Reported allegations per 10,000 residents age 65+
Modeled annual change in the reported allegation rate relative to the population age 65+
Significant after FDR correction (q = <0.001)
American Community Survey 2024 5-year estimate
Interpretation
In FY2024–25, Calaveras County recorded an estimated 62.9–102.8 reported financial-abuse allegations per 10,000 residents age 65+. Over the six-year window the modelled rate changed by about 18.3% per year upward, which was classified as increasing.
The classification describes the direction of reporting within this county over time. It does not rank this county against others and does not measure how much elder financial exploitation occurs here.
With about 13,517 residents age 65+, the denominator here is large enough that the rate is not driven by a handful of individual reports. Because 83.3% of this county's monthly values were withheld, the plausible range around each annual rate is wide and the trend estimate rests on relatively few published counts.
SOC 242 records allegations reported to county Adult Protective Services agencies. It does not measure confirmed or substantiated abuse and should not be interpreted as the true prevalence of elder financial exploitation.
- · Very high suppression
- · No small-population flag
- · Trend estimated with substantial suppressed data
- Very high suppression limits the precision of public counts
Reported allegation rate by fiscal year
Midpoint scenario with the low–high range implied by suppressed monthly counts. Where a county publishes every month exactly, the band collapses onto the line.
| Fiscal year | Months available | Suppressed months | Reported allegations | Rate per 10,000 age 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2019–20 | 12 | 12 | 12–120 | 9.6–95.9 |
| FY2020–21 | 12 | 11 | 22–121 | 17.1–94.2 |
| FY2021–22 | 11 | 11 | 11–110 | 9.4–94.4 |
| FY2022–23 | 12 | 12 | 12–120 | 9.1–91.2 |
| FY2023–24 | 12 | 8 | 60–132 | 45.4–99.8 |
| FY2024–25 | 12 | 6 | 85–139 | 62.9–102.8 |
What could explain this pattern?
- · Awareness and outreach. Public campaigns and mandated-reporter training change how many concerns reach APS.
- · Agency capacity. Intake staffing, hotline hours, and case-coding practices affect what gets recorded.
- · Referral pathways. Bank, law-enforcement, and healthcare partnerships route reports differently by county.
- · Population structure. With 13,517 residents age 65+, the denominator is large enough that the rate is not driven by a handful of individual reports.
- · Suppression. 83.3% of this county's monthly values were published as “*” rather than as numbers, which widens the plausible descriptive range.
These are candidate explanations only. Nothing on this page establishes causation.
County demographics vs. California county average
Unweighted average across all 58 counties. Context only: these variables are not used to predict the reported rate.
Reported APS allegations are not confirmed cases and do not measure the true prevalence of elder financial exploitation.
Methodology for this page
Monthly SOC 242 financial-abuse allegation counts were assembled for a common six-year window (FY2019–20 through FY2024–25). Small monthly counts are published as “*” rather than as numbers, so each suppressed month is treated as an interval-censored count from 1 through 10 and propagated into low, midpoint and high scenarios. Across the six completed fiscal years, published SOC 242 files consistently showed numeric zeroes, no positive numeric values from 1 through 10, and a minimum published positive value of 11. The Observatory therefore treats “*” observations as interval-censored counts from 1 through 10. This interval is empirically inferred from the publication pattern and is not presented as an officially documented CDSS suppression rule.
Rates use year-specific population age 65+ as exposure. Trends come from interval-censored Negative Binomial models fitted per county, with significance corrected across all 58 counties using the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate procedure.