Reported allegations per 10,000 residents age 65+
Modelled change per year in reported allegations
Significant after FDR correction (q = 0.001)
Most recent annual senior population estimate
Interpretation
In FY2024–25, San Benito County recorded an estimated 65.0–143.0 reported financial-abuse allegations per 10,000 residents age 65+. Over the six-year window the modelled rate changed by about 38.6% 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.
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.
- · High suppression
- · Small senior population
- · Trend estimated with substantial suppressed data
- Small senior population can cause year-to-year rate volatility
- 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 | 9 | 9–90 | 12.0–119.5 |
| FY2020–21 | 11 | 9 | 9–90 | 12.6–125.7 |
| FY2021–22 | 7 | 4 | 4–40 | 8.5–85.0 |
| FY2022–23 | 12 | 12 | 12–120 | 14.1–140.8 |
| FY2023–24 | 11 | 9 | 9–90 | 11.0–110.3 |
| FY2024–25 | 12 | 8 | 60–132 | 65.0–143.0 |
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. 9,234 residents age 65+ means small changes in counts can move the rate substantially in a small county.
- · Suppression. 70.8% of this county's monthly values are withheld, widening the plausible 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). Counts below the public reporting threshold are published as suppressed rather than as numbers, so each suppressed month is treated as an interval and propagated into low, midpoint and high scenarios.
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.