Content uploaded by Anna Gillbard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna Gillbard on Mar 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Elder Abuse
Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Proudly operated by
Funded By
2Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Report prepared by:
Anna Gillbard and Chez Leggatt-Cook
UnitingCare
Published by:
UnitingCare
192 Ann St
Brisbane 4001
Citation
Gillbard, A., & Leggatt-Cook, C. (2022). Elder abuse statistics in Queensland: Year in review 2021–22. Elder
Abuse Prevention Unit, UnitingCare.
Disclaimer
UnitingCare has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that the contents of this document are factual and
free of error. UnitingCare shall not be liable for any damage or loss which may occur in relation to any
person acting or not acting based on this document.
Copyright © UnitingCare
Elder Abuse Statistics in
Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Contents Tables ii
Figures iii
Executive Summary 1
Section 1. Introduction to the Report 8
Section 1.1. Elder Abuse Helpline 11
Section 1.2. About the Data 13
Section 2. Total Call Data 17
Section 3. Abuse in Close or Intimate Relationships 21
Section 3.1. Individual Factors for Victims 23
Section 3.2. Individual Factors for Alleged Perpetrators 32
Section 3.3. Relationships Between Alleged Perpetrator and Victim 34
Section 3.4. Community Factors 39
Section 3.5. Societal Factors 45
Section 3.6. Abuse Data 51
Section 3.7. Impact of Abuse on Victims 60
Section 3.8. Barriers to Change for Victims 61
Section 4. Abuse in Consumer and Social Relationships 62
Section 4.1. Abuse Involving Aged Care Services 64
Section 4.2. Abuse in Other Consumer Relationships 66
Section 4.3. Abuse in Social Relationships 67
Recommendations 68
References 70
Appendices 76
Appendix A 77
Appendix B 78
iElder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Tables Table 1. Referral Source — Recorded by EAPU (All Call Types) 19
Table 2. Health Issues Experienced by Victims 26
Table 3. Care Needs for Which Victims Required Support 27
Table 4. Other Individual Factors for Perpetrators 33
Table 5. Notifier's Relationship to Victim 39
Table 6. Industries in Which Notifiers Work 40
Table 7. Difference Between Expected and Actual Victim Counts 43
Table 8. Barriers to Change Factors and Frequencies 78
ii
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Figures Figure 1. Timeline of key national initiatives 9
Figure 2. Notifications received in the 2021–22 financial year 18
Figure 3. Total abuse notifications by financial year 18
Figure 4. What prompted callers to contact EAPU (where known) 20
Figure 5. Types of services notifiers were referred to 20
Figure 6. A bifocal ecological framework identifying potential risks
and protective factors for elder abuse 22
Figure 7. Age of victims 23
Figure 8. Gender of victims 23
Figure 9. Victims’ age and gender 24
Figure 10. Proportion of female and male victims by age group
compared with proportions in the population 24
Figure 11. Number of types of care needs for victims 28
Figure 12. Decision makers and abuse perpetration 29
Figure 13. Why decision makers failed to act to protect victims 30
Figure 14. Other individual victim characteristics that may increase
vulnerability 31
Figure 15. Age of perpetrators 32
Figure 16. Gender of perpetrators 32
Figure 17. Relationship between perpetrator and victim 34
Figure 18. Who do victims live with? 35
Figure 19. Comparison of victim cohabitation between 2018–19
and 2021–22 35
Figure 20.
Issues in cases of perpetrators providing care 37
Figure 21. Proportion of victims dependent on perpetrators 37
Figure 22. Proportion of perpetrators dependent on victims 38
Figure 23. Geographic location of victims 42
Figure 24. Proportion of cases above or below that expected by
region 44
iii Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Figure 25. Proportion of victims by abuse type 51
Figure 26. Number of abuse types reported 51
Figure 27. Methods of perpetrating financial abuse 52
Figure 28. Forms of financial abuse 52
Figure 29. Forms of neglect 53
Figure 30. Forms of physical abuse 54
Figure 31. Forms of psychological abuse 55
Figure 32. Types of threats experienced by victims 56
Figure 33. Forms of sexual abuse 57
Figure 34. Forms of social abuse 58
Figure 35. Frequency of abuse 59
Figure 36. Duration of abuse 59
Figure 37. Impact of elder abuse on victims 60
Figure 38. Psychological impact of abuse 60
Figure 39. Barriers to change for victims 61
Figure 40. Comparison of abuse types among aged care services,
other consumer relationships, and social relationships 63
Figure 41. Abuse involving aged care services 64
Figure 42. Proportion of victims by abuse type in cases related to aged
care services 65
Figure 43. Abuse in other consumer relationships 66
Figure 44. Proportion of victims by abuse type in cases involving other
consumer relationships 66
Figure 45. Abuse in social relationships 67
Figure 46. Proportion of victims by abuse type in cases involving
social relationships 67
iv
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Executive
Summary
The Elder Abuse Prevention Unit (EAPU) Helpline is
funded by the Queensland Department of Seniors,
Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Partnerships to provide information, support, and
referrals to older people and those who witness or suspect
that an older person is experiencing abuse or neglect.
Helpline sta enter this non-identiable information into PEARL (Prevention of
Elder Abuse Record List), the EAPU’s custom-built research database. Data are
extracted, analysed, and reported annually. The 2022 report contains a range of
descriptive statistics and analyses of Helpline data collected during the 2021–22
nancial year.
1Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
2
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Call Data
The Helpline received a total of 3,841 calls during the 2021–22 nancial year. This included 2,338 abuse
notications and 1,503 enquiry calls (Figure E1). One hundred and seventeen notications (5.0%) involved
abuse allegedly perpetrated by aged care services or workers.
Compared with the previous year, an additional 316 (15.6%) abuse notications were received in 2021–22.
The most frequently recorded referral source in 2021–22 was the internet. However, data supplied by the
Attorney-General's Department (Australian) shows that 878 calls were redirected from the 1800ELDERHelp
number to the EAPU Helpline during the 2021–22 nancial year.
The most frequently recorded call prompts were that the abuse was escalating, the caller found out
about EAPU, and they reached breaking point. Callers were most frequently referred to legal, health, and
guardianship and administration services.
Most abuse notications (80.2%) in 2021–22 related to abuse in close or intimate relationships. The other
19.8 per cent of notications related to abuse in consumer and social relationships, with 5.0 per cent of these
involving complaints about aged care services and workers. The patterns of abuse dier between cases
occurring in close or intimate relationships and those involving abuse in consumer or social relationships
(Figure E2). This is probably due to dierences in the relationships between victims and perpetrators, along
with the drivers of the abuse. Due to these dierences, the data are analysed separately to increase the
usefulness of the analyses.
1,875
Notications
Abuse in Close or
Intimate Relationships
463
Notications
Abuse in Consumer &
Social Relationships
2,301
Abuse Cases
470
Abuse Cases
2,338
Total Abuse
Notications
Figure E1.
Notications received in the 2021–22 nancial year.
Proportion
60%
80%
40%
20%
0%
Abuse Type
Financial Neglect Physical Psychological Sexual Social
Figure E2.
Comparison of abuse types in cases involving abuse in close or intimate relationships (
n
= 2,301) and abuse in consumer and social
relationships (
n
= 470).
○ Close or Intimate
○ Consumer & Social
62.1%
39.3%
22.9%
12.6% 13.6% 13.7%
76.6%
64.4%
0.8% 2.0%
27.8%
8.9%
3Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Data relating to abuse occurring within close or intimate
relationships are presented according to a bifocal ecological
framework. This framework views elder abuse as occurring
through interactions between factors at the individual (victim
and perpetrator), relationship, community, and societal levels.
Individual Factors: Victims
Within a bifocal ecological model, the individual level
considers factors that may increase an individual’s
vulnerability and, thereby, their risk of becoming a victim of
elder abuse. Key ndings:
• The largest group of victims was aged 80–84 years
(21.2%).
• Females were over-represented as victims (69.1%).
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were over-
represented as victims (4.7%). This is almost double
the proportion of people aged 50 years and over living
in Queensland who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander (2.4%).
• People from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds were under-represented as victims (4.4%).
This is much lower than the proportion of people aged
50 years and over from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds (13.9%) who live in Queensland.
• A large proportion of victims were widowed (34%), which
is three times the proportion of people aged 50 and over
living in Queensland who are widowed (11.2%).
• One-third of victims (33.3%) had impaired capacity.
• More than half of victims (61%) were reported to have
care needs, with only one in ve of these victims (20.2%)
receiving formal support.
• Formal decision-making arrangements were recorded
in 26.7 per cent of cases. In more than three-quarters
(78.1%) of these cases (where known), one or more
decision makers were alleged to be perpetrating elder
abuse against the principal. Decision makers were
recorded as having acted to protect victims in only
21.3 per cent of these cases.
Individual Factors: Alleged
Perpetrators
Individual vulnerabilities for perpetrators may not have
direct or causal associations with elder abuse but they are
important to consider when formulating responses. However,
data relating to characteristics of individual perpetrators
must be interpreted cautiously because notiers frequently
lack this information. Key ndings:
• The largest group of perpetrators was aged 50–54 years
(15.0%).
• Males (51%) and females (49%) were almost equally
represented as perpetrators.
• Regarding psychological health, 7.5 per cent of
perpetrators were reported to have mental illness and
14.2 per cent to have substance misuse issues.
• Problematic behaviour appeared long-standing for some
perpetrators, who had a history of controlling behaviour
(30%), conictual relationships (20.2%), and aggression
(14.6%).
• Perpetrators were reported to have a history of criminal
behaviour in 233 cases (10.1%), with 55 recorded as having
been jailed for oences. In 89 cases, perpetrators were
listed as respondents on domestic violence orders.
Abuse in Close or Intimate
Relationships
4
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Relationships Between Victims and Perpetrators
The victim and perpetrator of elder abuse may share vulnerabilities. Factors such as cohabitation,
dependency, and dicult family history may contribute to the risk of elder abuse. Key ndings:
•Almost all cases of abuse in close or intimate relationships
occurred within family relationships (95%) (Figure E3).
Sons and daughters (including in-laws) were almost
equally reported as perpetrators, together accounting
for close to three-quarters of cases (71.1%). Spouses or
partners were recorded as perpetrators in 12.3 per cent
of cases. Poor family relationships were identied in
21.7 per cent of cases and sibling rivalry was identied in
9.7 per cent of cases.
•In close to two-thirds of cases (65.5%), victims and
perpetrators were living together. Victim and perpetrator
cohabitation has increased sharply over the past three
nancial years (Figure E4).
•Perpetrators were providing informal care to victims in
23.6 per cent (
n
= 543) of cases. At least one issue relating
to the provision of care was identied in 420 of these
cases. The most common issues involved the provision of
care being nancially motivated (44.5%) and perpetrators
struggling to meet the support needs of victims (42.9%).
•Dependence was a further concern, with more than
one-third of victims dependent on perpetrators (37.5%).
This was higher than the 31.6 per cent recorded in
2020– 21. Victims were most likely to depend on
perpetrators for decision making and care. In almost a
quarter of cases (23.1%), perpetrators were dependent on victims. The proportion of perpetrators
dependent on victims was much higher than the 14.5 per cent recorded in 2020–21.
Perpetrators most often depended on victims for accommodation (14.9%) and nancial support (13.2%).
•The most common factors that may have inuenced the development of abuse were victim ill-health
(15.7%) and perpetrators and victims beginning cohabitation (13.6%).
Figure E3.
Perpetrators’ relationships to victims
Proportion
40%
60%
20%
0%
Financial Year
2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–22
Figure E4.
Comparison of victim
and perpetrator
cohabitation between
2018–19 and 2021–22.
○ Live Alone
○ Live with
Perpetrators
34.9% 37.6%
23.7%
53.4%
18.1%
61.1%
16.8%
65.5%
Spouse/Partner
Son
Other Family Informal Carer
Grandchild
Friend
Daughter
Sibling
12.3%
36.3%
2.6% 2.4%
7%
2.5%
34.8%
2.1%
(
n
= 283)
(
n
= 835)
(
n
= 60) (
n
= 56)
(
n
= 160)
(
n
= 58)
(
n
= 800)
(
n
= 49)
5Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Community
Community factors relate to the intersection of victim and
perpetrator relationships with other family, friends, community
members, potential support networks, or features of the
community such as geographical location. The community in
which a person lives can aect their vulnerability to abuse in
both positive and negative ways. Key ndings:
• Victims themselves (25.7%), daughters (24.3%), and
workers (13.7%) were the most common notiers
of abuse in close or intimate relationships. Workers most
frequently came from the health, aged care,
and community services elds.
• The largest proportion of victims lived in the Brisbane
region. This nding was expected due to the large number
of Brisbane residents aged 50 years and older.
• Geographic locations where the proportion of victims was
higher than expected given population data were Cairns,
Wide Bay, and Moreton Bay North.
Society
The societal level of analysis concerns the cultural context
in which victims and perpetrators live. Sociocultural factors
inuence beliefs and attitudes and can contribute to a climate
in which elder abuse is more likely. Key ndings:
• Ageism was identied in almost one-third of cases (32.6%).
• Gender stereotypes were reported to have inuenced the
decisions and behaviour of victims (primarily female) in
11.4 per cent of cases.
• Sexism and gender roles were reported to have inuenced
the behaviour of perpetrators (primarily males) in 9 per cent
of cases.
• A sense of entitlement to an older relative’s assets was
identied in close to half of cases (44.2%).
Abuse Data
The most common types of abuse reported were
psychological (76.6%), nancial (62.1%), and social abuse
(27.8%) (Figure E5). In 68.7 per cent of cases, victims were
experiencing more than one type of abuse. Sexual, physical,
and social abuse were most likely to have other types of abuse
co-occurring. Abuse was most often reported as occurring
daily (37.3%). Victims who were experiencing neglect were
most likely to experience the abuse daily.
Data are also captured around the presentation of each type
of abuse. Key ndings:
• The most common methods of perpetrating nancial
abuse were undue inuence (22%), misuse of debit and
credit cards (12.4%), and misuse of an Enduring Power of
Attorney (11.7%).
• The most frequently reported forms of nancial abuse
involved non-contribution (22.3%; for example, living with
the victim and not contributing towards expenses such as
electricity or groceries), paying perpetrators’ bills (22%),
and victims being coerced into gifting (21.9%).
• Refusal to allow others to provide care (46%), failing to
take care of victims’ medical needs (35.8%), and failing to
ensure victims’ nutritional needs were met (34.8%) were
the most frequently reported forms of neglect.
• The most frequently reported forms of physical abuse
were pushing (39.8%), striking (35.7%), and rough
handling (22.3%).
• The most common forms of psychological abuse were
pressuring (65.9%), shouting (37%), and emotional
blackmail (25%).
• The most common forms of sexual abuse were rape
(27.8%), unwanted sexual comments (16.7%), and wilful
exposure (16.7%).
• In 9.7 per cent of cases of social abuse, Enduring Power of
Attorney misuse was recorded as the method of
perpetrating abuse.
• Restricting visitation by others (46%), deliberately
behaving in a way which limited visitation from others
(36%), and restricting access to a phone (34.3%) were the
most common forms of social abuse reported.
Figure E5.
Proportion of victims
by abuse type.
Type of Abuse
Sexual (
n
= 18)
Physical (
n
= 314)
Neglect (
n
= 528)
Social (
n
= 639)
Financial (
n
= 1,428)
Psychological (
n
= 1,763)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Proportion of Cases
0.8%
13.6%
22.9%
27.8%
62.1%
76.6%
6
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Figure E6.
Comparison of abuse
types among aged
care services
(
n
= 117), other
consumer
relationships
(
n
= 113), and social
relationships
(
n
= 240).
Impact of Abuse
Psychological (67.6%), health (52.9%), and nancial (47.8%) impacts were most frequently reported.
Barriers to Change
The most common barriers to change for victims related to concerns about protecting the perpetrator
and their relationship (82.7%), fear of further harm (42.8%), and their individual vulnerabilities (40.1%).
Abuse in Consumer and Social Relationships
The proportion of calls relating to abuse in consumer and social relationships (19.8%) was similar to that
in 2020–21 (19.3%). Of the 470 cases of abuse in consumer and social relationships, 117 related to abuse
involving aged care services, 113 concerned abuse in other consumer relationships, and 240 involved
abuse in social relationships. Key ndings:
• In cases of abuse involving aged care services, notications mostly concerned residential aged
care (74.4%). Most of these complaints were about aged care facilities as entities, with only 33 cases
identifying individual workers as perpetrators. Within residential aged care facilities, 91.6 per cent
of reported issues related to the quality of the care provided. Safety, attention to personal needs, and
concerns about the use of restraint were the most common issues reported relating to the quality of
the care.
• The most frequent complaints of abuse in other consumer relationships related to providers of
accommodation services (40.7%). More than half of these complaints (60.9%) were about retirement
villages. Forty-ve cases were categorised as “Other”, involving complaints about tradespeople, various
government departments, banks, and other service providers.
• Neighbourhood bullying accounted for nearly two-thirds of cases involving abuse in social
relationships (63.3%).
Abuse types varied across dierent forms of abuse in consumer and social relationships (Figure E6).
• Abuse in aged care services most frequently involved psychological abuse, neglect, and nancial abuse.
• Psychological and nancial abuse were the most common types reported for other consumer
relationships.
• Abuse in social relationships commonly involved psychological and nancial abuse.
○ Aged Care
○ Other Consumer
○ Social
Proportion of Victims
60%
90%
30%
0%
Type of Abuse
Financial Neglect Physical Psychological Sexual Social
9.2%
5.3%
1.3%
1.8%
3.4%
79.6%
56.6%
41.9%
12.1%
6.2%
23.9%
1.3%
8.8%
40.2%
40.8%
51.3%
23.9%
12.0%
The ndings in this report highlight the multidimensional nature of elder abuse. More than three-quarters
of abuse notications related to the abuse of older people at the hands of family or close friends who were
“acting as family”. This nding highlights the importance of understanding and dealing with elder abuse in the
family context. The following areas warrant further consideration and research.
• The National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study (NEAPS) found that 6 in 10 victims of elder abuse did not seek
help or advice, even from family or friends.1 Although Helpline data provides some insight into barriers to
change, no information is available about what facilitates help-seeking. Research with older people to
better understand facilitators and inhibitors of help-seeking would be benecial.
• Increasing numbers of victims were fearful of becoming homeless or had already experienced
homelessness because of abuse. Support to access safe, accessible, and aordable housing for victims
of elder abuse is likely to become increasingly important in Queensland as the current housing shortage
escalates. Examining the suitability and availability of existing crisis accommodation and referral pathways,
along with the eectiveness of providing housing support to victims of elder abuse, should be prioritised.
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are over-represented as victims of elder abuse in the Helpline
data, but whether this population experiences higher rates of abuse than other populations remains
unknown. Examining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives on elder abuse and help-seeking
behaviours would support the development of culturally appropriate services.
• People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are under-represented in the Helpline data.
The NEAPS found a slightly higher prevalence rate for elder abuse among participants from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Research could examine barriers to reporting for this population
and provide insight into improvements to increase reporting.
• There is a dearth of Australian research into perpetrator factors associated with elder abuse, and little
intervention work with perpetrators. Developing and monitoring the eectiveness of an evidence-based
perpetrator program could be considered.
• Little research exists about the abuse of older people who identify as LGBTIQ+. The PEARL database
captures this information; however, as callers are not explicitly asked if victims identify as LGBTIQ+,
meaningful analysis is not possible.
Elder abuse is a complex social issue, but addressing these evidence gaps may help increase the eectiveness
of prevention and intervention eorts.
Recommendations
1 Qu et al. (2021).
7Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Section 1
Introduction
to the Report
The World Health Organization denes elder abuse as
“a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action,
occurring within any relationship where there is an
expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an
older person.” 2
A recent Australian prevalence study undertaken by the Australian Institute
of Family Studies (AIFS) estimated that 14.8 per cent of people aged 65 years
and older experienced elder abuse in the preceding 12 months.3 Based on the
prevalence estimate and 2021 population data,4 638,439 Australians aged
65 years and older are likely to have experienced elder abuse in 2021. Australia’s
ageing population means that this number could increase to 968,114 within
20 years if the prevalence remains consistent.5
The consequences of elder abuse can be serious. Poor health, cognitive
deterioration, homelessness, and an increased risk of death are just some
possible consequences for victims of elder abuse. Further, the impacts of elder
abuse often extend beyond the person experiencing abuse. Family members,
friends, neighbours, and whole communities can all be aected when elder
abuse occurs.
2 World Health Organization (2002).
3 Qu et al. (2021).
4 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021a).
5 Wilson & Temple (2022).
8
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
9Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
In Australia, responding to elder abuse in the community has traditionally been the
responsibility of state and territory governments. This has resulted in a fragmented
system with legislation, frameworks, levels of funding, and service responses diering
between states and territories. However, recent identication of elder abuse as a
national priority area has led to greater collaboration between state, territory, and
federal levels of government, with the Australian Government taking a more active role
in responding to elder abuse. Several national initiatives have ensued (see Figure 1).
The nal report from the
Protecting the Rights of
Older Australians from
Abuse inquiry,
Elder
Abuse – A National Legal
Response
, was released by
the ALRC.
Elder Abuse: Understanding Issues, Frameworks
and Responses
report is released by Australian
Institute of Family Studies (AIFS).
Australian Attorney-General announced that an
inquiry, "Protecting the Rights of Older Australians
from Abuse", would be undertaken by the
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).
Elder Abuse Action
Australia established.
The Royal Commission
into Aged Care Quality
and Safety announced.
Research Paper 17–
Experimental
Estimates of the
Prevalence of Elder
Abuse in Australian
Aged Care Facilities
released by Royal
Commission into
Aged Care Quality and
Safety'.
Final report of the Royal
Commission into Aged Care
Quality and Safety,
Care,
Dignity and Respect,
was
released.
National Elder Abuse
Prevalence Study: Final
Report
was released by AIFS.
2016 2018 20202017 2019 2021
The Australian Government, in conjunction with the
state and territory governments, launched the
National
Plan to Respond to the Abuse of Older Australians (Elder
Abuse) 2019-2023.
A national phone line (1800 ELDERHelp) was
established to redirect callers to elder abuse helplines in
their state or territory.
Federal funding was made available to establish and
evaluate elder abuse service trials in a number of states
and territories.
A national knowledge hub was created to increase
accessibility to resources, tools, and research from a
wide variety of sources (https://www.compass.info/).
Figure 1.
Timeline of key
national initiatives.
10
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Queensland has a long history of providing specialised elder abuse services. The Elder Abuse
Prevention Unit (EAPU) was established in 1997, with UnitingCare delivering the services since 1999.
The EAPU is one of several elder abuse prevention and response services funded by the Queensland
Government Department of Seniors, Disability Services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Partnerships. Other elder abuse services funded by the Queensland Government include:
The EAPU dataset is widely recognised as the largest and most comprehensive source of elder
abuse data in Australia, with data collected and disseminated since 2000. However, it is important to
recognise that the data is collected in Queensland and may be inuenced by contextual factors.
Queensland has the second-largest land area in Australia and is one of the most decentralised states
with only 47 per cent of the population living in the capital city.6 Consequently, the ndings from this
report may not be representative of the whole Australian population.
Many factors associated with an increased risk of elder abuse are likely to transcend state boundaries.
For example, issues related to income inequity, housing aordability, lack of access to aged care
support, mental health, substance misuse, expectations around intergenerational wealth transfer, and
dementia are not unique to Queensland, or even to Australia.
Consequently, although the ndings from this report are a valuable source of information, contextual
factors should be considered. In the future, it is hoped that similar data may be collected by services
throughout Australia to further develop knowledge of elder abuse in Australia.
The Queensland Government also delivers an annual Elder Abuse Prevention and Awareness
campaign.
The EAPU is a state-wide service funded to respond to the abuse of older people in Queensland. The
EAPU provides an Elder Abuse Helpline, co-chairs an elder abuse integrated response panel, raises
awareness of elder abuse through community education workshops, analyses and disseminates
Helpline data, and contributes to numerous state-based and national research projects.
Queensland Responses to Elder Abuse
Queensland Context
Seniors Legal and
Support Services
Seniors Financial
Protection Services
A Scams and Fraud
Awareness Service
Elder Abuse
Prevention Support
Services
6 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021b).
Elder
Abuse
Helpline
Section 1.1 The EAPU Helpline is a condential service that oers
specialised advice, including information, support, and
referrals, for older people who are experiencing abuse and
for anyone who witnesses or suspects the abuse of an older
person. This section explains the types of calls received by the
Helpline and how the Helpline manages calls.
○ Enquiries
○ Abuse in close or intimate
relationships
○ Abuse in consumer and
social relationships
Examples are calls reporting
situations in which a family
member, informal carer, or
close friend is abusing an older
person.
Examples are requests for general information, requests for
information or training sessions, and follow-up calls made by EAPU.
Calls where an abuse notication is received for a previously reported
case (where known) are recorded as enquiry calls to reduce the
likelihood of any one case unduly inuencing the dataset.
Examples are calls regarding
complaints about aged care
services, neighbourhood
disputes, or scams that target
or impact older people.
The Helpline receives a diversity of calls, from those seeking general
information about what the EAPU does to calls reporting serious abuse.
When recording information collected during calls, the calls are separated
into three categories:
Types of Calls
How the Helpline Manages Calls
The Helpline is often the rst port of call for many people who are unsure
what to do in an abusive situation. No case management is provided, and
most callers remain anonymous. The stigma and shame associated with
experiences of elder abuse mean that making a call to the EAPU can be
dicult for some callers. Even in situations in which the caller is not the
person experiencing abuse, the caller can be distressed. Making a call can
also involve risk if the victim lives with the perpetrator or the perpetrator
monitors or controls their actions. The option of anonymity helps callers feel
safe to disclose abuse and seek support without fear of judgement or feeling
as though they are being pressured into acting against their wishes. See
Appendix A for The Helpline Practice Framework.
11 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Case Study
The following case study is an example of the types of
call the EAPU receives about abuse in close or intimate
relationships. This is not a real case, but rather a composite
of many cases.
Social abuse and neglect often co-occur, and the
proportions of these abuse types were higher in 2021–22
than in 2020–21. This case study was developed to
demonstrate a scenario in which social abuse and neglect
may co-occur.
Angela (78 years) is living with her daughter Janet
(53 years). Janet had lost her job as a tour guide due to
the COVID-19 pandemic and had moved in with Angela
because she had been unable to aord her rent. Janet had
been unable to nd a new job and decided to apply for
Carer Payment and provide support to her mother. Angela
was struggling to take care of the everyday household
tasks due to chronic pain associated with arthritis.
For the rst year, the arrangement worked well. Janet was
meeting Angela’s support needs and Angela was happy
to have Janet living with her. However, as time passed,
Janet started to resent Angela. Janet felt that providing
care to her mother was responsible for her lack of nancial
independence and had prevented her from meeting a life
partner.
Janet had started to drink alcohol on a daily basis and
had become verbally and physically abusive towards
Angela. The care that Janet was providing to Angela had
also started to deteriorate. Angela had always kept her
house clean and was upset that Janet was not meeting her
standard in cleanliness. Due to the state of the house and
Janet’s belligerence when she had been drinking, Angela
stopped allowing friends and neighbours to drop by.
Janet was beginning to refuse to drive Angela to her
medical appointments and social engagements and made
excuses about why Angela had to stay at home. Janet also
had the home phone disconnected and tried to make sure
that she was in the room if Angela spoke to anyone on her
mobile phone.
Angela’s brother David contacted the EAPU due to
concerns about not being able to speak to Angela on the
phone. David had also tried to visit Angela many times but
Janet always said that Angela was asleep and wouldn’t let
him enter the house. After speaking to the EAPU, David
contacted the police and asked them to do a welfare
check.
The police spoke to Angela about David’s concerns and
facilitated a phone call between Angela and David without
Janet being in the room. After the conversation with
Angela, David contacted EAPU to obtain further advice.
David advised the Helpline worker that Angela said that
she was lonely and that he felt that her mental health was
deteriorating. When asked what she wanted, Angela had
told him that she wasn’t happy with the way that Janet
treated her but she didn’t want to upset her daughter.
Angela was also worried that she would have to move into
residential aged care if Janet stopped providing support.
The Helpline worker referred David to an elder abuse
support service that oered case management and
provided information about My Aged Care. David intended
to nd out more about home care and contact the elder
abuse support service. He also planned to insist that Janet
allow him to take Angela out for coee so he could share
information about support options and enable Angela to
speak to the elder abuse service.
12
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Globally, gaps in the knowledge base about elder abuse have consistently been
reported. The World Health Organization (2022)7 has recently identied data as
one of ve priority areas in tackling the abuse of older people. The importance
of research into elder abuse has also been recognised in Australia, with funding
for a National Research Agenda commencing in 2016.8 The National Elder Abuse
Prevalence Study undertaken by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (2021)9
has provided some insight into prevalence, victim and perpetrator characteristics,
and help-seeking; however, it was identied that further research is required. Non-
experimental research such as that undertaken by the EAPU can help increase
awareness and understanding about elder abuse and its consequences. Through
annual feedback surveys, stakeholders report that they use data collected by the
EAPU to:
• improve their understanding of elder abuse;
• compare against their own service data;
• provide information as part of training, community education, stakeholder
meetings, and other engagement activities;
• guide and evaluate awareness-raising activities;
• guide program planning and implementation;
• guide academic research, because EAPU data can highlight emerging
issues; and
• inform policy.
7 World Health Organization (2022).
8 Council of Attorneys-General (2019).
9 Qu et al. (2021).
About the
Data
Section 1.2
This section describes
• reasons for data collection and
dissemination
• how data are collected
• data handling
• key terms
• strengths and limitations
Reasons for Data Collection and
Dissemination
13 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Data Handling
The EAPU collects anonymous data about all call types;
however, only cases involving a victim who is aged 50 years
or older are analysed. Dierences have been found between
abuse that occurs when there is an expectation of trust and
abuse that occurs within other types of relationships.10 Hence,
this report analyses these cases separately. Section 3 presents
cases of abuse in close or intimate relationships, in which there
is an expectation of trust. Section 4 presents cases of abuse
that occur within general social and community relationships.
Before data were analysed, basic data cleaning was
undertaken:
• One case was removed from the Abuse in Consumer and
Social Relationships dataset because the abuse related
to an employer/employee relationship rather than a
consumer relationship.
• Where multiple responses were recorded for a single
variable (e.g. several types of abuse selected
simultaneously), data was dummy-coded into binary
variables
(Yes or No)
.
Data were cleaned and analysed using Stata® (StataCorp
LLC) statistical software.
Data Collection
Helpline calls focus on providing support rather than data
collection. Consequently, callers are not asked questions to
elicit information about the victim or perpetrator solely to
improve data collection. Nevertheless, during a Helpline call,
callers often disclose a wealth of information about victims,
perpetrators, and the relationship between them.
Helpline sta enter this non-identiable information into
PEARL (Prevention of Elder Abuse Record List), the EAPU’s
custom-built research database. The information forms the
basis of the
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland: Year in
Review
report (herein after referred to as the Elder Abuse
Statistics report). The 2022 report contains a range of
descriptive statistics and analyses of Helpline data collected
during the 2021–22 nancial year.
10 EAPU (2018).
14
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
15 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Key Terms
Victim
Cases
Perpetrator
Abuse Notication/
Abuse Call
Abuse in Close
or Intimate
Relationships
Abuse in Consumer
and Social
Relationships
The victim is the person who has experienced abuse.11
The perpetrator is the person who has acted or failed to act, and this has caused
harm or distress to an older person.12
These terms refer to initial contact made with the EAPU about an abuse situation.
Notications sometimes include multiple victims, perpetrators, or both. Thus, the
number of notications may be lower than the number of victims or perpetrators.
This descriptor refers to abuse in which the perpetrator is a family member, ex-
family member, informal carer, or close friend who is viewed as “acting as family”.
This descriptor refers to situations in which the perpetrator is not a family
member. These forms of abuse include scams, consumer issues, neighbourhood
disputes, and issues related to aged care.
The PEARL database can collect information about complex abuse relationships.
Each abuse relationship within a notication/call is recorded as a separate case;
hence, one call may involve several cases of abuse. The following scenarios
demonstrate how one call can encompass multiple abuse relationships.
The abuse and vulnerability factors may vary across cases, even for the same
victim or perpetrator. For example, in Scenario 3, the son may be nancially
abusing his father but may be perpetrating both physical and nancial abuse
against his mother.
11 Although negative connotations may be associated with the label
victim
, another commonly used term,
survivor
, is not always appropriate because some
victims do not survive the abuse. For simplicity, victim is used throughout the report.
12 Note that the term
perpetrator
refers to an “alleged perpetrator” because the EAPU does not investigate or verify details provided in calls.
Scenario 1. Mother abused by son (data
collected on one abuse relationship).
Scenario 2. Mother abused by son and
daughter-in-law (two abuse relationships).
Scenario 3. Mother and father abused by both
the son and daughter-in-law (data collected on
four abuse relationships).
16
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Strengths and Limitations of
EAPU Data
13 Note. Monthly database meetings and the provision of denitions for data points are used to increase inter-rater reliability. However,
some subjectivity is still possible.
Limitations
Several limitations are associated with the data collected by the EAPU:
• Accuracy: Data are collected through voluntary disclosure by notiers and may
be subjective, incomplete, or inaccurate. Calls are not scripted; therefore, Helpline
operators may not collect data for every variable. Thus, the current dataset likely
under-represents the prevalence of factors and may lack the consistency provided by
structured interviews or surveys.
• Sampling: Information collected depends on what notiers report and may not
reect prevalence, patterns, and characteristics of elder abuse in the community.
• Other issues relate to operationalisation of the variables and the consistency of
ratings among Helpline operators.13 The report includes caveats where particular
concerns exist with data.
Strengths
Several strengths are associated with the data collected by the EAPU:
• Large dataset: A large sample size increases the power of statistical tests, that
is, the ability of the statistical test to detect between-group dierences when these
dierences exist.
• Sampling: The sample contains a broad range of callers, which enables data
collection about victims who may be unable or unwilling to self-report. The
opportunity to remain anonymous may also increase the likelihood of people
contacting the Helpline.
• Breadth: The database contains many elds, enabling capture of complex
information about the nuances of elder abuse.
Section 2
Total Call Data
This section describes
• notications
• how notiers discovered the EAPU
• what prompted the call
• referrals
17 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
18
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Abuse notications received by the Helpline increased by 15.6 per cent (
n
= 316) in 2021–22, with 2,338
notications recorded compared to 2,022 in the 2020–21 nancial year. The total calls to the Helpline also
increased, with 3,841 calls recorded during 2021–22. This represented an increase of 12.0 per cent (
n
= 411).
The 2,338 abuse notications comprised 1,875 (80.2%) relating to abuse in close or intimate relationships
and 463 (19.8%) involving abuse in consumer and social relationships (Figure 2). One hundred and seventeen
notications (5%) related to abuse involving aged care services and workers. The number of notications
received in 2021–22 was the highest yearly total ever recorded (Figure 3).
There were 2,301 cases of abuse in close or intimate relationships and 470 cases of abuse in consumer
and social relationships. The number of cases is higher than the number of calls as more than one abuse
relationship may be identied within a single call.
Notications
1,875
Notications
Abuse in Close & Intimate
Relationships
463
Notications
Abuse in Consumer &
Social Relationships
2,301
Abuse Cases
470
Abuse Cases
2,338
Total Abuse
Notications
Figure 2.
Notications received in the 2021–22 nancial year.
Figure 3.
Total abuse notications by nancial year.
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
2017–18
2018–19
2019–20
2020–21
2021–22
Financial Year
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Number of Abuse Notications
244 328 402
516 508 596 596
714 719 752
906 1001 990
1183
1282
1529
1652
1946
1780
1534
2022
2338
19 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
The internet was the most frequently recorded referral source, with 778 callers contacting the EAPU after
nding information on the internet (Table 1). The most common internet sources were Google, the EAPU
website, and Queensland Government websites. Referral source was not recorded for 1,616 (42.1%) calls.
Although the National Helpline (1800 ELDERHelp) was only recorded as the referral source for 64 calls,
data supplied by the Attorney-General's Department (Australian Government) shows that 878 calls were
redirected from the 1800 ELDERHelp number to the EAPU Helpline during the 2021–22 nancial year.
The EAPU phone system does not identify when a call has been redirected so sta can only record the
National Helpline as a referral source if the caller provides this information during the call.
How Callers Discovered the EAPU
Table 1.
Referral Source —
Recorded by EAPU
(All Call Types)
Referral Source Number
Internet 778
Queensland Government awareness campaign 543
Professional knowledge 456
Community agency 161
Emergency services 148
Friend 129
Health practitioner 97
Family 77
Government agency 75
Aged care sta 67
National Helpline – 1800 ELDERHelp 64
Promotional material 55
Media 53
Legal practitioner 51
National awareness campaigns 25
Domestic and family violence service 22
Bank worker 3
20
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
The PEARL database allows users to record what prompted the caller to phone the EAPU.14 This
information was recorded for about half of the calls (
n
= 1,975, 51.4%).
The most frequently recorded call prompt was that abuse was escalating (Figure 4).
The most common referrals made by Helpline sta in 2021–22 were to legal services (Figure 5). This
nding is consistent with that in previous years, although the proportion of callers that was referred to
legal services is substantially higher in 2021–22 (28.8%) than in 2020–21 (19.7%). The reasons for this
increase are unclear.
Two-thirds of calls (
n
= 748, 67.5%) where notiers were referred to legal services included referrals to
the Seniors Legal and Support Services (SLASS), which provides both legal and social-work support. Many
victims of elder abuse are reluctant to instigate legal action against perpetrators, but some are more
willing to engage when the legal and social-worker model employed by SLASS is described.
What Prompted the Call?
Referrals
Figure 4.
What prompted
callers to contact
EAPU (where known).
Figure 5.
Types of services
notiers were referred
to.
14 Note. More than one option may be selected. For example, a victim may call because they believe the
abuse is escalating and they have reached breaking point.
Call PromptService Type
Domestic Violence (
n
= 55)
Found Out About Abuse (
n
= 394)
Abuse Escalating (
n
= 651)
Found Out About EAPU (
n
= 576)
Reached Breaking Point (
n
= 520)
Accommodation (
n
= 109)
Financial (
n
= 156)
Mediation (
n
= 159)
Complaints (
n
= 162)
Interstate/ International (
n
= 167)
Advocacy (
n
= 184)
Counselling (
n
= 272)
Aged Care (
n
= 309)
Case Management (
n
= 320)
Other Support Services (
n
= 326)
Police (
n
= 509)
Guadianship & Administration (
n
= 564)
Health (
n
= 604)
Legal (
n
= 1,108)
1.4%
2.8%
4.1%
4.1%
4.2%
4.3%
4.8%
0% 5% 10% 25%15% 30%20% 35%
Proportion of Cases
19.9%
26.3%
33.0%
29.2%
7.1%
8.0%
8.3%
8.5%
13.3%
14.7%
15.7%
28.8%
0% 5% 10% 25%15% 30%20%
Proportion of Cases
Abuse in Close
or Intimate
Relationships
The Ecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model15 positions the individual within four levels of
environmental systems that interact to inuence individual human development
and life experience. The systems are conceptualised as dynamically inuencing
each other, often in bidirectional ways. Schiamberg and Gans16 used a bifocal
approach to extend the ecological model through simultaneously focusing on
both victim and perpetrator. The Elder Abuse Statistics report uses this bifocal
ecological framework to situate the risk factors for elder abuse within four
interconnected systems.
Section 3
21 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
15 Bronfenbrenner (1979).
16 Schiamberg & Gans (1999).
22
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
○ Individual: relates to the immediate settings in which the individual (victim or perpetrator) lives and
includes any individual factors that create vulnerabilities.
○ Relationship: relates to the relationship between the victim and perpetrator and includes shared risk
factors; for example, whether the victim and perpetrator live together, or any relevant intergenerational
experiences such as a family history of domestic violence or child abuse.
○ Community: refers to the relationships or connections of the victim or perpetrator with other people
in the community, and any other family or support systems (both formal and informal). It also includes
other community factors such as living in a small community and the potential for dual relationships and
subcultures.
○ Society: relates to the cultural context in which individuals live, including aspects such as cultural norms
and ideologies, public policy, access to healthcare, economic inequality, and legislation.
These systems interact and changes at one level can inuence other levels. For example, changes to housing
policy (societal) may lead to an increase in housing prices, resulting in home ownership being out of reach for
the son of an older person. The son decides that the only option is for his 80-year-old mother to sell her house,
move in with him, and pay for a share of his house. His mother’s health subsequently deteriorates (individual)
and she requires support; however, the son is reluctant to “waste” what he regards as his inheritance on formal
support. The son provides minimal care; eventually his mother is unable to leave the house and becomes
socially isolated (individual), thereby becoming more dependent on her son (relationship). The interaction
between these individual, relationship, and societal factors increases the risk of elder abuse.
Figure 6 graphically represents the framework used in the report.
Figure 6.
A bifocal ecological framework identifying potential risks and protective factors for elder abuse.
SocietyIndividual Relationship Community
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Income
Health
Capacity
Isolation
Support needs
Trauma
Relationship between victim
& perpetrator
Family context
Living arrangements
Caring role
Dependence
Family & community
Geography
Individual (Victim & Perpetrator) Relationship Community Society
Culture & social norms
Legislation and policies
Economic situation
Individual
Factors for
Victims
Section 3.1
Individual factors or life circumstances may increase
an older person’s vulnerability and also inuence their
risk of experiencing abuse. Although these individual
factors are not causal factors, they may be associated
with an increased risk of experiencing victimisation. For
example, elder abuse victims are more often females;
however, being female per se does not increase the risk.
Rather, a complex combination of factors such as gender
roles and women’s longer life span may contribute to an
increased risk of victimisation.
The factors discussed are
• age
• gender
• ethnicity
• relationship status
• accommodation
• nancial situation
• health
• cognitive impairment
• capacity
• care needs
• communication issues
• decision-making arrangements
• trauma history
• social isolation
• other individual characteristics
Age
Victim age group was recorded in 77.7 per cent (
n
= 1,787) of cases but not
for 22.3 per cent (
n
= 514). Similar to 2020–21, the most common age group
was 80–84 years (
n
= 379). This group accounted for one-fth of the total
victims of known age (Figure 7).
Gender
Similar to numbers in previous years,
in 2021–22 there were more than
twice as many female victims as
male victims (Figure 8). The over-
representation of female victims
in EAPU data is consistent with
ndings from other Australian
studies.17,18,19
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Proportion
50–54 yrs
55–59 yrs
60–64 yrs
65–69 yrs
70–74 yrs
75–79 yrs
80–84 yrs
85–89 yrs
90–94 yrs
95–99 yrs
Over 100 yrs
Age of Victims
0.3%
2.5%
11.6%
15.3%
21.2%
16.3%
13.9%
10.5%
5.5%
1.9%
1.0%
Figure 7.
Age of victims (
n
= 1,787).
Figure 8.
Gender of victims (
n
= 2,301).
Male
Other
Female
30.9%
0%
69.1%
(
n
= 710)
(
n
= 1)
(
n
= 1,590)
23 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
17 Queensland Government Statistician’s Oce (2016).
18 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
19 Qu et al. (2021).
The Relationship of Age and Gender
Female victims outnumbered male victims in all age groups (Figure 9). Over-representation of females as
victims of elder abuse is often attributed to female longevity.20,21,22
Figure 10 compares proportions of female and male victims in each age group. The lines represent the
proportions of females and males of each age group residing in Queensland (population data).23 Females
are over-represented as victims in almost all age groups when compared against population data. The only
exception is the 95–99 years age group, in which the proportion of male victims (29.5%) is slightly higher than
the proportion of males in the population (29.0%).
Because the proportion of females is higher than expected in the younger age groups, female longevity
does not fully explain the over-representation of females as victims in Helpline data.24 However, the over-
representation of female victims is consistent with population-based studies of elder abuse.25,26,27
0
0%
50
20%
100
50–54
yrs
50–54
yrs
55–59
yrs
55–59
yrs
60–64
yrs
60–64
yrs
65–69
yrs
65–69
yrs
70–74
yrs
70–74
yrs
75–79
yrs
75–79
yrs
80–84
yrs
80–84
yrs
85–89
yrs
85–89
yrs
90–94
yrs
90–94
yrs
95–99
yrs
95–99
yrs
Over
100 yrs
Over
100 yrs
150
40%
200
60%
250
80%
300
100%
Number of VictimsProportion of Male and Female Victims
Figure 10.
Proportion of
female (
n
= 1,256)
and male (
n
= 530)
victims by age
group compared
with proportions in
the population.
Figure 9.
Victims’ age and
gender (
n
= 1,786).
Age of Victims
Age of Victims
○ Female
○ Male
○ Female Victims
○ Male Victims
Female
Population
Male Population
14 27
81
136
170
195
262
182
153
31
51
78
96
117
91
55
13 51
718
3
20 Victorian Council of Social Service (2017).
21 National Research Council (2003).
22 Weeks et al. (2018).
23 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022a).
24 Note. This nding does not allow conclusions to be drawn
about whether females are more likely to experience elder
abuse than males. Other factors may contribute to the
higher proportions of female victims; for example, a higher
likelihood of females to self-report abuse or perceptions of
females as more vulnerable could inuence the likelihood of
others reporting abuse against them to the Helpline.
25 Dong et al. (2011).
26 Santos et al. (2017).
27 Qu et al. (2021).
82.4% 79.4% 81.8%
72.7%
68.5% 67.0% 69.1% 66.7%
73.6% 70.5%
83.3%
17.6% 20.6% 18.2%
27.3%
31.5% 33.0% 30.9% 33.3%
26.4% 29.5%
16.7%
24
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
25 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Ethnicity
Research suggests that race, ethnicity, and culture intersect
with elder abuse in multiple and complex ways.28,29,30,31 In
particular, vulnerabilities and stressors associated with being
a member of a minority or marginalised ethnic group may
increase the risk of elder abuse.
Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander
Peoples
In the 2021–22 reporting period, 107 victims (4.7%) identied
as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (89 Aboriginal, 7
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, 11 Torres Strait Islander).
This number is almost double what would be expected from
population statistics (i.e. 2.4% of Queenslanders aged over 50
years identied as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander).32 It
is unclear whether the over-representation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Helpline data is due to a
higher prevalence of elder abuse or higher rates of reporting.
However, the over-representation of this population has also
been identied in Helpline data from both New South Wales
and Victoria.33
Reliable information on the prevalence and risk of elder
abuse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is
not available; however, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples experience higher rates of family violence, assault,
sexual assault, and murder than their non-Indigenous
counterparts.34,35,36 Given their over-representation as victims
in personal violence statistics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples likely have an increased risk of elder abuse.
However, being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
descent is not a risk per se; rather, a complex interplay of
individual, relational, community, and societal factors is
at work. The societal level is particularly important in this
context because societal factors such as legislation and
policies have resulted in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples experiencing dispossession, their children being
taken away from them, slavery, and racism. Mistreatment of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has resulted
in intergenerational trauma, which may aect victims and
perpetrators at the individual level and then aect their
relationships.
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD)
Communities
The EAPU uses the Australian Bureau of Statistics denition of
culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. In this
denition, a person born in a country in which English is not
the predominant language comes from a CALD background.
During the 2021–22 reporting period, 100 victims (4.4%) were
recorded as having a CALD background, which is lower than
expected from population data (i.e. 13.9% of Queenslanders
aged over 50 years have a CALD background).37 Australian
research around elder abuse in CALD communities has
found that prevalence is similar to, or higher than, population
estimates.38,39
Under-reporting of elder abuse within CALD communities
may be due to factors such as lack of awareness, shame, guilt,
cultural norms around privacy and “family business”, and
language barriers. The Helpline receives notications from
third parties who state that the victim will not disclose or talk
to anyone about the abuse, even through a translator, because
they believe it will bring shame on their family and community.
Victims may also experience pressure from other community
members who try to prevent them from disclosing the abuse.
Relationship Status
The relationship status of the victim was recorded in 1,301
(56.5%) cases, with half recorded as being involved in a
partner relationship (
n
= 636, 48.9%).
Widows and widowers were over-represented as victims
(
n
= 442, 34%): the proportion was three times that expected
from the proportion of people aged 50 years and older in
Queensland who are widowed (11.2%).40 Further, the total
proportion of victims who were not in partner relationships
was 51.1 per cent, which is also much higher than the
39.8 per cent found in the Census data. Consistent with other
research, the over-representation of victims who are widowed
or not in a partner relationship suggests that this status is a
risk factor for elder abuse.41,42
28 Horsford et al. (2011).
29 Schiamberg & Gans (1999).
30 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
31 World Health Organization (2015).
32 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022b).
33 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019).
34 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014).
35 Parliament of Australia (2014).
36 Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s
Safety (2016).
37 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022c).
38 Oce of the Public Advocate, Western Australia (2006).
39 Qu et al. (2021).
40 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017a).
41 Byles et al. (2010).
42 Burnes et al. (2015).
26
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Accommodation
Of the cases for which a residence type was known (
n
= 1,961), most victims lived in a house or unit
(
n
= 1,649, 84.1%). A further 189 victims of abuse in close or intimate relationships (9.6%) were residing
in residential aged care. Of particular concern is that 8.2 per cent of all victims (
n
= 188) were recorded as
becoming homeless because of the abuse. This is higher than the 6.4 per cent recorded in 2020–21.
Financial Situation
Home Ownership
Before experiencing elder abuse, 1,049 (76.9%) victims were reported to own or co-own a home (where
known).43 In 52 cases, victims owned at least one property where they were not residing; sometimes they
owned multiple properties. In other cases, however, they had moved in with adult children or entered aged
care but still owned their previous dwelling.
The PEARL database allows Helpline workers to record cases in which home ownership has changed
because of elder abuse. In 146 recorded cases, victims no longer owned a home because of abuse.
Income
Income source for victims was known in 1,040 cases (45.2%). Centrelink was most frequently reported
(
n
= 874, 84.0%), followed by self-funded retirement income streams (
n
= 168, 16.2%).
In the general population of Australians, 67 per cent of people aged 65 years and over receive the Age
Pension.44 In the Helpline data, 84.6 per cent (
n
= 808) of victims in this age group were recorded as
receiving a pension. The disproportionate number of victims receiving Centrelink pensions suggests that
low income may be a risk factor for elder abuse, which is consistent with the ndings of other research.45,46
Health
Health issues were identied for 838 (39.9%) victims. Chronic illnesses (e.g. diabetes or heart conditions)
were most common (Table 2).
43 Note. Ownership or co-ownership does not mean that the victim or perpetrator completely owns the property because there
may be a mortgage or debts against the property.
44 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021).
45 Burnes et al. (2015).
46 Naughton et al. (2012).
Table 2.
Health Issues
Experienced by
Victims
Health Issue Number Percent
Illness – chronic 396 17.2%
Frailty 299 13.0%
Physical disability 154 6.7%
Illness – terminal 97 4.2%
Illness – acute 85 3.7%
Neurological 77 3.3%
Chronic pain 64 2.8%
27 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Cognitive Impairment
Cognitive impairment of victims was recorded in 481 (20.9%) cases. Dementia was the most frequently
reported form of cognitive impairment, aecting 328 (14.3%) victims.
In 2018, it was estimated that 5.2 per cent of Australians aged 65 years and over had dementia.47 In
contrast, Helpline data showed that almost three times this proportion (15.0%,
n
= 323 victims of similar
age, where age was known) had dementia. Possibly, the numbers reported to the Helpline are inuenced
by self-report, but this is unlikely to account for the disparity. Further, the Helpline data probably under-
represent the actual frequencies because notiers may not possess this information. More likely, living with
dementia increases vulnerability and, therefore, the risk of abuse, particularly as previous research has
found cognitive impairment is associated with an increased risk of elder abuse.48,49,50
Capacity
Impaired capacity was recorded for 729 victims (33.3%, where known). A further 143 (6.5%) were
suspected to have impairment.51 Capacity status was unknown for 113 victims. Research consistently nds
that impaired capacity is a risk factor for elder abuse.52,53
Care Needs
The PEARL database allows Helpline workers to record whether victims require support across eight
types of care needs: domestic, transport, meals, personal care, mobility, behaviour, supervision, and
communication.
Victims were reported to require support in 1,404 cases (61.0%), with domestic, meals, and transport
needs the most frequently reported areas in which support was required (Table 3). Of these, most needed
help with more than one type of care need, and almost two-thirds (61.6%,
n
= 549, where known) required
support with three or more types (Figure 11). In 512 cases, information about the care needs for which
support was required was not recorded.
Table 3.
Care Needs for Which
Victims Required
Support
Care Needs Number Percent
Domestic 667 29.0%
Meals 498 21.6%
Transport 485 21.1%
Personal care 419 18.2%
Supervision 381 16.6%
Mobility 341 14.8%
Communication 157 6.8%
Behaviour 26 1.1%
47 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020).
48 Von Heydrich et al. (2012).
49 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
50 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
51 Note. There can be dierences in assessment and
interpretation of capacity due to dierent frameworks
being used (e.g. medical versus legal). Data recorded in
PEARL is largely self-reported, which likely inuences what
is recorded and thus ndings should be interpreted with
caution.
52 World Health Organization (2015).
53 Jackson & Hafemeister (2013).
28
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Of the 1,404 victims identied with care needs, only one in ve (
n
= 284, 20.2%) was recorded as receiving
formal care. In 189 cases, the formal support was provided by residential aged care providers and a further
95 victims were receiving community aged care services. A lack of formal care may increase the risk of
becoming a victim of elder abuse.54,55
Many reasons can contribute to a lack of formal care:
• The older person refuses the services.
• People lack understanding of available services or there is a lack of services.
• The older person requires support to access services.
• Long waitlists exist.
• The perpetrator refuses to allow formal services to support the victim.
• Providers are unwilling to provide services due to victim or perpetrator behaviour.
Communication Issues
Communication issues were identied in 157 (6.8%) cases. However, more detailed information was
recorded for only 139 cases. The most common issues related to hearing (
n
= 55, 2.4%), vision (
n
= 42,
1.8%), and language (
n
= 29, 1.3%).
Communication diculties can aect a person’s ability to make and act on life decisions, access services,
self-advocate, and disclose or report abuse.56 Research has identied communication diculties as risk
factors for elder abuse57 and other forms of domestic and family violence.58
54 Johannesen & LoGiudice (2013).
55 National Research Council (2003).
56 Speech Pathology Australia (2016).
57 Roberto & Teaster (2017).
58 Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (2018).
Figure 11.
Number of types of
care needs for victims
(
n
= 892).
0
1
224
2
119
3 4
215
5 6
76
7
22
8
50
100
150
200
250
Number of Victims
Number of Needs
90
138
8
29 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Decision-Making Arrangements
Formal decision-making arrangements can both protect and empower an individual; however, there is also
a risk of misuse.59,60 Formal decision-making arrangements were recorded for 614 (26.7%) cases.61 In
524 (85.3%) of these cases, victims were recorded as having impaired capacity and a further 24 victims
(3.9%) were suspected to have impaired capacity. In some cases, victims may have capacity but enact
an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPoA) for nancial matters. This was recorded for 54 cases (8.8%). The
victim’s capacity status was unknown in 12 cases (2.0%).
In more than two-thirds (70.5%) of cases in which a decision maker was appointed, only one person was
appointed (where known).
In 476 cases, further information was available about the types of decisions made, with 100 cases (21.0%)
involving only nancial decisions and 376 cases (79.0%) involving both nancial and personal and health
decisions.
In 78.1 per cent of cases (
n
= 385) in which a formal decision-making arrangement was in place and
perpetrator status was known, one or more decision makers were recorded as perpetrators. The proportion
of cases in which at least one decision maker was reported as a perpetrator was consistent across cases
with one decision maker or multiple appointees (Figure 12).
Under Section 66 of the
Powers of Attorney Act 1998
(Qld), an attorney (decision maker) is required to
protect the principal’s interests and may be liable for losses if they fail to do so. In 131 (21.3%) cases, it was
recorded that decision makers had acted to protect victims. The most common actions were contacting
the EAPU, the victim’s bank, and the victim’s doctor.
Information about why decision makers failed to act was recorded for 142 cases (23.1%). The most
common reasons given were that decision makers were not aware that the behaviour constituted abuse,
were unaware that they had a duty to protect the victim’s interests, and they believed victims had capacity
to manage the matter (Figure 13).
Further analysis of cases in which all decision makers were identied as perpetrators found that more than
two-thirds of decision makers (70.2%,
n
= 59) were not aware that the behaviour would constitute abuse,
and almost one-third (29.8%,
n
= 25) were unaware of their duty to protect victims’ interests.
59 DeLiema & Conrad (2017).
60 Tilse et al. (2011).
61 Note. This is only recorded if an EPoA has been enacted or if decision maker/s were appointed by the Queensland Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).
One Person Multiple Appointees
Number of Decision Makers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion
Figure 12.
Decision makers and
abuse perpetration
(one person,
n
= 329;
multiple appointees,
n
= 133).
Perpetrator, 76.0%
Perpetrator/s + Non-
Perpetrator/s, 46.6%
Perpetrator/s, 31.6%
Non-Perpetrator, 24.0% Non-Perpetrator/s, 21.8%
30
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Decision makers regularly call the Helpline to report abuse being perpetrated by another decision maker.
In some cases, it is identied that the caller’s actions also constitute abuse. Some examples include:
• The caller/attorney has used the principal’s funds to purchase a car for themselves. The justication is
that having a car makes it easier for them to visit the principal.
• The caller/attorney has put pressure on the principal to revoke the existing EPoA and draft a new one in
which they are listed as the only attorney.
In both of these examples, the callers had good intentions (increase visitation; protect principal from
abusive attorney). The callers did not realise that their actions were inappropriate and could constitute
abuse.
Providing education to decision makers about their roles and responsibilities may help to reduce the
likelihood of unintentional abuse.
Trauma History
A history of victim trauma was identied in 5.2 per cent of cases (
n
= 119). Previous domestic violence
victimisation was most frequently reported (
n
= 100, 4.3%).
Social Isolation
In 2021–22, 8.4 per cent (
n
= 194) of victims were recorded as being socially isolated before the elder
abuse occurred. Older adults are at greater risk of becoming socially isolated due to a range of physical,
social, and structural factors. Often partners and friends of older people have died, which can increase the
likelihood of experiencing social isolation. This not only increases vulnerability and risk of elder abuse but
may also aect whether the abuse is reported.62,63,64,65 In some situations, perpetrators are a victim’s only
social connection; despite abuse, a victim may be reluctant to do anything to jeopardise the relationship.
62 DeLiema & Conrad (2017).
63 Chen & Dong (2017).
64 Podnieks & Thomas (2017).
65 Qu et al. (2021).
Figure 13.
Why decision makers
failed to act to protect
victims (
n
= 142).
Reason Failed to Take Action
Other (
n
= 6)
Fear Consequences for Victim (
n
= 7)
Fear Consequences for Self (
n
= 9)
Victim Does Not Want Protection (
n
= 12)
Believe Victim has Capacity for Matter (
n
= 15)
Unaware of Abuse (
n
= 21)
Unsure if They Should Take Action (
n
= 24)
Unaware of Duty (
n
= 45)
Not Aware Behaviour is Abusive (
n
= 78)
4.2%
4.9%
6.3%
8.5%
10.6%
14.8%
16.9%
31.7%
54.9%
0% 10% 20% 50%30% 60%40%
Proportion
Other Individual Characteristics
The PEARL database can capture information about other individual characteristics that may increase
vulnerability. The characteristics most frequently recorded were low self-esteem, an unsupported belief in
others, and loneliness (Figure 14).
Figure 14.
Other individual
victim characteristics
that may increase
vulnerability.
Victim Characteristics
History of Violence Perpetration (
n
= 16)
Lack of Independent Living Skills (
n
= 41)
History of Conictual Relationships (
n
= 46)
Dementia-Related Behavioural Issues (
n
= 56)
Grief/Loss (
n
= 69)
Extreme Independence (
n
= 75)
Loneliness (
n
= 100)
Unsupported Belief in Others (
n
= 156)
Low Self-Esteem (
n
= 165)
4.3%
6.8%
7.2%
3.3%
3.0%
2.4%
2.0%
1.8%
0.7%
0% 1% 2% 5%3% 6% 7%4%
Proportion
31 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Figure 15.
Age of perpetrators (
n
= 1,172).
Figure 16.
Gender of perpetrators
(
n
= 2,298).
This section covers key demographics of alleged perpetrators, as well as
several individual factors that are directly or indirectly associated with
an increased risk of perpetrating elder abuse. Note these factors are not
necessarily causal.
Age
The age of perpetrators was unknown in 1,129 cases, but the most common
age group recorded was 50–54 years (Figure 15).
Gender
Males (
n
= 1,173) and females
(
n
= 1,125) were almost equally
represented as perpetrators (Figure
16). Perpetrator gender was not
recorded for three cases.
Individual Factors for Alleged
Perpetrators
Section 3.2
The following factors are
discussed:
• age
• gender
• relationship status
• nancial situation
• psychological health
• criminal history
• other individual characteristics
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Proportion of Perpetrators
Age Group
0
–
19 yrs (
n
= 33)
50
–
54 yrs (
n
= 176)
55
–
59 yrs (
n
= 132)
60
–
64 yrs (
n
= 130)
65
–
69 yrs (
n
= 70)
70
–
74 yrs (
n
= 69)
75
–
79 yrs (
n
= 37)
80
–
84 yrs (
n
= 46)
85
–
89 yrs (
n
= 12)
90
–
94 yrs (
n
= 6)
95
–
99 yrs (
n
= 3)
20
–
24 yrs (
n
= 33)
25
–
29 yrs (
n
= 34)
35
–
39 yrs (
n
= 77)
30
–
34 yrs (
n
= 57)
40
–
44 yrs (
n
= 130)
45–49 yrs (
n
= 127)
2.8% 2.8%
2.9%
4.9%
6.6%
11.1%
10.8%
15.0%
11.3%
11.1%
6.0%5.9%
3.2%3.9%
1.0%0.5% 0.3%
Female
Male
49%
51%
(
n
= 1,125)
(
n
= 1,173)
32
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
33 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Relationship Status
The relationship status of the perpetrator was recorded in
973 (42.3%) cases. Of these cases, almost three-quarters
(71.1%) of perpetrators were in a couple relationship.
Financial Situation
Home Ownership
The home ownership status of perpetrators was recorded in
786 (34.2%) cases. In 48.5 per cent (
n
= 381) of these cases,
perpetrators owned or co-owned a house or unit.66 In 14 cases,
perpetrators owned more than one property.
The proportion of perpetrators who owned a home was
signicantly lower than the 63.5 per cent of Queenslanders
who either own or are paying o their home.67,68 This gure is
also signicantly lower than the 76.9 per cent of victims who
were homeowners.69
Income
Perpetrator income source was recorded in 891 (38.7%) cases.
Of these cases, half (
n
= 458, 51.4%) were receiving some form
of payment from Centrelink and one-third were undertaking
paid work (
n
= 309, 34.7%). Of the cases for which perpetrators
were recorded as receiving a payment from Centrelink, 200
were receiving a Carer Payment, Carer Allowance, or both.
Psychological Health
Mental Illness
In 172 (7.5%) cases, perpetrators were reported to have, or
were suspected by notiers to have, some form of mental
illness. Literature on elder abuse regularly reports mental
illness in perpetrators as a risk factor for elder abuse.70,71,72,73
The frequency of mental illness reported in the Helpline data
is much lower than national estimates that 20 per cent of
the population will experience symptoms of a mental health
disorder within any 12-month period.74 However, Helpline data
must be interpreted cautiously as mental illness is probably
under-reported because notiers often lack this information.
Substance Misuse
Perpetrators’ substance misuse was recorded in 327 (14.2%)
cases. This represents a higher proportion of perpetrators than
the 11.3 per cent recorded in 2020–21. Research consistently
recognises substance misuse by perpetrators as a risk factor
for elder abuse.75,76,77,78
Criminal History
A criminal history was recorded for perpetrators in 233 cases
(10.1%). In 55 cases, perpetrators were recorded as having
been jailed for oences.
In 89 cases, perpetrators were listed as respondents on
domestic violence orders (DVOs).79 In 51 cases, the DVO
related to abuse of an older person reported to the Helpline
as a victim of abuse, 26 related to the perpetrator’s spouse or
partner (including ex-spouses and ex-partners), and 23 related
to another family member.80 In 11 cases, the perpetrator was
listed as respondent on more than one DVO.
Other Individual
Characteristics
Additional individual characteristics were recorded in
1,015 (44.1%) cases. The most common characteristics
involved histories of controlling behaviour, conictual
relationships, and aggression (Table 4).
66 Note. Ownership or co-ownership does not mean that the perpetrator
owns the property outright – there may be a mortgage or debts against
the property.
67 Queensland Government Statistician’s Oce (2022).
68
z
= –8.73,
p
= .000.
69
z
= –13.44,
p
= .000.
70 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
71 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
72 Peri et al. (2008).
73 Qu et al. (2021).
74 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007).
75 Jackson & Hafemeister (2013).
76 Joosten et al. (2015).
77 Peri et al. (2008).
78 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
79 Note. “DVO respondent” is recorded irrespective of whether perpetrators
have been convicted of breaching the order.
80 Note. Spouse/partner is only recorded in cases in which the aggrieved is
not recorded as a victim of elder abuse.
Table 4.
Other Individual
Factors for
Perpetrators
Other Perpetrator Characteristics Number Percent
History of controlling behaviour 690 30.0%
History of conictual relationships 465 20.2%
History of aggression 336 14.6%
Emotional dysregulation 250 10.9%
Impulsivity 174 7.6%
External locus of control 78 3.4%
This section of the report examines relationships between victims and
perpetrators, as well as any shared history or current factors that may inuence
their interactions.
Relationship
Family relationships accounted for 95.0 per cent (
n
= 2,187) of cases of
abuse in close or intimate relationships. Sons and daughters were reported
as perpetrators in almost three-quarters of cases (
n
= 1,635, 71.1%).81 Sons
and daughters were almost equally represented as perpetrators (Figure 17).
Further analysis revealed that 83 (3.6%) cases involved daughters-in-law,
whereas sons-in-law accounted for 76 (3.3%) of cases.
Long-term conict between victims and perpetrators was identied in 251
(10.9%) cases.
Relationships Between Alleged
Perpetrator and Victim
Section 3.3
The following factors are
discussed:
• relationship
• family context
• living arrangements
• the caring role
• dependence
• nancial relationship
• precipitating factors
Son
Spouse/Partner
Sibling
Daughter
Friend
Grandchild
Informal
Carer
Other
Family
36.3%
12.3%
2.1%
34.8%
2.5%
7.0%
2.4%
2.6%
(
n
= 835)
(
n
= 283)
(
n
= 49)
(
n
= 800)
(
n
= 58)
(
n
= 160)
(
n
= 56)
(
n
= 60)
Figure 17.
Relationship between
perpetrator and victim
(
n
= 2,301).
81 Note. This data includes non-biological relationships such as sons-in-law, daughters-in-law,
and stepchildren.
34
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
35 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Family Context
Information about shared family context for victims and perpetrators was recorded for 712 cases (30.9%).
The most frequently reported factors were poor family relationships (
n
= 499, 21.7%), sibling rivalry
(
n
= 224, 9.7%), and being part of a blended family (
n
= 93, 4.0%).
Living Arrangements
Living with perpetrators is an established risk factor for elder
abuse.82,83,84 Overall, close to two-thirds of victims (
n
= 1,374,
65.5%) lived with perpetrators (where known). In 396 of these
cases, at least one non-perpetrator was also living with the
victim (Figure 18).
In 60.4 per cent of cases (
n
= 830) in which perpetrators lived
with victims, perpetrators were sons (
n
= 457, 33.3%) or
daughters (
n
= 373, 27.1%).
Perpetrators who were reported to have, or were suspected by
notiers to have, mental illness were signicantly more likely to
live with victims (
n
= 134, 77.9%) than perpetrators who were
not reported or suspected to have mental illness
(
n
= 1,240, 58.2%).85 Older Australians have reported
experiencing extremely high levels of stress when cohabiting
with their children who have mental illness; they also feel as
though there is a lack of external support.86 The perceived lack
of support and high levels of stress may mean that victims
experience an increased sense of isolation and hopelessness
about their situation.
The proportion of cases in which victims and perpetrators
cohabit has increased by 74.2 per cent over the past four years,
while the proportion of victims living alone has decreased by
51.9% (Figure 19).
Perpetrators +
Non-Perpetrators
18.9%
(
n
= 396)
Non-Perpetrators
17.7%
(
n
= 372)
Alone
16.8%
(
n
= 352)
Perpetrators
46.6%
(
n
= 978)
Figure 18.
Who do victims live with (
n
= 2,098)?
Figure 19.
Comparison of victim
cohabitation between
2018–19 and 2021–22.
82 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
83 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
84 World Health Organization (2015).
85
X
2(1) = 25.58,
p
= .000.
86 Qu et al. (2021).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Proportion
○ Live Alone
○ Live with
Perpetrators'
Linear (Live
Alone)
Linear (Live
With
Perpetrators')
2020–212018–19 2021–222019–20
Financial Year
34.9%
37.6%
23.7%
53.4%
18.1%
61.1%
16.8%
65.5%
36
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Increased rates of cohabitation were also found in
the 2019–20
Year in Review
report, with further
analysis nding that cohabitation was signicantly
higher in the April–June 2020 quarter. Economic
fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to
have contributed to this increase and to further
increases observed in 2020–21 and 2021–22.
In 2020, various data sources indicated that after
measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 were
put in place, many Australian workers experienced
reductions to work hours or job loss.87 Economic
impacts were widely felt, with numerous studies
nding that adult children had moved in with their
parents due to the pandemic. 88,89,90 Two years later,
Australia’s employment market has recovered,
with the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate
at the lowest point in almost 50 years.91 Although
unemployment rates have decreased, other
pandemic-related factors have likely contributed to
continued increases in rates of cohabitation.
Queensland has fared reasonably well
throughout the pandemic, with fewer cases of
COVID-19 resulting in shorter lockdowns than
those experienced in some states of Australia.
This, coupled with increased exibility around
working remotely, has resulted in Queensland
becoming an attractive destination for people
from southern states. Between 1 April 2020 and
31 March 2022, Queensland experienced a large
increase in the number of interstate residents
moving to Queensland, with an estimated 84,769
additional people (net interstate migration) calling
Queensland home.92,93
The sudden population growth has created a
situation in which the demand for housing has
outstripped supply, leading to a housing shortage.94
In August 2022, rental vacancy rates were below
0.5 per cent in many Queensland cities. Dalby’s
rate was particularly low at 0.0 per cent. The low
vacancy rates have had a ow-on eect, with
rental prices skyrocketing.95 Weekly rental prices
for houses on the Gold Coast have increased by
43.3 per cent over the past two years (August
2020 to August 2022), with the index price of $951
exceeding the prices for both Canberra ($764) and
Sydney ($835).96 Purchase prices for properties
have also increased, with the median house price
in Brisbane increasing by $215,000 (39.1%) in two
years (December 2019 to December 2021).97
The combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
war in Ukraine, and strong consumer demand have
contributed to higher ination rates in Australia.98,99
The Australian Reserve Bank has responded to
increased ination by raising interest rates. This
has meant that not only are people paying more
for essentials such as food and petrol, but also
borrowers are spending greater proportions of their
income on meeting loan repayments.100
The housing shortage, higher interest rates, and
other cost of living pressures likely contributed to
increasing rates of cohabitation. The winding up of
the National Rental Aordability Scheme (NRAS)
probably further compounded this issue because
many properties are sold or rents increased
substantially when NRAS agreements expire.
Queensland has the highest number of properties
still under the NRAS scheme, so the impacts will
likely continue as more agreements expire.101
Further issues such as multiple extreme weather
events and shortages of labour and building
materials have also exacerbated the problem.
The Queensland Government held a roundtable
with key stakeholders on 16 September 2022 and
staged a Housing Summit on 20 October 2022.
Some key initiatives to come from the roundtable
and summit include
• identifying underutilised land and buildings
for temporary repurposing as crisis
accommodation,102
• emergency planning changes to allow
Queensland home-owners with “granny ats” to
rent them out over the next three years,103 and
• doubling the size of the Queensland Housing
Investment Fund to facilitate building an extra
5,600 aordable and social homes.104,105
Although these actions may help improve the
situation in the longer term, the extent of the
housing crisis and the multitude of contributory
factors means that the drivers of increased
cohabitation described above will probably
continue in the short term.
87 Gilllan (2020).
88 Burke (2020).
89 Razaghi (2020).
90 Hand et al. (2020).
91 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022d).
92 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021c).
93 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022c).
94 Burt (2021).
95 Pollard (2021).
96 SQM Research (n.d.).
97 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022d).
98 Hawkins (2022).
99 Watson (2022).
100 Muddit & Leggatt (2022).
101 Stone (2022).
102 McKenna & Hamilton-Smith (2022).
103 Richards (2022).
104 Riga (2022).
105 Queensland Government (2022).
37 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
The Caring Role
Physical or cognitive disability can result in a loss of independence. For an adult child or other family
member, taking on the role of carer can lead to diculties in managing stress, physical strain, competing
demands, and associated nancial hardship.106,107 Carers can feel overloaded and experience reduced
capacity to cope, which may aect the relationship between the caregiver and care recipient.108,109
Although carer stress is not a primary cause of elder abuse, it can interact with individual victim,
perpetrator, and relationship factors to increase the risk of elder abuse.110,111,112,113
In 2021–22, 23.6 per cent (
n
= 543) of perpetrators were recorded as providing informal care to victims.
The database also collects information about any issues identied in situations in which perpetrators are
providing care to victims. At least one issue was identied in 420 (77.3%) such cases. The most common
issues were that the provision of care was nancially motivated and that perpetrators were struggling to
meet victims’ care needs (Figure 20).
Dependence
Research shows dependence is a risk factor for elder abuse.114,115,116 Helpline operators record information
about dependence between victims and perpetrators.
Victim Dependent on Perpetrator
Victims were recorded as dependent on perpetrators in more than one-third of cases (
n
= 863, 37.5%). This
is higher than the 31.6 per cent recorded in 2020–21. Victims most often depended on perpetrators for
support with decision making and care (Figure 21).
106 Brandl & Raymond (2012).
107 MacAr thur Foundation (2012).
108 Son et al. (2007).
109 Chen & Dong (2017).
110 Schiamberg & Gans (1999).
111 Von Heydrich et al. (2012).
112 World Health Organization (2015).
113 Kohn & Verhoek-Oftendahl (2011).
114 Roberto & Teaster (2017).
115 Schiamberg & Gans (1999).
116 Horsford et al. (2011).
Figure 20.
Issues in cases
of perpetrators
providing care
(
n
= 420).
Figure 21.
Proportion of victims
dependent on
perpetrators.
Issues with Care ProvisionType of Dependence
Victim Factors Prevent External Services (
n
= 15)
Transport (
n
= 105)
Perpetrator Factors Prevent Other Family Carers (
n
= 66)
Financial (
n
= 113)
Lack of Caregiving Experience (
n
= 76)
Accommodation (
n
= 152)
Perpetrator Factors Prevent External Services (
n
= 77)
Emotional (
n
= 297)
Caregiver Reluctance (
n
= 107)
Care (
n
= 332)
Struggling to Meet Care Needs (
n
= 108)
Decision Making (
n
= 413)
Caregiving was Financially Motivated (
n
= 187)
50%
20%
40%30%
15%
20%
10%
10%
5%
0%
0%
Proportion of Victims
Proportion of Victims
3.6%
15.7%
18.1%
18.3%
25.5%
42.9%
44.5%
4.6%
4.9%
6.6%
12.9%
14.4%
17.9%
38
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Financial Relationships
Historical nancial relationships between victims and perpetrators were recorded in 369 cases (16.0%).
These nancial relationships may increase the likelihood of abuse or add to the complexity if either party
wishes to change or sever these nancial relationships.
The most common nancial relationships were perpetrators having authorised access to victim nances
(
n
= 151, 6.6%), perpetrators having a history of borrowing from the victim (
n
= 133, 5.8%), and victims
having a history of gifting to the perpetrator (
n
= 121, 5.3%). Financial abuse was recorded in 84.0 per cent
of these cases.
In situations with a history of perpetrators borrowing from the victim or victims gifting to the perpetrator,
tensions can arise if victims refuse to provide further loans or gifts. In almost all cases, the loans and gifts
are provided to victims’ adult children (
n
= 152, 80.9%) or grandchildren (
n
= 19, 10.1%). Victims want to
help their children/grandchildren; in many cases they will only refuse to support family members if their
nancial situation no longer allows them to continue to provide loans and gifts, or they begin to feel they
are being exploited.
Precipitating Factors
PEARL allows Helpline operators to capture data on events in victims’ or perpetrators lives’ that appear
to trigger abuse. These precipitating factors are not necessarily causal and may represent only one factor
among many that inuenced the development of abusive behaviours.
Precipitating factors were recorded in 918 cases (39.9%). The most common factors were victim ill-health
(
n
= 361, 15.7%), perpetrators and victims beginning cohabitation (
n
= 312, 13.6%), and perpetrator
nancial diculties (
n
= 149, 6.5%).
Notably, the proportion of cases in which perpetrator nancial diculties were recorded as a precipitating
factor quadrupled between 2020–21 (1.6%) and 2021–22 (6.5%).
Perpetrator Dependent on Victim
Perpetrators were recorded as dependent on victims in 23.1 per cent of cases (
n
= 531), which is much
higher than the 14.5 per cent of cases recorded in 2020–21. Perpetrators most often depended on victims
for accommodation and nancial support (Figure 22).
Figure 22.
Proportion of
perpetrators
dependent on victims.
16%12%8%4%0%
Proportion of Victims
Type of Dependence
Other (
n
= 14)
Emotional (
n
= 170)
Financial (
n
= 304)
Accommodation (
n
= 342)
0.6%
7.4%
13.2%
14.9%
Community
Factors
Section 3.4
Community factors relate to the intersection of victim
and perpetrator relationships with other family, friends,
community members, and potential support networks,
or with features of the community such as geographical
location.
This section discusses
factors related to
• family and community
• geography
Family and Community
Notiers
In 2021–22, one-quarter of notiers were victims (
n
= 589, 25.7%), while
three-quarters were concerned third parties (
n
= 1,704, 74.3%). The largest
group of notiers were victims themselves, followed by daughters and
workers (Table 5). Notiers’ relationships to victims were unknown for 8 cases.
Table 5.
Notier's Relationship to Victim
Notier Number Percent
Self 589 25.7%
Daughter 558 24.3%
Worker 315 13.7%
Son 232 10.1%
Friend 190 8.3%
Other notiers 116 5.1%
Grandchild 98 4.3%
Neighbour 87 3.8%
Sibling 78 3.4%
Spouse/Partner 30 1.3%
Total 2,293 100.0%
As noted above, workers were the third most common group of notiers.
Helpline operators can record information about workers’ industries
(recorded in 239 cases). Where industry was specied, workers in health, aged
care, and community services were the most frequent notiers (Table 6).
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
39 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Social Connectedness
Data about protective factors for victims, including social connectedness, is captured in the PEARL
database. Victims were recorded as experiencing social connectedness in 480 (20.9%) cases.117 Social
connectedness is dened as experiencing feelings of belonging and closeness, based on social appraisals
and the value placed on the relationship by the person.118 As a concept, social connectedness extends
beyond those who interact with victims and examines the quality of the relationships and their importance
to victims. Strong social relationships can help support and empower victims to speak out if they are being
abused.119,120,121
Table 6.
Industries in Which
Notiers Work
Notier Number Percent
Health 112 46.9%
Aged Care 59 24.7%
Community Services 46 19.2%
Banking 9 3.8%
Legal 8 3.3%
Police 5 2.1%
Total 239 100.0%
Notably, the proportion of notiers who were aged care workers has grown from 9.9 per cent in 2019–20,
to 16.5 per cent in 2020–21, and 24.7 per cent in 2021–22. This increase is positive as the presence of an
external party can be protective because it provides an opportunity for someone to notice abuse, support
victims to seek help, and report the abuse. Aged care workers are in a relatively unique position as they
often have the opportunity to view interactions between an older person and other family members. Aged
care workers providing in-home support may also have the opportunity to observe the home environment
and note any changes. Additionally, working with an older person for a long time often means that workers
come to know the client and build relationships. It is unclear why notications from aged care workers
have increased but it probably results from increasing awareness of elder abuse and/or the Helpline. More
training and support for aged care workers may further increase the likelihood of reporting.
The most frequent notiers from the health eld were social workers (
n
= 44), doctors (
n
= 24), and nurses
(
n
= 16).
117 Note. Social connectedness is likely under-reported
because notiers may not have this information.
118 Van Bel et al. (2009).
119 Podnieks & Thomas (2017).
120 Qu et al. (2021).
121 Burnes et al. (2019).
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
40
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
41 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Non-Perpetrators Residing with Victims
In more than one-third (36.6%) of cases (where known), people who were not identied as perpetrators
were reported to be living with victims. In 396 cases, a non-perpetrator was residing with both the
victim and perpetrator, while in 372 cases the victim was residing solely with non-perpetrators. Sharing
a residence with a non-perpetrator may be a protective factor as it provides an opportunity for another
person to witness and report abuse.
Support Services
Support services that victims may be accessing are another potential source of support. Victims were
recorded as receiving support from service providers in 380 (16.5%) cases. Support services included aged
care services (aged care facility,
n
= 189, 8.2%), medical services (
n
= 130, 5.6%), community care
(
n
= 95, 4.1%), psychological or counselling services (
n
= 36, 1.6%), and other support services (
n
= 3, 0.1%).
Hospitalisation
Admission to hospital, even when unrelated to the abuse, provides another opportunity for abuse to be
identied and support provided. In 2021–22, 273 cases (11.9%) in which victims had been hospitalised
were identied. Hospitalisations were recorded as related to the abuse in 110 cases, unrelated in 151 cases,
and unknown for 12 cases. In 64 cases, the victim was recorded as having contact with a hospital social
worker while in hospital.
Geography
Queensland has the second-largest land area of the Australian states and territories. Over half of the
population lives outside the Greater Brisbane area, making it the second-most decentralised state or
territory after Tasmania. Geographical distance and population spread can create issues for service
access in rural and remote areas. A lack of aged care, respite, legal, domestic violence, support, transport,
medical, and culturally appropriate services can leave older people socially isolated and more vulnerable to
abuse.122,123,124 Further, rates of domestic and family violence are often higher in rural, regional, and remote
areas.125 Nevertheless, living in a small community can be protective; often a strong sense of community
exists and members are more likely to check on their neighbours and thus realise abuse is occurring.126,127
However, additional challenges may arise in reporting abuse and accessing support in small communities:
• The sense that everyone knows each other can stop older people speaking out due to shame and the
importance placed on protecting the family name.128,129
• Interrelatedness of community members may reduce the likelihood of victims and workers reporting
abuse. Often dual relationships exist, for example, the perpetrator may be a friend of the only police
ocer, psychologist, or doctor in the community.
• A lack of services may leave workers and other community members with few or no options for referral
when they are concerned about an older person.
The condential EAPU Helpline can support people in small communities to identify the options available
to them when there are dual relationships and concerns about protecting the family name. However,
knowledge of the Helpline is probably lower in rural and remote communities: fewer community education
and training sessions are provided in these areas than in Brisbane, where the EAPU oce is located.
122 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
123 Oce of the Public Advocate, Western Australia (2005).
124 Peri et al. (2008).
125 Campo & Tayton (2015).
126 Horsford et al. (2011).
127 Tilse et al. (2006).
128 Peri et al. (2008).
129 Horsford et al. (2011).
42
1
4
3
Cai
rn
s
24
Queensland
Outback
1
04
T
o
wn
s
v
ille
38
Mackay-Isaac-
Whi
tsun
d
a
y
y
y
5
0
D
arl
i
n
g
D
o
wn
s
-
M
a
r
a
n
oa
97
9
C
entra
l
Queensland
Qu
201
Wi
de Ba
y
92
L
o
g
an-
Beaudesert
g
g
22
2
G
o
ld
Coas
t
1
62
S
unsh
i
ne
Coast
50
Moreton Bay
South
433
Brisbane
(North, South,
East, West,
& Inner City)
1
39
Moreton Bay
N
o
r
th
74
Toowoomba
1
01
I
psw
i
ch
Victim Location
Victim location was known in 83.9 per cent (
n
= 1,930) of cases. Figure 23 displays the number of victims in
each region.130
130 Note. Data from Brisbane North, South, East, West, and Inner
City were combined because Helpline workers sometimes
record the suburb as Brisbane City if victims are repor ted to
live in Brisbane without a specied suburb. This results in an
over-representation of cases in the Brisbane Inner City region.
Figure 23.
Geographic location
of victims (
n
= 1,930).
43 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Comparing the geographical distribution of elder abuse victims against population data may help identify
communities in greater need of support. To explore this possibility, expected victim counts were compared
against actual victim counts to determine the percentage of cases above or below what was expected for
each region. Expected victim counts were calculated using the proportion of Queensland’s population of
people aged 50 years and over living in each region.
As Table 7 and Figure 24 show, the number of reported victims was above or below expectations in
multiple regions. Cairns, Wide Bay, and Moreton Bay North had many more victims than expected. Mackay-
Isaac-Whitsunday, Moreton Bay South, and Logan-Beaudesert had substantially fewer victims than was
expected based on population data.131
Table 7.
Dierence Between
Expected and Actual
Victim Counts
(
n
= 1,930)
SA4 Proportion of Expected Actual Dierence
Population Victims Victims (Percent)
Brisbane 23.2% 448.0 433 –3.4%
Cairns 5.3% 102.6 143 39.4%
Central Queensland 4.3% 83.5 97 16.2%
Darling Downs - Maranoa 2.9% 56.6 50 –11.6%
Gold Coast 12.9% 249.0 222 –10.8%
Ipswich 6.1% 118.2 101 –14.6%
Logan - Beaudesert 6.0% 115.7 92 –20.5%
Mackay - Isaac - Whitsunday 3.3% 64.1 38 –40.7%
Moreton Bay - North 5.9% 113.0 139 23.0%
Moreton Bay - South 3.6% 70.4 50 –28.9%
Queensland - Outback 1.4% 27.0 24 –11.2%
Sunshine Coast 9.3% 179.6 162 –9.8%
Toowoomba 3.2% 61.0 74 21.4%
Townsville 4.4% 85.6 104 21.5%
Wide Bay 8.1% 155.7 201 29.1%
131 Note. The
Dierence
statistic in Table 8 is equivalent to the
Standardised Dierence
statistic reported in the
2019–20
Year in Review
(Table 17).
Higher- or lower-than-expected proportions of victims do not necessarily indicate the actual prevalence
of elder abuse in the region. Greater or lesser awareness of elder abuse and the EAPU Helpline is likely
to inuence the number of calls that the EAPU receives from dierent regions. Further research could
examine these interrelationships.
Figure 24.
Proportion of cases
above or below that
expected by region
(
n
= 1,930).
–20%
–30%
–40%
–50%
–10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Proportion Above or Below Expectation
Region
Brisbane
Cairns
Central Queensland
Darling Downs - Maranoa
Gold Coast
Ipswich
Logan - Beaudesert
Mackay - Isaac - Whitsunday
Moreton Bay - North
Moreton Bay - South
Queensland - Outback
Sunshine Coast
Toowoomba
Townsville
Wide Bay
–3.4%
–11.6% –10.8%
–14.6%
–20.5%
–40.7%
23.0%
–28.9%
–11.2% –9.8%
21.4%21.5%
29.1%
39.4%
16.2%
44
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Societal
Factors
Section 3.5
The societal level of analysis concerns the sociocultural
context in which victims and perpetrators live. Societal
factors can contribute to a climate in which elder abuse
is more likely to occur.
This section examines
four areas:
• cultural and social norms
• legislation and policies
• contemporary conditions
• economic factors
Cultural and Social Norms
Social norms are rules of behaviour based on internalised schemas to which
community members are expected to conform.132,133 Schemas are cognitive
frameworks that comprise thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes that enable
people to ll in missing details to make sense of situations, places, and
people.134 Cultural context inuences the development of schemas and so
schemas often dier between cultures. Stereotypes, a type of schema, are
oversimplied generalisations about the attributes of a class of people.135
Stereotypes evoke category-based expectations about a person and
inuence behaviour that may be prejudicial or discriminatory. Prejudice and
discrimination can aect not only individual and societal attitudes towards
particular groups of people, but also policy and legislation. Negative schemas
around age, gender, and race are associated with an increased risk of elder
abuse.
Ageism
Ageism was identied in almost one-third of cases (
n
= 728, 32.6%).
Ageism refers to stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or
groups based on their age. Ageism takes many forms, including prejudicial
attitudes, discriminatory practices, and institutional policies and practices
that perpetuate stereotypical beliefs.136 Ageism is widespread in Australia,
with a recent study conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission
nding that 64 per cent of older people reported experiencing ageism in
the previous ve years.137 Ageism is more pervasive than other forms of
prejudice,138 with jokes about age perceived as more socially acceptable
than jokes about either race or gender.139
Within Australian communities, older people are often portrayed as
sick, weak, a burden, worthless, incapable of making their own decisions,
dangerous drivers, victims, and less worthy of funding or access to resources
and supports.140 However, not all stereotyped perceptions of older people
are negative. Stereotypes about older people can be mixed, with older
people often represented as “doddering but dear”.141 Negative attributions
are made about competence, whereas positive attributions are made about
warmth.142,143,144
132 World Health Organization (2009).
133 National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (2018).
134 Vaughan & Hogg (2005).
135 McCauley et al. (1980).
136 Australian Human Rights Commission
(2010).
137 Australian Human Rights Commission
(2021).
138 World Health Organization (2021).
139 Australian Human Rights Commission
(2021).
140 Australian Human Rights Commission
(2013).
141 Sublett et al. (2021).
142 Sublett et al. (2021).
143 Vale et al. (2020).
144 Vervaecke & Meisner (2021).
45 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Ageism is often categorised as hostile or benevolent. Hostile ageism is a more overt form of ageism that
occurs when more negative stereotypes about older people are held. Some examples of hostile ageism
reported in Australian media include referring to older people admitted to hospital as “bed blockers”,
references to the COVID-19 pandemic as the “boomer remover”, and describing older people as an
economic burden. In these examples, older people are blamed for wider societal issues, and portrayed
as disposable. Benevolent ageism is more subtle, occurring where mixed stereotypes are held about
older people. Some examples of benevolent ageism include trying to stop someone from participating
in activities due to concerns that the activity is not “age-appropriate”, unwanted helping behaviour, and
speaking more slowly or loudly when talking to the person. In these situations, the behaviours may be well
intentioned, but they are based on assumptions that being older automatically makes someone vulnerable
and less capable than individuals in younger cohorts.145,146
The seriousness of ageism is not always recognised. However, ageist attitudes and beliefs can seriously
aect older peoples’ health and quality of life.147,148 Poorer physical and mental health, cognitive decline,
social isolation, and nancial insecurity have been associated with ageism. Further, research consistently
shows that ageism is a risk factor for elder abuse.149,150,151,152 In a broad sense, ageism increases
vulnerability, exacerbates abuse, decreases the likelihood of reporting, and inhibits eective responses
to elder abuse.153,154,155,156 Older people may also internalise the stereotypical perceptions expressed by
others, adopting self-fullling schemas.
Helpline operators select ageism if callers make comments that suggest older people are all the same,
older people are less capable, or older people should or should not do something simply because of their
age. An example of ageism that presents in Helpline calls is an adult child insisting that their mother
move out of her home to live in a retirement village or with them. The mother may have recently lost
her partner and the adult child believes that she should not live alone “at her age”. Further questioning
reveals that the mother wants to continue living in her home, close to her friends and social networks,
and is quite capable of living alone. Another common example involves the caller saying that “Dad
shouldn’t be driving at his age”, but exploration uncovers no medical reason for the older man to stop
driving. Both examples illustrate benevolent ageism.
Sexism and Gender Roles
Gender roles relate to expectations about what males and females should do (e.g. in the household,
community, and workplace) in a given society.157 Gender stereotypes underlie these roles. Social
constructions of gender and the roles and norms associated with gender aect both victims and
perpetrators.158 Society has gradually shifted away from traditional patriarchal paradigms in which
nancial matters were always handled by males. Despite this shift, the EAPU still receives reports about
older females who struggle to cope with managing nances after their husband or partner’s death
because they lack experience in such matters. In these cases, family members may take responsibility for
the nancial management, thereby increasing opportunities for nancial abuse.159
The database enables workers to record if gender stereotypes towards victims have inuenced their
decisions or behaviour. This was identied in 262 (11.4%) cases, and most victims were female
(
n
= 216, 82.4%). Sexism and gender roles also aect perpetrators. Gender stereotypes reportedly
inuenced perpetrators’ behaviour in 207 (9.0%) cases; more than three-quarters of these perpetrators
were male (
n
= 162, 78.3%).
145 Yun & Maxeld (2020).
146 Vale et al. (2020).
147 World Health Organization (2021).
148 World Health Organization (2021).
149 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
150 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
151 Peri et al. (2008).
152 World Health Organization (2015).
153 Australian Human Rights Commission (2013).
154 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
155 Phelan & Ayalon (2020).
156 World Health Organization (2015).
157 World Health Organization (2011).
158 Peri et al. (2008).
159 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
46
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Racism
Experiences of racism likely increase vulnerability to abuse.
Historical experiences of segregation, exclusion, and
oppression have led to intergenerational trauma for many
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia.
This has aected the physical, psychological, socioeconomic,
and cultural health of this population, leading to poorer
outcomes.160,161 Experiences of racism can also lead to a
mistrust of service providers and reporting bodies, and
increase a person’s sense of shame. Together, these factors
may reduce the likelihood that victims will report abuse.162
Racism can also become internalised and reduce a victim’s
self-ecacy, further increasing vulnerability, and reducing the
likelihood of reporting. Racism and intergenerational trauma
can also aect other family members and contribute to an
increased risk of their perpetrating abuse.163
Care Obligations and Expectations
Obligations and expectations around who will provide care
for an older family member can create tension. Some cultures
and communities see this role as the “duty” of a particular
child (e.g. the oldest daughter) or children to provide care for
their elderly parents. To not full this obligation can lead to
shame and stigma for both parties.164,165 Feeling obligated to
provide care can lead to resentment and conict, increasing
the likelihood of carer burnout and the risk of elder abuse.
Dierences in cross-generational expectations about
providing care for a family member can also increase conict
within families.166,167 As discussed in Section 3.3, caregiver
reluctance was noted in 25.5 per cent (
n
= 107) of cases in
which perpetrators were providing care to victims and issues
were identied.
Legislation and Policies
Intergenerational Wealth Transfer
In Australia, children expect to inherit the assets of their
parent/s upon the death of the parent/s.168 In 2018,
intergenerational inheritances from older Australians
resulted in $52 billion being transferred to younger
generations.169 An Australian study found that 93 per cent
of respondents believed they should make provisions for
children or stepchildren when dividing assets.170 In addition,
expectations about asset division are not only based on
cultural customs but are enshrined in legislation such as the
Succession Act 1981
(Qld) and the
Uniform Civil Procedure
Rules 1999
(Qld). When a parent dies intestate, the wealth is
distributed according to intestacy rules: children are entitled
to a residuary portion of the estate. Children are also seen
as “eligible persons” when it comes to contesting a will. The
cultural norm of intergenerational wealth transfer can lead to
a sense of entitlement and perceived co-ownership of parental
assets.171
Farming families may experience additional complexities
from an existing level of co-ownership or sharing of assets
and a reluctance to divide the farm.172,173,174 Perhaps one (or
several) of the children have a house on the farmland owned
by their parents and are actively working the farm. They
may perceive that the farm and any assets already belong to
them.
Competing interests among parents and children are more
likely when perceived entitlement exists and children view
the transfer of parental assets as their right.175 The parents
may want to spend their money on holidays or aged care
but face pressure from children who want to preserve
their inheritance. Calls to the Helpline often reect this
premise: “Aged care is a waste of money; I will move in and
care for you.” This perception of entitlement is particularly
problematic when the child holds an Enduring Power of
Attorney (EPoA) for their parent/s.
160 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2015).
161 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018).
162 Oce of the Public Advocate, Western Australia (2005).
163 Horsford et al. (2011).
164 Peri et al. (2008).
165 World Health Organization (2015).
166 Kaspiew et al. (2015).
167 Peri et al. (2008).
168 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
169 Productivity Commission (2021).
170 Tilse et al. (2015).
171 Setterlund et al. (2007).
172 Tilse et al. (2015).
173 Setterlund et al. (2007).
174 Tilse et al. (2006).
175 Kaspiew et al. (2016).
47 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
In 2021–22, a perception of entitlement was identied in
almost half (
n
= 1,018, 44.2%) of cases reported to the
Helpline. Perception of entitlement is most often associated
with nancial abuse; however, it may also be associated with
other types of abuse. Of the 1,018 cases in which perception
of entitlement was identied, nancial abuse was recorded in
77.8 per cent (
n
= 792).
The term
inheritance impatience
denotes situations in which
“family members deliberately or recklessly prematurely
acquire their ageing relatives’ assets that they believe will,
or should, be theirs one day”.176 Inheritance impatience likely
compounds the increased risk of nancial abuse in situations
in which a sense of entitlement exists. Inheritance impatience
was recorded co-occurring with a perception of entitlement
in 18.7 per cent (
n
= 190) of cases in which perception of
entitlement was identied. The increased longevity of older
people may be increasing this impatience; adult children
are forced to wait 10–12 years longer (on average) to inherit
parental assets than they did 50 years ago.177
Financial abuse was 8.3 times as likely to be occurring when
a perception of entitlement and inheritance impatience
were identied.178 Perceived entitlement to parental assets
and inheritance impatience may lead to older people being
pressured to transfer wealth as gifts. Coercion to gift was
4.0 times as likely179 to be reported in cases in which
inheritance impatience and a sense of entitlement were
recorded as co-occurring.
Presumption of Advancement
The presumption of advancement means that money or
property transferred in particular relationships (e.g. a parent-
to-child relationship) is presumed a gift.180,181 This presumption
arises irrespective of the child’s age and independence.
The presumption of advancement reverses evidentiary
responsibility and requires the parent to prove (balance of
probabilities) that the transfer was not a gift. This can create
problems for victims of elder abuse who may have loaned
money or transferred assets to their adult children; it is dicult
to prove a transfer was not meant as a gift in the absence of
a formal agreement. Further, cost often prohibits taking legal
action to recover these assets.182,183
Another situation reported to the Helpline in which the
presumption of advancement is relevant involves “family
agreements” between an older person and a family member
or other trusted person.184 Usually, the older person has
transferred the title of their house or a nancial payment to
the trusted person, who promises to provide care, housing,
or both in exchange for the transfer.185 In many cases, the
older person does not seek legal advice before entering into
a family agreement.
In 2021–22, a failure to repay loans was identied in
135 cases, 60 cases involved asset transfers, and 43 family
agreements were recorded. In each of these scenarios,
victims seeking redress would be required to prove that the
asset transfer was not a gift.
In many cases, the older person is not listed on the relevant
Title Deed and does not have documentation to prove
that the assets were not transferred as a gift. Of the family
agreements, only a quarter (
n
= 11, 25.6%) were recorded
as formal agreements (with legal documentation). When
no formal agreement exists, the older person becomes
vulnerable if the relationship sours. In addition, victims often
fail to realise that gifting may have implications for their
Centrelink payments. In some cases, the gifted assets may be
counted in asset tests and may have deeming applied, which
then counts as income. This may result in victims losing all or
part of their Centrelink payments.
By the time many victims contact the Helpline, the
relationship with their child has deteriorated; if they cohabit
with perpetrators, they may have been instructed to leave
the property and are at risk of homelessness. In this situation,
the options available for the older person to recover their
money are limited, particularly as their nancial resources
have already been depleted.
176 Miskovski (2014).
177 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018).
178
z
= 8.9,
p
= .000.
179
z
= 7.4,
p
= .000.
180 Blundell et al. (2017).
181 Gillbard (2018).
182 Gillbard (2018).
183 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
184 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
185 Somes & Webb (2016).
48
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
49 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Income Support Payments
Dierences in payment amounts and requirements between
JobSeeker Payment and Carer Payment may increase the
risk of elder abuse. Calls to the Helpline indicate that some
perpetrators receive Carer Payment, Carer Allowance, or both,
although they provide inadequate or no care to the older
person.
As of 20 September 2022, the maximum payment on
JobSeeker Payment (single, no children, less than 60
years of age) was $677.20 per fortnight (including Energy
Supplement).186 The maximum payment for carers receiving
Carer Payment was $1,026.50 per fortnight (including Energy
Supplement and Pension Supplement), plus a yearly Carer
Supplement of $600. People who receive Carer Payment
also receive Carer Allowance, which is a further $136.50 per
fortnight, with another yearly Carer Supplement of $600.
Hence, by claiming Carer Payment a person receives almost
80 per cent more (about $531.95 extra per fortnight) than
those receiving JobSeeker. Other benets of receiving Carer
Payment include no requirement to look for work and
eligibility for a Pensioner Concession Card, which provides
more discounts and rebates than a Health Care Card. The
additional benets and higher payment amount can act as an
incentive for family members to claim Carer Payment and/or
Carer Allowance, irrespective of whether they actually intend
to, or have the capabilities to, provide the care that the older
person needs.
In 2021–22, 200 perpetrators were recorded as receiving
Carer Payment and/or Carer Allowance. Of these, 152 (76.0%)
perpetrators were recorded as providing some level of care
and 48 (31.6%) were reported as not providing any care to
victims. Claiming Carer Payment and/or Carer Allowance
without providing care constitutes fraud. To avoid detection
and possible consequences, some perpetrators actively
refuse to allow home care services to provide care. Only two
of the victims (4.1%) in the 48 cases mentioned above were
receiving home care services. Further, in 10 cases (20.8%), the
perpetrator reportedly refused to allow others to provide care.
In some situations, the recipient of Carer Payment may be
struggling to provide adequate care but refuses assistance
from services due to concerns about losing their payment.
Of the 152 cases in which perpetrators were receiving Carer
Payment or Carer Allowance and providing care, 21 (13.8%)
reected this scenario. Perpetrators may also refuse to allow
an older person to move to an aged care facility to avoid losing
Carer Payment and/or Allowance, and their accommodation (if
living with the victim).
Neglect was recorded in 58.5 per cent (
n
= 117) of cases in
which perpetrators were reported as receiving Carer Payment
or Carer Allowance.
Although in some cases alleged perpetrators are claiming
Carer Payment or Carer Allowance and not providing adequate
care, this does not represent all carers. Most carers do not
perpetrate elder abuse. Further, not all carers identied as
perpetrators in the Helpline data are deliberately abusing or
neglecting their victims. Lack of knowledge and carer stress
may be contributing factors in some situations.
Aged Care
A further policy change that may have aected the risk
of elder abuse are aged care reforms that began in 2012.
As part of these reforms, the Australian Government
introduced means testing, along with changes to the payment
arrangements for aged care. Helpline operators often receive
calls about situations in which perpetrators cancel home care
services or attempt to prevent their parents from moving into
an aged care facility because they do not want their parents to
spend “their inheritance” on aged care.
A shortfall in aged care services may also increase the risk
of elder abuse. Funding for additional home care packages
was announced in 2019 and the number of people waiting to
receive appropriate home care packages decreased by 25,439
between the third quarter in 2018–19 and third quarter in
2020–21. In response to the Interim Report handed down by
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety
(hereinafter referred to as “the Royal Commission”), funding
for an additional 10,000 home care packages was announced
on 25 November 2019.187
The Royal Commission’s Final Report titled “Care, Dignity and
Respect” was tabled in Parliament on 1 March 2021. Some
of the systemic issues identied were wait times between
approval for a Home Care Package and gaining access to
a package at the appropriate level, insucient funding of
home care packages to meet older people’s support needs,
insucient stang levels in residential aged care, wide-scale
failures for more marginalised Australians, and a lack of
integration with the health care system. In response to these
issues, the Australian Government’s budget announcement
on 11 May 2021 included a further aged care reform package
of $17.7 billion to be delivered over ve years. The reform
package includes funding for 80,000 additional Home Care
Packages.188 The aged care reforms are a step forward;
however, the additional funding will still fall short of that
required to meet the support needs of older Australians.
186 https://w ww.servicesaustralia.gov.au/guide-to-australian-government-payments?context=1 information is current as of 20
September 2022. This is general information only and may not reect individual circumstances.
187 Prime Minister, Minister for Health, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, & Minister for the National Disability Insurance
Scheme (2019).
188 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2021).
50
Despite the expected shortfall in funding, the wait times
between approval for and gaining access to a Home Care
Package at the appropriate level have decreased markedly in
the past 12 months. In March 2021, the wait times for people
who were assessed as medium priority ranged from
3 to 6 months for a Level 1 package to 9 to 12 months for
Level 2–4 packages.189 In March 2022, the wait times had
reduced to 3–6 months across all four levels of packages.190
The number of people waiting to receive an appropriate Home
Care Package has also reduced substantially (33.1%) over this
12-month period, from 87,162 in March 2021 to 58,282 in
March 2022. Although these improvements are a positive step
forward, more investment is required to further decrease wait
times and to ensure that the number of available packages
keeps pace with Australia’s ageing population.
Diculties navigating the aged care system can also create
barriers for older people who require support. The Interim
Report of the Royal Commission described the aged care entry
system as frightening, confronting, and confusing for older
people.191 Older people who manage to overcome this and
are approved for support are then left to arrange the support
themselves. Many nd it dicult to understand their packages
and struggle to nd the information they need.192
An inability to access services increases the likelihood of
victims needing to depend on family members to care for
them. Although this lack of access increases the risk of carer
stress, it also allows family members without the older
person’s best interests at heart to move in under the guise of
caring for the older person. Dependence, cohabitation, and
social isolation are all risk factors for elder abuse; an inability
to access services can increase the likelihood of these factors
occurring. When these factors coexist, the risk of elder abuse
further increases.
Economic Factors
A number of economic factors, including low interest rates
on savings, house prices, increased longevity, and low
superannuation balances can increase the likelihood of elder
abuse. Low interest rates have aected the superannuation,
savings, and retirement income of older people.193 Increased
longevity has compounded this eect, with many older people
now concerned whether their superannuation and savings will
last their lifetime. In the Australian population, 67 per cent
of people aged 65 years and over receive the Age Pension.194
Women form the largest proportion of recipients.195 They
typically have lower superannuation balances196 and a longer
life expectancy than their male counterparts.
Housing unaordability can increase the risk of elder abuse.
Home ownership is touted as the Australian dream; however,
this goal is increasingly unobtainable for younger generations.
Over a 30-year period (1991–2021), median house prices in
Brisbane increased by 538 per cent, from $121,000 (1991)197
to $650,000 (2021)198. In comparison, wages have increased
by only 307 per cent over the same period in Queensland: the
average weekly wage increased from $529.30 to $1,627.40.199
The widening gap between average incomes and house
prices, rising rental costs, and interest rate increases make
it more dicult to save for a home deposit and manage
mortgage repayments. Consequently, home ownership rates
have declined, particularly for people aged under 65 years.200
Consistent with this decline, home ownership in perpetrators
(48.5 % owned at least one home) was substantially below the
Queensland rate of ownership (63.5%).201
Home ownership slipping out of reach of younger generations
can increase the likelihood of adult children pressuring older
people in a multitude of ways. They may try to coerce the
older person into allowing them to move in and live rent free,
loan them money, contribute towards a house deposit, act as
loan guarantors, assist with mortgage repayments, buy them a
home, or even sign over their own home to the adult child.
The current economic climate and housing aordability are
also concerning for many older people. The proportion of
Australians who hold a mortgage at retirement age has tripled
between 2001 and 2021.202 Consequently, recent interest rate
rises will likely aect more older people. In some cases, this
may lead to older people inviting, or agreeing to, other family
members moving in so that they can meet the rising costs of
mortgage repayments and other household bills.
189 Department of Health (2021).
190 Department of Health (2022).
191 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety
(2019).
192 Hobbs (2020).
193 Australian Law Reform Commission (2017).
194 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021).
195 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017b).
196 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017b).
197 Abelson & Chung (2004).
198 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021e).
199 Queensland Government Statistician’s Oce (n.d).
200 Geck & Mackay (2018).
201 Queensland Government Statistician’s Oce (2022).
202 Clun (2022).
Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Abuse
Data
Section 3.6
Consistent with ndings from
2020–21, the three most frequently
reported types of abuse were
psychological, nancial, and social
abuse (Figure 25). More than two-
thirds of victims (
n
= 1,580, 68.7%)
were reported to be experiencing
more than one type of abuse and
one-quarter (
n
= 587, 25.5%) were
experiencing three or more types
of abuse (Figure 26). The types of
reported abuse that were most likely
to co-occur were sexual (94.4%),
physical (92.7%), and social (90.1%).
Type of Abuse
Sexual (
n
= 18)
Physical (
n
= 314)
Neglect (
n
= 528)
Social (
n
= 639)
Financial (
n
= 1,428)
Psychological (
n
= 1,763)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Proportion of Cases
0.8%
13.6%
22.9%
27.8%
62.1%
76.6%
Figure 25.
Proportion of victims by abuse type.
Figure 26.
Number of abuse types reported.
Proportion of Cases
One Two Three Four Five Six
Number of Abuse Types
20%
0%
10%
30%
40%
50%
31.3%
43.2%
17.4%
6.6%
1.3% 0.1%
Financial Abuse
In 2021–22, 1,428 cases of nancial abuse were reported to the Helpline.
The EAPU denes nancial abuse as “The illegal or improper use and/or
mismanagement of a person’s money, property or resources.” Examples of
nancial abuse reported to the Helpline are not allowing a person access to
their money, pressuring them to sign over their house or other assets to the
perpetrator, using the victim’s credit card without permission, and misusing
an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPoA).
The PEARL database captures data about methods used to perpetrate
nancial abuse and forms of nancial abuse.
51 Elder Abuse Statistics in Queensland:
Year in Review 2021–22
Methods Used to Perpetrate Financial Abuse
The most common methods of perpetrating nancial abuse were undue inuence, misuse of debit and credit cards, and
misuse of an EPoA (Figure 27). This diered slightly from 2020–21, when misuse of an EPoA occurred more frequently
than misuse of debit and credit cards.
Forms of Financial Abuse
The most common forms of nancial abuse were non-contribution (for example, living with the victim and not
contributing towards expenses such as electricity or groceries), paying perpetrator’s bills, and coercing the victim into
gifting (Figure 28). The proportions of cases in which non-contribution and paying perpetrators bills were recorded
had increased and in 2021–22 had overtaken coercing the victim into gifting as the most frequently reported forms of
nancial abuse. Increased rates of cohabitation during this period probably explain the increase in cases in which
non-contribution was recorded. Victims and perpetrators were also cohabiting in three-quarters of cases (
n
= 247,
78.7%) in which victims were reported to be paying perpetrator’s bills.
Figure 27.
Methods of perpetrating nancial abuse (
n
= 1,428).
Figure 28.
Forms of nancial abuse (
n
= 1,428).
Method of Abuse
Funds Transfer (
n
= 34)
Change Will (
n
= 59)
Other (
n
= 135)
EPoA Misuse (
n
= 167)
Misuse of Cards (
n
= 177)
Undue Inuence (
n
= 314)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 15%
Proportion of Victims of Financial Abuse