Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A study released in December by the Stanford Center on Longevity addresses one of my frequent concerns. Reports on elder abuse, particularly those on financial abuse and exploitation, routinely include a statement to the effect that "X number of financial fraud cases were examined during the year" but that that more time/money/energy should be devoted to addressing the problem "because X plus Y number of cases exist" but are unreported. There is rarely any explanation for the prediction. While I accept that there is likely to be underreporting, don't we need better measurement tools than intuition?
In "The Scope of the Problem: An Overview of Fraud Prevelance Measurement," Stanford researchers address exactly this issue. "'Without accurate and reliable estimates of fraud,' wrote Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at the Stanford Center on Longevity, 'it is difficult to understand what works or does not work to protect victims from harm.'" The problem may be not just underreporting, but "underadmitting," especially for victims of elder abuse.
The Stanford report illustrates how analysis of recent sources and methodology can explain variations in predictions, thus also helping to design better tools for the future, including better surveys. For example, they point to the 2011 study of elder abuse in New York State by Lachs & Berman, "notable as a comprehensive endeavor that used multiple sources of data and collaboration among community, governmental, and academic partners to get a sense of the 'big picture' problem."
Thanks to my colleague, Laurel Terry, for sharing this report. Laurel and Howard are the justifiably proud parents of a Stanford sophomore.