Change over time, county by county
Each county's reported allegation rate was modelled over six fiscal years using monthly data, with suppressed months treated as intervals rather than zeros. Trends describe change within a county, never a comparison between counties.
Statewide reported allegation rate
Per 10,000 residents age 65+, FY2019–20 through FY2024–25.
“No clear trend” means there was not enough statistical evidence after multiple-testing correction. It does not mean the county was proven to be flat.
All 58 county trends
Sortable and filterable for navigation only. Modeled annual change in the reported allegation rate relative to the population age 65+. Sorting this table is not a ranking of counties.
| Classification | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mono | Increasing | +51.5% | 30.5–304.7 | 0.018 | 30.6% |
| San Benito | Increasing | +38.6% | 65.0–143.0 | 0.001 | 70.8% |
| Sutter | Increasing | +31.5% | 151.7–162.8 | <0.001 | 51.4% |
| Glenn | Increasing | +29.4% | 24.5–245.2 | 0.012 | 87.5% |
| Tulare | Increasing | +21.4% | 150.6 | 0.001 | 8.3% |
| Yolo | Increasing | +20.9% | 127.9 | <0.001 | 15.3% |
| Tuolumne | Increasing | +19.2% | 95.2–112.8 | <0.001 | 45.8% |
| Calaveras | Increasing | +18.3% | 62.9–102.8 | <0.001 | 83.3% |
| Amador | No clear trend | +17.4% | 46.4–125.2 | 0.084 | 76.4% |
| San Mateo | Increasing | +17.1% | 92.2 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| San Diego | Increasing | +16.2% | 182.5 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Santa Clara | Increasing | +15.3% | 163.9 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Monterey | Increasing | +14.9% | 161.8 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Placer | Increasing | +14.8% | 224.5 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Tehama | Increasing | +14.6% | 35.2–97.1 | 0.007 | 84.7% |
| Trinity | No clear trend | +14.3% | 25.0–250.3 | 0.235 | 86.1% |
| San Joaquin | Increasing | +13.9% | 71.6 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Marin | Increasing | +13.3% | 81.8 | <0.001 | 1.4% |
| Alameda | Increasing | +13.2% | 91.3 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Shasta | Increasing | +13.1% | 165.3 | <0.001 | 4.2% |
| Plumas | No clear trend | +12.5% | 19.6–196.3 | 0.263 | 79.2% |
| Siskiyou | Increasing | +12.4% | 50.4–109.9 | 0.001 | 65.3% |
| San Francisco | Increasing | +11.1% | 182.2 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Merced | No clear trend | +11.1% | 88.2–98.8 | 0.226 | 56.9% |
| Stanislaus | Increasing | +10.9% | 90.6 | <0.001 | 1.4% |
| Napa | Increasing | +10.0% | 124.1 | <0.001 | 6.9% |
| Santa Cruz | Increasing | +9.6% | 109.2 | <0.001 | 1.4% |
| Kern | Increasing | +9.4% | 130.6 | 0.006 | 0.0% |
| Mendocino | Increasing | +9.3% | 97.5 | <0.001 | 30.6% |
| Los Angeles | Increasing | +9.1% | 140.9 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Sonoma | Increasing | +8.3% | 141.3 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Madera | Increasing | +8.3% | 89.9–101.5 | 0.035 | 19.4% |
| Solano | Increasing | +7.1% | 88.5 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| San Luis Obispo | Increasing | +7.1% | 93.4 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Humboldt | Increasing | +6.9% | 64.1–70.9 | 0.033 | 29.2% |
| San Bernardino | Increasing | +6.4% | 150.3 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| El Dorado | No clear trend | +4.9% | 77.3 | 0.080 | 5.6% |
| Mariposa | No clear trend | +4.8% | 41.4–218.8 | 0.667 | 90.3% |
| Orange | Increasing | +3.6% | 94.2 | <0.001 | 0.0% |
| Riverside | Increasing | +3.6% | 121.2 | 0.001 | 0.0% |
| Santa Barbara | No clear trend | +3.2% | 98.7 | 0.194 | 1.4% |
| Colusa | No clear trend | +2.8% | 26.4–263.9 | 0.799 | 68.1% |
| Contra Costa | No clear trend | +2.8% | 63.6 | 0.086 | 0.0% |
| Fresno | No clear trend | +2.3% | 52.7 | 0.235 | 0.0% |
| Lassen | No clear trend | +0.8% | 67.8–175.6 | 0.937 | 81.9% |
| Ventura | No clear trend | +0.6% | 100.8 | 0.635 | 0.0% |
| Sacramento | No clear trend | -0.1% | 83.7 | 0.937 | 0.0% |
| Sierra | No clear trend | -0.6% | 45.3–453.1 | 0.960 | 30.6% |
| Butte | No clear trend | -0.6% | 89.5 | 0.799 | 0.0% |
| Kings | No clear trend | -1.9% | 86.2–97.1 | 0.498 | 38.9% |
| Imperial | No clear trend | -2.5% | 19.8–49.0 | 0.707 | 69.4% |
| Del Norte | No clear trend | -3.5% | 37.8–86.5 | 0.799 | 61.1% |
| Lake | No clear trend | -4.1% | 51.6–87.7 | 0.235 | 38.9% |
| Modoc | No clear trend | -5.9% | 22.0–220.4 | 0.635 | 51.4% |
| Nevada | Decreasing | -8.3% | 39.3–54.3 | 0.004 | 27.8% |
| Yuba | No clear trend | -10.9% | 8.1–81.4 | 0.265 | 76.4% |
| Inyo | No clear trend | -13.5% | 25.7–256.7 | 0.235 | 77.8% |
| Alpine | No clear trend | -65.3% | 0.0 | 0.078 | 4.2% |
Showing 58 of 58 counties · 28.6% of all county-month observations were suppressed (1,195 of 4,176).
County trends were estimated using monthly interval-censored Negative Binomial models with year-specific senior-population exposure. Statistical significance was corrected across all 58 county tests using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure.
Reported levels should not be ranked or interpreted as comparative prevalence. Tables may be sorted for navigation, but a sorted table is not a ranking of true elder financial abuse.
A rising number of reported allegations may reflect increased awareness, mandated-reporter training, referral-pathway changes, senior population growth, or a change in exploitation itself. These data cannot distinguish between those explanations.