A Problem-Solving Court for Crimes Against Older Adults

Abstract

The growth of the older adult population, their wealth accumulation, and vulnerabilities from aging have contributed to increasing rates of abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation. However, the current responses and services are fragmented and ineffectual. This paper develops a novel strategy for addressing the variation in response and victim service provision through the development of a problem-solving court that is informed by the principles of restorative justice. Given the unique challenges, cases, and population, a problem-solving court for crimes against older adults will provide tailored interventions, responses, and sanctions while ensuring that older adult victims and their communities are at the center of the criminal justice process and that their needs are prioritized. Research on problem-solving courts; restorative justice; and older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation are integrated with data from a case study of older adult financial exploitation in a large retirement community to develop the model problem-solving court. Consistent with best practices in victim services, the model court will provide comprehensive services in a one-stop location, while simultaneously increasing accountability for offenders who prey on this vulnerable population. The paper concludes with a plan to guide the implementation and evaluation of the proposed model problem-solving court for older adult abuse, fraud, and exploitation.

1. Introduction

Older adults are the fastest-growing segment of the United States population. According to the United States Census Bureau, by 2030, the number of Americans over age 65 will be greater than 71 million, an increase of nearly 30% in just 10 years. This current generation of older adults is wealthier than preceding generations, controlling 70% of the invested wealth and nearly USD 10 trillion in home equity wealth in the United States (Brandon 2008; Kaul and Zhu 2021). In addition, age-restricted active-living retirement communities are projected to continue their rapid growth. According to market research reports, the active-living retirement community market size is estimated to reach USD 805 billion by 2030 (Grand View Research 2022). While the exact numbers of these communities are not available, they are numerous and widespread in the United States. Moreover, the combined population growth, wealth concentration, and vulnerabilities have contributed to increasing rates of abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation among older Americans (Acierno et al. 2010; Morgan and Mason 2014; Nelsen and Huff-Corzine 1998; Yon et al. 2017), with studies showing that older adults are more vulnerable to some forms of crime than are younger adults (AARP 1996; Johnston 2025). For multiple reasons, older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation are vastly underreported to authorities. Older adult victims can also experience more severe impacts than younger victims of similar crimes and may be less able to recover financially, physically, and emotionally (Burnett et al. 2017; Lachs et al. 1998; Rabiner et al. 2008; USOVC 2018; Ziminski and Rempusheski 2014). Older adults may not realize they have been victimized, are embarrassed, feel that nothing or little can be done, or fear losing their independent living arrangements if they report the incident(s) (Brancale and Blomberg 2022; Liepert et al. 2019; Morgan and Tapp 2024; Parti and Tahir 2023; Van de Weijer et al. 2019). In addition, many cases of physical and financial abuse are perpetrated by close family or friends and caretakers (Jackson 2016). The nature and closeness of the relationship between victims and offenders can further reduce the likelihood of reporting because the victims do not want to get their loved one(s) in trouble or may be reliant on them. Even if the older adult wishes to report, the victims often do not know where or how to report incidents or whom to speak with for support (Blomberg et al. 2016; Brancale and Blomberg 2022). Further, cases may be difficult to investigate or prosecute due to jurisdictional limitations, and some may be considered domestic or civil matters rather than criminal acts. The current responses and services vary widely and are often uncoordinated and fragmented. These responses and services are frequently based on local prosecution and law enforcement priorities, disparities in public resource allocation, and variations in the quantity and quality of available victim services. These factors have resulted in the dominant response to address older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation remaining focused on prevention through education (Brancale and Blomberg 2024).

Employing a restorative justice framework, we propose that an effective strategy for addressing the variation and disparities in response and service provision to older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation is to examine and apply aspects of problem-solving courts that were designed to address similarly unique challenges, cases, and populations. Recognizing the need to address crimes against this special population, some states have enacted laws that provide for enhanced sanctions for crimes against older adults (Brancale and Blomberg 2024). But no jurisdiction to date has developed a problem-solving court that will address the multi-dimensional needs of older adult victims or that target their perpetrators.

Restorative justice principles focus upon practices such as offender accountability, victim–offender reconciliation, mediation, restitution, acknowledgment of victims’ experiences, and victims’ involvement in the criminal justice process. When integrated into a problem-solving court; the response; victim support; and prevention of the growing social problem of older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation can be enhanced. Specifically, a specialized court will ensure more consistent responses to offenders by increasing the number of cases that are investigated by law enforcement, pursued by prosecutors, and heard by judges. Sanctions and restitution will be ensured and, importantly, the court will provide the infrastructure and ability for comprehensive services for victims in an easy-to-navigate one-stop location. For decades, scholars have indicated that comprehensive victim services should be provided in a one-stop location by trained personnel (Blomberg et al. 1989, 2002). More recently, similar calls have been made regarding older adult victims. Specifically, providing services to older adult victims of abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation has been identified in the literature as a major need and for this population in particular, the need for easy reporting and navigation is evident (Blomberg et al. 2016; Brancale and Blomberg 2022; Brancale et al. 2024; Gill 2022).

This paper reviews the literature on problem-solving courts, detailing how they are designed to target specific and, oftentimes, unique crimes and populations and identifies their tailored responses to offenders and specialized services for victims. The paper then aligns these specialized court models with prior research on older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation to identify types of perpetrators, methods of response, and the needs of victims. The paper also draws from the findings of a case study conducted by the authors in 2016 on older adult fraud and financial exploitation in America’s largest retirement community (Blomberg et al. 2016). The results of the literature reviews and the case study are used to inform and frame the development of a model problem-solving court specifically designed to meet the needs of older adults and their communities that are targeted for and experiencing abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation by increasing reporting, improving family relationships, and providing comprehensive services for victims while also increasing accountability for offenders who prey on this vulnerable population.

The paper concludes with a comprehensive plan to guide the implementation and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed model problem-solving court. This includes an ongoing process evaluation of the court’s operations and practices to determine offender and victim outcomes. The evaluation plan is critical for validating court and victim service strategies and can assist jurisdictions with implementation and replication. Ultimately, we argue that the growing older adult population, their lifetime accumulation of wealth, and their unique vulnerabilities resulting from age-graded social, physical, and cognitive transitions result in unique instances of crime that require a targeted and tailored response that addresses the needs of victims and holds offenders accountable.

2. Conceptual Framework/Guiding Principles

Restorative justice principles emphasize practices such as offender accountability, victim–offender reconciliation, mediation, restitution, acknowledgment of the victim’s experiences, and the victim’s involvement in the criminal justice process (Kimbrell et al. 2022; Umbreit and Armour 2010; Bazemore and Umbreit 1995). These practices and underlying principles can be traced from ancient and indigenous societies (Braithwaite 2002), which include Celtic reconciliation within clans, the Suhla, and the Pushtoon Nanate, which were rooted in the idea that crimes are committed against an individual, not the state. These traditional community justice methods emphasized community participation in their justice systems, included the victim in the process, and often focused on reconciliation between the community members who were offenders and victims (Braithwaite 2002; Vanfraechem et al. 2015; Van Ness and Strong 2006).

Modern restorative justice practices in North America are often credited to the establishment of a victim–offender reconciliation program in 1974 in an Ontario, Canada court (Braithwaite 2002; Peachey 1989). For the next several decades, victim–offender reconciliation programs grew throughout North America (Gonzalez 2020; Umbreit 1998). Today, aspects of restorative justice practices are used throughout the United States’ criminal justice system. For instance, juvenile justice and school delinquency programs often employ these practices to address minor delinquency offenses, focusing on victim–offender mediation and reconciliation (Gonzalez 2020; Bazemore 2001). Restorative justice can also be found in correctional reentry programs and community-based crime prevention, and intervention programs (Gaffney et al. 2024; Bazemore 2001; Bouffard et al. 2016). Ultimately, restorative justice provides a foundation for victim- and community-centered approaches to justice, including victim participation in the criminal justice process (Fulham et al. 2023; Nascimento et al. 2023; Maryfield et al. 2020; Braithwaite 2002).

Research on the effectiveness of restorative justice programs at reducing recidivism, ensuring offender compliance with court-mandated sanctions, and improving victim satisfaction is mixed with less support for offender outcomes but more support for victim satisfaction. Early meta-analyses conducted on juvenile victim–offender mediation programs and the use of family group conferencing programs found some reduction in recidivism (Bradshaw and Roseborough 2005; Maryfield et al. 2020; Nugent et al. 1999). However, a meta-analysis and several other studies have found higher restitution compliance rates and higher victim satisfaction rates (Latimer et al. 2005; Fulham et al. 2023; Nascimento et al. 2023). A more recent 2022 meta-analysis that included 79 evaluations and 57 unique studies of various restorative justice practices in the juvenile justice system found only a small to moderate impact on delinquency reduction. However, the study also found positive results regarding how these restorative justice programs impacted victim and participant satisfaction and sense of fairness. In 2017, Wilson, Olaghere, and Kimbrell’s meta-analysis on juvenile restorative justice practices found that studies with stronger research designs, such as randomized controlled trials, found less of an impact on offender outcomes. These findings are consistent with the principles of restorative justice practices (Kimbrell et al. 2022).

Several other meta-analyses have been conducted that reviewed studies on both juvenile and adult populations. These meta-analyses included a wider range of restorative justice programs such as restorative justice conferencing, restorative diversion programs, family/group conferencing, restitution, and impact panels. Again, the findings and impacts were mixed: while some found a reduction in recidivism for offenders, most also found increased victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process (Fulham et al. 2023; Wilson et al. 2017; Wong et al. 2016; Livingstone et al. 2013; Strang et al. 2013; Bonta et al. 2006).

Embedding some restorative justice principles into the framework of a problem-solving court for crimes against older adults can assist in facilitating the establishment of a model court designed to target the growing problem of the abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation of older adults. Importantly, using restorative justice principles will allow a voice for older adult victims in the criminal justice system. Further, locating these courts in jurisdictions with large concentrations of older adults will enable greater community input into the court processes, enhance community efficacy, and facilitate more comprehensive victim services. Overall, these guiding principles focus on offender accountability, allow for the ability of victims to express their concerns, and, when appropriate, provide for victim–offender mediation. Under these principles, the court can serve as a community focal point that provides support for victims and those targeted, and increases awareness and education efforts, which ultimately can increase community safety and efficacy. Importantly, this framework will allow for the provision of comprehensive services aimed at the needs of older adult victims.

3. Crimes Against Older Adults and the Need for Offender Accountability and Victim Services

3.1. Definition and Prevalence of the Problem

Definitions of older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation vary widely. The WHO (2021) defines older adult 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”. The APRI (2003) definition provides more specificity: “…in general, an incident that involves at least one of the following elements: an intentional act or attempt to inflict physical or psychological harm, non-consensual sexual contact, illegal or inappropriate use or taking of an individual’s assets or property, or failure to provide for satisfying a person’s basic life needs (i.e., food, care, housing, medical attention, or other necessities)”. There is also significant variation in the statutory or legal definitions of older adult abuse and financial exploitation used by the United States federal government and individual states (see Brancale and Blomberg 2024). The inconsistency in definitions is one factor that has significantly hindered researchers’ ability to establish meaningful and accurate prevalence estimates. However, although prevalence rates of various types of abuse have yet to be determined, it is likely that the incidence of abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation are increasing along with the growing population of older adults (Acierno et al. 2010; Burnes et al. 2017; Morgan and Mason 2014; USOVC 2021; Yon et al. 2017; Patel et al. 2021). The best available estimates indicate that approximately 10% of adults aged 60 and older experienced some form of abuse (e.g., financial, physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect) in the past year in the United States, with the most common being financial abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, in that order (Acierno et al. 2010).

In fact, financial fraud and exploitation are the most common forms of self-reported abuse by older adults (Burnett et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2020). Older adults are vulnerable and targeted more frequently than younger adults for some forms of financial fraud and exploitation. In particular, those perpetrating scams involving telemarketing, charitable donation, real estate, automobile/home repair, lottery/sweepstakes, government impersonation, robocalls, and healthcare are likely to specifically target older adults (AARP 1996; Johnston 2025).

According to the USOVC (2018), in 2015 (the last year for which these data are available) the rate of violent victimization of people aged 65 and older was 5.2 per 1000. Importantly, only 45% of the violent victimizations committed against persons aged 65 and older were reported to law enforcement, and 51% involved victims who did not know their perpetrator. Employing data from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Rosay and Mulford (2017), found that 14% of older adults aged 70 and older experienced some form of abuse within the prior year (1.7% experienced physical abuse and 12.1% experienced psychological abuse). In nearly a quarter of the cases, intimate partners were identified as perpetrators. Williams et al. (2020) reported similar prevalence estimates from data from the National Elder Mistreatment Study, with 12.4% of adults aged 60 and older experiencing some form of abuse in the prior year (with financial exploitation the most frequently reported).

It is important to note that in addition to the inconsistent definitions of these crimes, there are significant limitations in official statistics and self-reported survey data. This means available prevalence estimates likely substantially underestimate the true rate of occurrence. Studies have shown that crimes against older adults are vastly underreported to authorities, with only 1 out of every 24 cases coming to the attention of adult protective services or law enforcement (Burnett et al. 2017; Jackson and Hafemeister 2011; Lachs and Berman 2011).

3.2. Consequences

The consequences of victimization impacting older adults, whether the cases are reported or not, are often more severe and longer-lasting relative to similar victimization impacting younger adults (Burnett et al. 2017; Lachs et al. 1998). Older adults are less able to recoup financial losses and/or recover physically or emotionally (Rabiner et al. 2008; USOVC 2018; Ziminski and Rempusheski 2014). Victimization of any form can accelerate the rate, and increase the risk of, physical illnesses and the likelihood of hospitalizations, and triple the risk of premature death (Dong et al. 2009; Dong and Simon 2013; Lachs et al. 1998). Brancale (2017) found that financial exploitation led many older adults to experience regular and chronic chest pains that were due to stress and anxiety associated with their victimization. Victimization can also negatively impact older adults’ emotional well-being and sense of self-efficacy (Brancale and Blomberg 2022). For example, Blomberg et al. (2016, p. 53) interviewed residents of a large Florida retirement community and found that older adults who experienced financial exploitation regularly reported feeling “lost”, “hopeless”, and “helpless” after being victimized.

3.3. Risk Factors

The rapidly growing population of older adults, declines in physical and mental capabilities, and other commonly experienced age-related life changes, coupled with perceptions of their wealth and vulnerability, have contributed to the older adult population becoming an expanding target for abuse and exploitation (Burns et al. 2017; Deane 2018). Although aging alone does not equate to vulnerability, certain cognitive, physical, social, emotional, and psychological circumstances associated with aging have been identified as risk factors (Acierno et al. 2010; Axelrod et al. 2020; Kemp and Mosqueda 2005; Johannesen and LoGiudice 2013; Pinsker et al. 2010; Wilber and Reynolds 2010). For example, age-related cognitive declines have been correlated with the financial exploitation of older adults (James et al. 2014). Notably, reduced cognition predicted increased susceptibility to fraud by contributing to declines in financial decision-making abilities (Boyle et al. 2012; James et al. 2014).

Correlations between abuse and older adults’ social bonds have also been identified. Specifically, the strength and type of support from older adults’ friend and family networks are strong correlates for victimization. For example, DeLiema (2018) found that isolation and the lack of a trustworthy network of friends or family best distinguished older adults who had been defrauded from those who had not. Similarly, Beach et al. (2018) found that older adults who felt they had low social support were more likely to experience financial exploitation. In addition, older adults who experience major life transitions, such as widowhood, are likely to encounter emotional struggles as they adjust to their new life and circumstances, increasing vulnerability.

Loneliness and social isolation are also risk factors for multiple forms of abuse (Alves and Wilson 2008; Lee and Geistfeld 1999). Social isolation has been identified as both a risk factor and a tactic used by perpetrators to exert control (Quinn 2000). Older adults who do not have social support networks, or who are isolated, are at an increased risk of being taken advantage of or unduly influenced (Quinn 2000). Undue influence occurs when a person uses their role or power to exploit the trust, dependency, and fear of another person and is often accompanied by fraud, duress, threats, or pressure (Quinn et al. 2017).

Many of the identified risk factors involve routine and normative age-graded life events (Elder 1994, 1998). While all older adults will experience many normative life transitions, not all fall victim. Avoiding abuse and financial exploitation can depend on a person’s ability to successfully navigate complex social dynamics (Spreng et al. 2016). If an older adult is experiencing physical, cognitive, emotional, or social changes and challenges, they may have decreased confidence in their abilities or perceptions of situations, be unable to make informed decisions, or be unable to detect distrustful or misleading people, all of which increase the risk for victimization (Brancale and Blomberg 2022; Castle et al. 2012; Rabiner et al. 2005). Moreover, older adults tend to have higher levels of trust toward strangers and a lower ability to detect deception than do younger adults, which may increase their risk for various forms of victimization (Castle et al. 2012; Ruffman et al. 2012).

Apart from individual-level risk factors, community-level factors may also increase risk. An older adult’s community may play a role in their behaviors, experiences, and perceptions of victimization risk. Hindelang et al. (1978) argued that as a person ages, their general fear of crime increases. This increase in fear, coupled with age-related declines in mobility, may result in stronger feelings of attachment to communities (Gilleard et al. 2007). Further, some research has found that older adults who live in age-homogeneous communities fear crime less than those who do not (Akers et al. 1987; Clarke and Lewis 1982). Despite these factors, very little research has assessed the role of community-level factors in older adult victimization. Policastro and Payne (2015) surveyed 1257 Virginia residents about their experiences with telemarketing fraud targeting and victimization. The study assessed individual-level correlates and perceptions of neighborhood disorder and concluded that a high level of neighborhood disorder was strongly correlated with telemarketing fraud targeting and victimization.

Brancale et al. (2024) explored the role of living in a retirement community on older adults’ perceived risk and experiences with financial exploitation. Employing the routine activity theory, the authors found that retirement community residents perceived financial exploitation targeting and victimization to be pervasive in the retirement community. Most began to experience targeting immediately after moving to the retirement community and much more frequently than where they lived prior. Given what is known about the spatial variation and clustering of crime, and because older adults are likely to be perceived as vulnerable and directly targeted for certain crimes, there are some areas that may be more conducive to various forms of abuse and financial exploitation. For example, since active-living retirement communities can be costly, they tend to attract middle- to upper-middle-class residents—whose perceived wealth can, in turn, motivate offenders (Burns et al. 2017; Brancale et al. 2024).

3.4. Offender Characteristics and Sanctions

There is a significant lack of research on the perpetrators of older adult abuse and the associated justice system response or imposed sanctions (Payne and Strasser 2012; Jackson et al. 2024). Of the limited available research, the focus has been less on understanding the characteristics of those who victimize older adults and more on the relationship between victims and offenders. In general, research has found that physical and sexual abuses are generally perpetrated by offenders who are acquainted with or related to the victim in some capacity (e.g., romantic partners, children, and caregivers). However, it is important to note that for incidents of fraud and financial exploitation, about half of all offenses are perpetrated by family members/close friends and half by strangers.

Studies by Jackson and Hafemeister (2011), Jackson (2016), and Jackson et al. (2024) identified several characteristics associated with perpetrators of older adult abuse outside of relationship-specific factors. Perpetrators of older adult abuse tend to be middle-aged, childless, without a high school diploma, unemployed, male, have histories of substance use, and are dependent upon the older adult financially.

3.5. Current Response

As the rates of abuse and victimization of older adults have been increasing, policymakers, practitioners, and the public have begun to take notice and call for action to address this growing social problem (APRI 2003; Brancale and Blomberg 2024). However, formal responses have been fragmented, uncoordinated, and inconsistently implemented across the country. This attention, albeit sporadic, has resulted in several federal funding initiatives, the establishment of government agencies designed to provide services to victims and conduct educational outreach, and the incremental criminalization of some forms of abuse and exploitative behavior (Brancale and Blomberg 2024). However, the dominant response to older adult abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation has been focused on increasing awareness and providing education through public outreach campaigns initiated by both government agencies and private organizations.

Many states have centralized systems for the reporting of older adult abuse and exploitation; however, service provision is often relegated to local cities or counties and is largely dependent upon the type of victimization and whether the incident was reported to law enforcement and is being pursued by the justice system. Given that most incidents are not reported, and the difficulty associated with investigation and prosecution, there is inadequate support being provided to victims of older adult abuse and exploitation and little accountability for offenders. These limitations, combined with the growing older adult population, highlight a need for a more coordinated reporting, response, and service provision model, which we contend can be provided through the development of a problem-solving court.

4. Problem-Solving Courts

4.1. Goals and Operations

Problem-solving courts provide an alternative to traditional criminal court processing and sanctions that focus on underlying problems to address offenders’ criminal behavior, such as substance abuse or mental health. The first problem-solving court in the United States was a drug court founded in Miami, Florida, in 1989, established during the “war on drugs” at a time when drug crimes were prevalent, and Miami, with its known drug smuggling and trafficking industry, was at the center of this epidemic (Goldkamp 1999). The court was established to address drug addiction among its participants and employed a courtroom-based treatment model focused on referrals for detoxification, substance use treatment/counseling, and educational/vocational training.

Soon after the establishment of the Miami court, drug courts proliferated throughout the United States, fueled by the 1994 passage of the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which authorized and provided funding for their replication. Other problem-solving courts soon followed and included mental health, domestic violence, veteran, tribal wellness, and family courts, as well as more niche courts such as hybrid family drug courts and DUI/drug courts (DeVall et al. 2022; Berman and Feinblatt 2001; Pratt and Turnovic 2019). According to a 2023 national survey of “treatment courts,” 4255 treatment courts were operating in the United States (NTCRC 2024). An earlier 2012 census of problem-solving courts found 3052 such courts, with drug courts being the most predominant, followed by mental health and family courts (Strong et al. 2016).

Problem-solving courts operating today differ from traditional criminal courts because they are focused on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. Rather than a legal/adversarial system, they often use a collaborative and therapeutic approach involving legal personnel, social workers, case managers, counselors, treatment providers, and victims (Mitchell et al. 2012; Berman and Feinblatt 2001). These courts typically admit cases through a plea agreement where participants accept the conditions of the problem-solving court in lieu of facing charges in a traditional criminal court (Mitchell et al. 2012). This is sometimes implemented through suspended sentencing or diversion methods, where more formal sanctions are imposed if the participant fails to complete the alternative sanctions offered through the problem-solving court, such as drug treatment or therapy (Berman and Feinblatt 2001). These courts are often focused on methods of community-based rehabilitation and therapeutic jurisprudence achieved through the regular monitoring and reviewing of participants’ performance (Berman and Feinblatt 2001; Logan and Link 2019).

Under some specific problem-solving courts, such as domestic violence, family, and mental health, victims are heavily involved in the courts’ processes and determination of sanctions. For example, in their National Institute of Justice-funded national assessment of domestic violence courts, Labriola et al. (2009) identified 208 such courts in 2009. Through surveys and selected site visits, the authors categorized the primary goals of the court as victim safety, offender accountability, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the administration of justice. Common victim services included victim advocacy, protection orders, safety planning, assistance with the criminal justice process, housing referrals, counseling, and facilitating prosecution (Labriola et al. 2009).

Problem-solving courts typically have specific offender/participant eligibility requirements and processes. With the exception of domestic violence, most problem-solving courts do not accept participants with histories of violent offenses, and drug courts often identify participants who have been diagnosed with substance use disorders, and conduct additional screening and assessments related to risk and treatment. Potential participants may also be required to have the means to participate in the specific drug court program (such as transportation), and they must volunteer to participate (often involving a plea). In domestic violence courts, offenders are often required to accept responsibility for their behavior, demonstrate a willingness to change, and cannot be repeat offenders. In addition, it may be necessary for victims to agree to move the case to the problem-solving court.

Table 1. Problem-solving court’s offender sanctions and victim services.

Unique Sanctions	Victims Services
Deferred prosecution/suspended sentence/diversion Mandatory substance abuse treatment Drug and alcohol testing Driving restrictions Regular court appearances Mandatory treatment/counseling Mandatory educational/vocational training Community service Probation Restitution Offender–victim mediation No contact orders Offender monitoring Letters of apology from offenders	Victim advocacy Safety planning Temporary shelter Restitution Offender–victim mediation No contact orders Defendant monitoring Assignment of guardianship Letters of apology from offenders Restorative justice panels Education and awareness Peacemaking circles

lists some of the unique sanctions imposed on offenders and services provided to victims by the problem-solving court.

4.2. Impact and Effectiveness

Problem-solving courts have had a wide range of impacts on offenders, victims, and the broader criminal justice system. Since their emergence in the 1990s and early 2000s, they have garnered considerable attention with their promise to provide an effective alternative to traditional court sanctions. This has resulted in hundreds of research studies and evaluations assessing their effectiveness. Although much of the prior evaluation research shows outcomes such as a reduction in recidivism to be mixed, some studies find evidence that problem-solving courts produce better outcomes for offenders when compared with traditional criminal courts.

Logan and Link (2019) summarized seven meta-analyses on drug courts, and although the results varied, they concluded that drug courts had a positive effect on reducing recidivism. They also identified wide variation across the country in how drug courts were implemented and operated, which has likely contributed to the inconsistency in the results. Varying practices include assessment, treatment provision, and the judges’ style and priorities.

Other research finds that juvenile drug courts may not be as effective as their adult counterparts. In their systematic review and meta-analysis of juvenile drug treatment courts, Tanner-Smith et al. (2023) found modest reductions in recidivism, but only during program treatment. Minimal to no effects on recidivism were found post-program. The researchers note that poor implementation may have impacted the courts’ outcomes. This is consistent with other recent findings that found juvenile drug courts to be either less or no more effective than either traditional juvenile courts or adult drug treatment courts (Stein et al. 2015; Mitchell et al. 2012; Shaffer 2006; Tanner-Smith et al. 2016).

Mental health and domestic violence courts operate under the same philosophy as drug courts, but focus on different underlying conditions and outcomes. Two recent meta-analyses that included a combined 45 studies on mental health courts concluded that these courts were effective at reducing recidivism among participant offenders with mental health disorders (Jalain et al. 2024; Fox et al. 2021). Regarding domestic violence courts, Gutierrez and colleagues found positive but mixed results in their meta-analysis of 20 previous studies. Although their research shows a positive impact on reducing recidivism as well as domestic violence recidivism, they question the quality and rigor of some of the previous studies included in their analysis. The authors found that the fidelity of risk–need–response principles in some of the court’s programs was low and may have negatively impacted results (Gutierrez et al. 2016).

Given their more balanced and treatment-oriented approach, problem-solving courts may also be in a better position than traditional criminal courts to impact the lives of victims. However, despite the wealth of evaluations conducted on drug courts and other problem-solving courts, surprisingly, far less research and evaluation have examined these courts’ impacts on victims. A few exceptions include adolescent victims of commercial sexual exploitation (Godoy et al. 2023), child dependency (Casanueva et al. 2013), and domestic violence (Camacho and Alarid 2008; Coulter et al. 2005; Gover et al. 2007; Anderson 2014; Brame et al. 2015). Although not as much is known about problem-solving courts that focus on human trafficking, they represent a unique approach in that one of their primary goals is to focus efforts and services on victims. A recent meta-analysis of 29 courts found an increase in referrals to specialty services for trafficked victims (Godoy et al. 2023). Casanueva also found increased benefits for child well-being in the Miami Child Well-Being Court (Casanueva et al. 2013). Research on domestic violence courts also generally found some improved outcomes for victims, including enhanced victim safety, reduced contact between offenders and victims, enhanced awareness of court proceedings and no-contact orders, increased cooperation with the courts, and higher satisfaction with the court process and dispositions (Camacho and Alarid 2008; Gover et al. 2007; Brame et al. 2015).

Concerns about problem-solving courts include possible net-widening, weakening of due process, and limited offender punishment (Bowen and Whitehead 2015; Collins 2021). However, given the overall documented impact that problem-solving courts have had on some specific and targeted groups of offenders and victims, we apply their general goals, practices, and processes and integrate them with the principles of restorative justice to develop a model problem-solving court focused upon older adult abuse, fraud, and exploitation.

5. Identification of a Specialized Court Model for Crimes Against Older Adults

The goals of the model court for crimes against older adults are to (1) increase reporting; (2) hold offenders of these crimes accountable; (3) mitigate the harm to victims and their communities; and (4) prevent the abuse, fraud, and exploitation of older adults. When placed in jurisdictions where significant concentrations of older adults live (e.g., near large active living retirement communities), the court will serve as a community hub for deterrence, prevention, and victim support. Overall, the court will target offenders of both criminal and civil offenses perpetrated against older adults, ensure comprehensive victim services, disseminate community-wide education, and host prevention and support programs.

5.1. Court Cases

The model problem-solving court for crimes against older adults will hear, process, and provide victim services for several types of cases, including both criminal and civil, involving abuse (both physical and psychological), fraud, financial exploitation of older adults, and crimes that specifically target the victim because of their age. Civil cases may include complaints of pressure sales, false or fabricated advertising, and misleading investments. For example, research has found that older adults are targeted more for and more susceptible to purchasing large, unnecessary items such as vehicles, or they may make investments that will not mature until long after their expected lifetimes (Blomberg et al. 2016). Civil proceedings in the problem-solving court will address fraudulent services and contract disputes, including those related to home improvement and repair; landscaping; and medical, dental, and other service provision areas. For example, contractors may accept upfront payments for home repairs or landscaping and neglect to complete the promised work. Marginalized and ineffective medical and dental services have been known to target and prey upon older adults who are experiencing chronic pain and health problems (Blomberg et al. 2016). The model court will also hear criminal complaints involving embezzlement, theft, identity theft, forgery, physical abuse, and guardianship.

Table 2. Model court case types.

Offense/Incident	Case Type	Likely Offender Type
Scams	Civil	Stanger
Pressure sales Misleading advertising Fraudulent services Contract disputes	Civil	Business Service Provider
Investment not in the best interest of the client Illegal/Improper management of funds	Civil	Service Provider
Fraud	Criminal	Acquaintance
Embezzlement	Criminal	Relative Caregiver
Identity theft Forgery	Criminal	Relative Caregiver Stranger
Physical abuse	Criminal	Relative Caregiver

lists the likely case types that will be heard and processed by the model court, whether those cases might be criminal or civil, and the likely offender type.

5.2. Offender Sanctions/Treatment

Similarly to other problem-solving courts, the model court for crimes against older adults will hear cases that were referred by the local prosecutor’s office, many of which result from plea negotiations. The participating offenders will agree to abide by the conditions and sanctions set forth by the problem-solving court. For both civil and criminal cases, and consistent with the principles of restorative justice, victim needs and voices will be of central focus. To meet this function of the court, mediation will be a primary feature associated with offender treatment and sanction decisions. Responses will differ based on the type of case (civil vs. criminal), type of offense, characteristics of the offender, and the relationship between the victim and the offender.

Individuals and businesses found liable in civil cases will be required to reimburse the victim for all financial losses and pay a proportional fine to the court. These fines will be used to fund court operations and victim services. Letters of apology and/or advertisements accepting responsibility for fraudulent activities and detailing actions that will be taken to remedy the issue may also be required. This sanction may be particularly relevant for those cases with multiple victims or offenders who have demonstrated a pattern of fraudulent behavior.

Criminal sanctions will be tailored to the characteristics of the offender and the circumstances of the case. Examples of sanctions include the imposition of fines, mandatory victim restitution, and monitoring or probation. Because offenders convicted of crimes against older adults often experience substance use and/or mental health disorders, or in some cases may have gambling addictions, mandatory treatment will also be imposed regularly by the court (Jackson and Hafemeister 2011; Jackson 2016; Jackson et al. 2024). As part of their specific treatment program, offenders will also be required to check in with the court. In addition, many offenders are unemployed, lack a high school diploma, and are financially dependent upon the victim (Jackson and Hafemeister 2011; Jackson 2016; Jackson et al. 2024). In these cases, offenders will be required to attend job training, enroll in educational and financial literacy courses, and seek employment in an effort to reduce their dependency on the victim. Finally, because some cases of financial exploitation are perpetrated through guardianships, the court will also work with state family court judges to remove or restructure harmful guardianship agreements.

Table 3. Model court case types and sanctions.

Case Type	Possible Sanctions
Criminal	Deferred prosecution/suspended sentence Diversion Probation Fines Mandatory treatment/counseling Mandatory educational/vocational training Offender–victim mediation * Community service * Restitution * No contact orders Offender monitoring Regular court appearances Letters of apology *
Civil	Fines Offender–victim mediation * Community service * Restitution * Guardianship Injunctions Settlements * Mandatory compensation * Letters of apology *

* Sanctions informed by restortative justice principles.

provides a list of possible and common sanctions that will be applied to offenders. The sanctions are grouped by criminal and civil cases.

5.3. Victim Services

A unique and defining feature of the problem-solving court for crimes against older adults will be the coordinated and comprehensive services provided to victims, regardless of whether the offender has been charged or the case is pending. This is critical because currently, many victims have fallen through the cracks and do not receive services because of nonreporting, the criminal justice system not pursuing cases, and offenders who are outside of jurisdictional boundaries—in some instances, even outside of the country (Morgan and Tapp 2024; Parti and Tahir 2023). In these instances, although cases and offenders may be outside of the purview of the court, particularly those involving scam-related fraud, and given the demonstrated need for victims, the court proposed here will provide comprehensive victim services regardless of case or offender status. Based on this growing need for prevention and intervention services regarding the abuse, fraud, and exploitation of older adults, a key component of this model problem-solving court is the establishment of a Community Service Center (CSC) that will operate as an annex to the court. The CSC will provide a focal point for the community to address both prevention and victim services by hosting restorative justice-based town hall meetings and providing educational seminars on prevention and support groups for victims.

The CSC will be staffed by professional victim advocates and legal aides trained to work with older adults and their needs. In addition to professional advocates, the CSC will also be staffed by community volunteers, such as retired law enforcement officers, financial planners, university/college interns, medical care providers, financial institutional staff, mental health providers, and other professionals. These retired volunteers will be crucial in sharing information about current scams and fraudulent services with residents. Legal assistance will also be provided through local pro bono work. Research conducted in a large Florida retirement community found an abundance of retired professionals willing to volunteer their time and provide support and assistance to victims of fraud and exploitation (Blomberg et al. 2016). In addition, the CSC should partner with local colleges and universities. Colleges and universities can provide student interns and volunteers who are being trained in fields such as social work, victim services, criminology, and finance. They can also provide opportunities for law students to participate in free legal clinics, and certified legal interns can assist lawyers with pro bono cases and referrals. Training for the CSC staff and volunteers should be informed by research and include older adult risk factors for fraud, exploitation, and abuse. When needed, referrals should be made for counseling and support. Based on the documented needs of older adult victims, Table 3 provides a list of potential services that the CSCs should provide.

Table 4. Model court CSC services.

Victim Services	Community Outreach
Reporting Hotline
Victim Advocacy
Assignment of guardianship
Financial reimbursement or settlement	Educational seminars
Letters of apology from offenders *	Prevention outreach
Restitution *	Town hall meetings *
No contact orders	Information sharing
Mediation *	Support groups *
Safety Planning
Financial Safety Planning
Emergency Recovery Funds
Legal/Court Advocacy
Referral Services *

* Services informed by restorative justice principles.

provides a list of victim services and community outreach activities for the CSC.

For many older adults, the complex and bureaucratic reporting process can be stressful, frustrating, and cause feelings of revictimization (Blomberg et al. 2016). Therefore, it is critical that the CSC hosts a hotline staffed by trained volunteers that older adult victims, concerned parties, and witnesses can call to report victimization and attempts and receive comprehensive guidance for navigating the reporting process. Once reported, the volunteers will assist with investigating complaints and, depending on the case’s legal status, provide referrals and help pursue resolution and restitution. Once referred, needs will be identified based on the nature of the crime, the specifics of the case, and individual circumstances.

In civil cases involving pressure sales, misleading advertising, or fraudulent services, victims will be provided with an advocate who will assist in pursuing financial reimbursement, settlement, or mediation with the business or service provider. Similar services could be provided for contract disputes over home repairs, landscaping, or other service provisions where only partial services were provided after payment, or the services provided did not meet the promised standards. Depending on the extent of financial losses resulting from fraud and the victim’s financial needs, advocates will provide financial safety planning and emergency recovery funds for essentials such as food or rent when needed. Funds will be generated from restitution, court fees, fines paid by offenders, and donations.

In criminal cases, victims of abuse or exploitation, which is often perpetrated by family members or caregivers, will be provided with assistance such as legal advocacy and information on court procedures, safety planning, assistance with enforcement of no-contact orders, advocate representation at mediations, and emergency shelter when necessary. Advocates will support victims throughout any restorative justice procedures, including offender–victim reconciliation and restitution processes. As determined by the advocates, victims will be referred for additional professional services, such as counseling or group support, based on their individual needs.

In addition to individual services tailored to the needs of older adult victims, CSC professionals and volunteers will also support community efforts to prevent abuse, fraud, and exploitation of older adults. The CSC will increase awareness, disseminate information regarding current fraud attempts and scams, and facilitate education efforts aimed at reducing abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation. The CSC will serve as a community center for educational seminars, town hall meetings, and support groups. The CSC will maintain online and print materials to raise awareness of recent fraudulent scams and provide information on where to find support. These community-centered approaches will enhance community efficacy and result in the court and CSC becoming a well-known hub for older adults who have either experienced or are concerned about victimization. Importantly, it is essential to incorporate a translational research and evaluation component to each model problem-solving court for crimes against older adults. This can be facilitated by courts having research and policy partnerships with universities and colleges.

6. Considerations for Implementation and Evaluation

6.1. Targeted Location

To be most effective, problem-solving courts for crimes against older adults should be implemented in areas with large concentrations of older adults. Particular focus will be in or adjacent to large retirement communities. According to the U.S. Census, the areas with the largest populations of older adults are heavily concentrated in Florida. For example, The Villages, which is a large active-living retirement community, is the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the United States, and the only area where more than half of all residents are over age 65. Punta Gorda and Homosassa Springs on the western coast of Florida, in the Tampa metro area, are home to the second and third largest concentrations of older adults in the country, respectively. Other areas with large concentrations of older adults are Prescott and Scottsdale, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; and Portland, Maine. Although the population of adults aged 65 and older has increased in every metro area in the United States (except for one—Eagle Pass, Texas), the U.S. Census reported that five areas have seen the most rapid growth in the past several years (Wilder and Mackun 2024). Areas with the fastest-growing population of older adults include Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; Raleigh, North Carolina; College Station, Texas; and Austin, Texas. These areas saw a 17–23% change in the population of older adults between 2020 and 2023. A problem-solving court located in areas such as these will be especially impactful and successful given their large—and growing—proportion of older adults.

However, this court model is not restricted to large metropolitan areas, or areas with especially large populations of older adults. Further, the establishment of a new problem-solving court will necessarily have associated costs. Without having to allocate a significant amount of resources, smaller jurisdictions can develop a special docket in their existing court structures. These special dockets will occur periodically (e.g., once per week or once per month) and fulfill the same functions as a standalone problem-solving court. Having a specialized docket will ensure that older adult victims from across the country will receive needed services and offenders will be held accountable. In addition, due to the financial nature of many of these types of crimes, court fines and fees should be emphasized, which can then be used to fund the court’s operations.

6.2. Evaluation Model

Given the variation in goals and practices among the thousands of existing problem-solving courts, as well as the extensive research literature on implementation fidelity and the barriers associated with successful program implementation, this section provides an evaluation framework to guide the implementation of the model problem-solving court for crimes against older adults to ensure its longevity and success (Nilsen 2015; Waltz et al. 2019). It is anticipated that adjustments and refinements to the model court will need to be made to accommodate local context and needs. When doing so, the evaluation framework should serve a diagnostic function during implementation to ensure that the court’s goals and target populations are clearly defined, the court’s activities are focused on its intended results and outcomes, and preliminary results are used for feedback and adaptations as needed. Importantly, cost-effectiveness compared to traditional courts and reporting methods should also be included in the evaluation.

As noted earlier, the goals of the model court are to (1) increase reporting; (2) hold offenders of these crimes accountable; (3) mitigate the harm to older adult victims and their communities; and (4) prevent the abuse, fraud, and exploitation of older adults. Figure 1 illustrates the model court’s service delivery model and court logic. It is organized by (1) inputs, (2) activities, (3) immediate results, and (4) longer-term outcomes. As shown, the inputs include the specific goals of the court, needed court staff and resources, and target offender and victim populations. Sanctions and services include likely responses for civil and criminal cases, restorative justice sanctions, specific victim services, and community engagement and outreach. As discussed previously, partnering with local colleges and universities can provide further collaborative benefits, which will include translational research, evaluation services, and the identification of best practices for court and victim services operations.

7. Conclusions

There is a considerable and growing need for a more formal and effective response to older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation. These crimes have been steadily increasing in the United States and are expected to continue along with the rapidly growing population of adults aged 65 and older (Patel et al. 2021). Despite this, prevention efforts and responses have been fragmented, inconsistent, and largely ineffectual, resulting in victimization that is underreported, under-pursued, and under-prosecuted (Morgan and Tapp 2024). Offenders have not been regularly held accountable by the justice system and victims have fallen through the cracks—not receiving needed and necessary services to ensure recovery. In response, we argue that addressing crimes against older adults could be more successfully accomplished through the establishment of a problem-solving court that operates in accordance with restorative justice principles.

To reiterate, the goals of this model problem-solving court are to (1) hold offenders of these crimes accountable; (2) mitigate the harm to victims and their communities; and (3) prevent the abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation of older adults. The documented needs of older adult victims, which include guidance with reporting, social support, and financial and medical recovery assistance, will be at the center of the problem-solving court’s mission. Further, when placed in jurisdictions where significant concentrations of older adults live (e.g., near large active-living retirement communities), the court will serve as a community hub for deterrence, prevention, and victim support. Jurisdictions with smaller concentrations of older adults may consider a specialized docket within their existing court system.

Perpetrators of older adult abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation vary widely and may include family, caregivers, acquaintances, strangers, and even service providers and businesses. Due to underreporting, jurisdictional issues, and ambiguity between criminal and civil cases, offenders are often not pursued or held accountable. Having a court that specializes in these crime types will allow for cases to be referred to this model court, which can increase the resources and likelihood of law enforcement investigation and pursuit, and will likely increase criminal prosecution and civil proceedings. Further, the current practice of providing services to victims is heavily dependent upon whether the incident has been reported to law enforcement and the case is proceeding through the criminal justice system. This practice, coupled with the challenges associated with reporting, has resulted in many older adult victims never receiving services. Regardless of the criminal status of the case, easily accessible, navigable, and comprehensive services are needed for victims and those who have been targeted to address this growing problem adequately.

Employing a restorative justice framework, we argue that a problem-solving court can better target perpetrators of both civil and criminal incidents while simultaneously addressing the multi-dimensional needs of older adult victims and their communities. All older adults experience normative age-graded transitions such as changes to their physical and cognitive health and diminishing personal support networks due to retirement, moving, and the death of relatives and family. These transitions can, in some instances, increase their vulnerability to abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation (Brancale and Blomberg 2022). Providing a CSC with volunteer opportunities, support groups, and community activities can help prevent such instances through education and information dissemination, as well as assisting victims in recovery. These functions of the court can increase resilience and help older adults maintain their self-efficacy (see Brancale and Blomberg 2022). Collectively, the CSC services will seek to decrease the likelihood of revictimization. Paramount to the services provided through the CSC is the establishment of a reporting hotline where residents in the surrounding area can report their victimization, as well as cases of attempted fraud and exploitation.

Importantly, the problem-solving court and the CSC will also serve as a community hub that can deter local perpetrators, knowing that there is an increased likelihood of investigation and prosecution. Further, through the CSC, the community events and activities in prevention, education, and town hall meetings can increase vigilance and neighborhood efficacy by increasing communication, promoting shared goals, and strengthening social control in the community that is focused on reducing the abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation of older adults. Brancale et al. (2024) found that some communities—large retirement communities, in particular—may be emerging as hotspots for fraud and financial exploitation. These areas bring large concentrations of older adults together, who may be seen as vulnerable targets from motivated offenders, and without adequate guardianship or security measures from the community, victimization is likely. When strategically placed in areas with many older adults, the problem-solving court will serve as a needed and capable guardian for the community.

To be most effective, we would argue that the first problem-solving court for crimes against older adults be implemented as a pilot with a strong impact and process evaluation incorporated. A rigorous evaluation during the pilot’s implementation will facilitate adjustments and refinements to the court model as needed to accommodate local context and needs. It will be important to document, if successful, reductions in abuse, fraud, and exploitation; increased reporting and prosecution; decreased recidivism; and victim recovery and satisfaction. Further, it will be important to understand which court and CSC sanctions, services, and activities most contributed to which outcomes, and which may not have resulted in a measurable impact. Research and lessons learned from the pilot and its evaluation can be used to assist with replication in other jurisdictions. Researcher–practitioner partnerships with local colleges and universities can assist the model problem-solving court in accomplishing these goals and can facilitate the translation of research evidence to other courts, both nationally and internationally. Abuse, fraud, and financial exploitation of older adults are significant social problems impacting the largest segment of the United States population, and the current prevention and response efforts are inadequate. The problem-solving court for crimes against older adults will provide a meaningful mechanism for victim recovery and prevention.