through VOCA funding that recognized Concerned Persons as people harmed by the same crime they were trying to address — and carried forward by the advocates, researchers, and older adults who have refused to let the field look away. The author of this essay was among them. From invisible, to informal helper, to secondary victim, to recognized actor with standing and rights. The arc is the same. And the argument is the same one the Justifying Justice series has been making from its first essay to this one: 

Prevention requires rights. Not just awareness.

The Concerned Person is already there. The question is whether the law is finally ready to let them in.

More to Explore

This series has followed elder injustice from the isolation of the individual — the person named whole in these pages — through to the collective response it calls for. The pattern it describes, how silence becomes structure and how those already in the network can break it, rests on a deeper architecture worth examining. Enacting Elder Justice: A Systems-Change Framework for Overcoming Silence and Institutional Neglect takes up that architecture directly, drawing on Kurt Lewin’s field theory, Cristina Bicchieri’s work on social norms, and Donella Meadows’s leverage points to ask not only why these systems freeze, but where they can be moved. Where this series works through the human experience of standing up, the framework maps the system that standing-up acts upon — the two are meant to be read together.

References

Acierno, R., Hernandez, M. A., Amstadter, A. B., Resnick, H. S., Steve, K., Muzzy, W., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2010). Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential neglect in the United States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.163089

Acierno, R., Hernandez-Tejada, M., Anetzberger, G., Loew, D., & Muzzy, W. (2017). The National Elder Mistreatment Study: An 8-year longitudinal study of outcomes. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 29(4), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2017.1365031  

Administration for Community Living. (n.d.). National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System (NAMRS). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved June 2026, from https://acl.gov/programs/elder-justice/national-adult-maltreatment-reporting-system-namrs

Bicchieri, C. (2017). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press.

Brandl, B., & Cook-Daniels, L. (2002). Domestic abuse in later life. National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/domestic-abuse-later-life

Breckman, R., Burnes, D., Ross, S., Marshall, P., Suitor, J., Lachs, M., & Pillemer, K. (2018). When helping hurts: Nonabusing family, friends, and neighbors in the lives of elder mistreatment victims. The Gerontologist, 58(4), 719–723. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw257  

Burnes, D., Breckman, R., Henderson, C., Lachs, M., & Pillemer, K. (2018). Informal network supporters make a difference in facilitating use of formal support services for elder abuse victims. Innovation in Aging, 2(Suppl 1), 146. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy023.530  

Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.14.3.261  

Center for Elder Abuse Solutions. (n.d.). Elder Abuse Helpline for Concerned Persons. Weill Cornell Medicine. https://elderabuse.weill.cornell.edu/programs/elder-abuse-helpline-concerned-persons 

Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23636088  

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589  

Connolly, M. T. (2024). The measure of our age: Navigating care, safety, money, and meaning later in life. PublicAffairs.

Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, § 102, 118 Stat. 2260 (2004) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771). https://www.congress.gov/108/statute/STATUTE-118/STATUTE-118-Pg2260.pdf

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589

Elder Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, §§ 6701-6703, 124 Stat. 782 (2010) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1397j et seq.). https://acl.gov/about-acl/elder-justice-act  

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (2018a). FINRA Rule 2165: Financial exploitation of specified adults. FINRA. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/2165 

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (2018b). FINRA Rule 4512: Customer account information. FINRA. https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/4512 

Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what's right. Yale University Press.

Harbison, J., Coughlan, S., Beaulieu, M., Karabanow, J., VanderPlaat, M., Wildeman, S., & Wexler, E. (2012). Understanding "elder abuse and neglect": A critique of assumptions underpinning responses to the mistreatment and neglect of older people. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 24(2), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2011.644086  

Henderson, L. N. (1985). The wrongs of victim’s rights. Stanford Law Review, 37(4), 937–1021. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228587

Hernandez-Tejada, M. A., Breckman, R., & Burnes, D. (n.d.). The role of social support in the life of elder abuse victims [Webinar]. NAPSA Research to Practice Series. https://vimeo.com/348864746

Hightower, J. Smith, M. J., & Hightower, H. C. (2006). Hearing the voices of abused older women. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 46(3–4), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v46n03_12

Jackson, S. L., & Hafemeister, T. L. (2012). Pure financial exploitation vs. hybrid financial exploitation co-occurring with physical abuse and/or neglect of elderly persons. Psychology of Violence, 2(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027273

Litz, B. T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W. P., Silva, C., & Maguen, S. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(8), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.003  

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power (H. Davis, J. Raffan, & K. Rooney, Trans.). John Wiley & Sons. (Original work published 1973)

Mackie, G. (1996). Ending footbinding and infibulation: A convention account. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096305

Marrs, S., Arnette, S., McIntyre, M., & Clardy, A. (2024). A community approach to reduce and prevent elder abuse. Innovation in Aging, 8(Supplement_1), 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.0145

Meyer, S. R., Lasater, M. E., & García-Moreno, C. (2020). Violence against older women: A systematic review of qualitative literature. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0239560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239560

Nash, W. P., & Litz, B. T. (2013). Moral injury: A mechanism for war-related psychological trauma in military family members. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0146-y

Navarro, A. E., Gassoumis, Z. D., & Wilber, K. H. (2013). Holding abusers accountable: An elder abuse forensic center increases criminal prosecution of financial exploitation. The Gerontologist, 53(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns075  

Ney, D. (2017). Philip Marshall, preserving a legacy [including a video interview]. Making Sense of Alzheimer’s, Penn Memory Center, University of Pennsylvania. https://makingsenseofalzheimers.org/philip-marshall-preserving-a-legacy/  

Office for Victims of Crime. (2016). Final rule: Victims of Crime Act victim assistance program. Federal Register, 81(131), 44385–44528. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/08/2016-15807/victims-of-crime-act-victim-assistance-program 

Pillemer, K., Burnes, D., Riffin, C., & Lachs, M. S. (2016). Elder abuse: Global situation, risk factors, and prevention strategies. The Gerontologist, 56(Suppl 2), S194–S205. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw004  

Santucci, L. (2018). Addressing the financial well-being of older adults. CFI in Focus. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Consumer Finance Institute. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-finance/consumer-credit/addressing-the-financial-wellbeing-of-older-adults  

Setterlund, D., Tilse, C., Wilson, J., McCawley, A. L., & Rosenman, L. (2007). Understanding financial elder abuse in families: The potential of routine activities theory. Ageing & Society, 27(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X07006009  

Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolff, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1908)

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press. 

Stiegel, L. A. (2012). An overview of elder financial exploitation. Generations, 36(2), 73–80. 

Teaster, P. B., Dugar, T. A., Mendiondo, M. S., Abner, E. L., Cecil, K. A., & Otto, J. M. (2006). The 2004 survey of state adult protective services: Abuse of adults 60 years of age and older. National Center on Elder Abuse. https://vawnet.org/material/2004-survey-state-adult-protective-services-abuse-adults-60-years-age-and-older  

Tilse, C., Wilson, J., Setterlund, D., & Rosenman, L. (2007). Older people’s assets: A contested site. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 26(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1741-6612.2005.00101.x

Williams, J. L., Racette, E. H., Hernandez-Tejada, M. A., & Acierno, R. (2020). Prevalence of elder polyvictimization in the United States: Data from the National Elder Mistreatment Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15–16), 3004–3025. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517715604  

Image: Elk Pond, Adirondacks, NY