The Front Lines of Protection: APS Workers Bridging Gaps Across Ages and Systems

Interviews with the Kansas Protection Report Center and Madison County, Ohio Protective Services

By Kendra Kuehn, NAPSA

May 2026

The establishment of federal adult protective services (APS) regulations and data collection has increased efforts to bring consistency to state and local programs across the country. However, APS programs must still contend with unique challenges ranging from geography and population density to resources and funding changes. In many APS programs, staff work in additional areas such as an APS investigator serving as backup support to their child protective services (CPS) colleagues. In this blog post, three assistant program administrators from Kansas’ APS intake and an APS investigator from Ohio share how they serve programs beyond APS and the changes they have seen over their careers.

Kansas’ Protection Report Center: Covering All Ages 
 

Kansas APS is in the Prevention and Protection Services Division of the Kansas Department for Children and Families. Within the division, the staff at the Kansas Protection Report Center (PRC) receive and screen reports of child or adult abuse and neglect. Assistant program administrators Frances and Jill and program administrator Jennifer shared how they work with 76 screeners covering reports across the lifespan 24 hours a day. At the PRC, staff are split into teams by mode of reporting (phone, fax, or online) and manage all reports, from children through older adults. While staff receive six weeks of initial hands-on training as well as ongoing training, working with a variety of reports and system nuances takes skill and support. The staff highlighted the importance of developing and using guide materials to structure the decisions made during the screening and intake process. These resources are especially helpful for differences between programs such as eligibility requirements. For example, while children are assumed to be vulnerable based on age, there are more requirements to determine vulnerability for adults, and written step-by-step processes have helped staff make consistent determinations. Jill explained these clear procedures have helped the intake staff ask critical probing questions while working through many different decision points. 

Despite different rules and regulations between CPS and APS, Frances noted that the overall concepts are similar. Regardless of age, screeners are looking at safety, risk, and current supports and gaps, using questions that solicit necessary information rather than a straight yes or no question. All programs require significant tracking and data gathering. The data helps PRC to identify trends, inform decision-making, and guide improvements. Frances described how the PRC uses data to understand daily call volume and weekly call estimates for resource planning. For example, the volume of CPS reports generally follows the school year, with fewer reports during school breaks and an increase when children return to school. But APS referrals are more consistent throughout the year, so in the summer months the intake staff knows that APS reports will increase in proportion to CPS reports. Data are also showing a greater increase annually in APS reports, particularly in financial exploitation, than CPS reports. The older adult population in Kansas is increasing faster than the younger adult population with a similar increase in the proportion of APS referrals.

Between them, Frances, Jill, and Jennifer have over 50 years of experience. They shared the major changes they have seen including automatic call recordings, technology shifts, and variations in practice philosophy. These changes have had positive impacts but also created challenges. The use of electronic web-based reporting brought challenges of incomplete information in referrals to both CPS and APS without the ability to ask more nuanced, probing questions as can be done on the phone. Jill noted by looking at the overall trends in what data is missing, they are able to adjust the form for better reporting. Jennifer felt that there has been a positive shift in the field to capturing an adult or family’s strengths for building a supportive plan rather than a punitive one. The shift has helped build stronger relationships from the beginning of the state’s involvement. The PRC workers are passionate about building a strong intake process, regardless of whether the alleged victim is a minor or an adult.

Building Relationships in Madison County, Ohio
 

While APS in Kansas is administered through the state-level department, Ohio is administered at the county level. With 88 counties ranging in population from 13,000 in Vinton County to 1.3 million in Franklin County, local APS program structure and size can vary. Madison County is a middle-sized, mostly rural county with 47,000 people. As the sole APS investigator, Kelsey noted she does everything except screen the calls and supervise herself. While most of her time is spent in APS, she provides backup when needed for CPS. In rare cases, this can be challenging when a family is involved with both CPS and APS, and investigators must be conscious of boundaries.

Like the Kansas administrators, Kelsey has found that there are similarities and skills that translate between the two programs. CPS de-escalation methods are useful when APS visits and conversations become confrontational. De-escalation skills have been particularly critical in rural areas that may have limited emergency assistance available. Most importantly, she has identified building connections and partnerships as key. A consistently updated resource directory has helped Kelsey build relationships with adults who are reluctant to participate in an investigation but may be open to an informal connection that may build into more engagement. 
 

As the only dedicated APS worker for Madison County, building partnerships through the Ohio Interdisciplinary Teams and statewide APS conference was essential for learning new resources, building ideas, and connecting with others with a different perspective. As part of an office with limited staff, learning new resources and building connections to other similar counties is essential to her success. 

Sharing Support Never Stops
 

Despite their geographic and operational differences, all staff highlighted the importance of continuing to learn and being open to new ideas. This might look like engaging in cross-training with other departments or embracing a simple solution sparked by a multidisciplinary team discussion, such as door alarms for older adults who wander. Sharing stories of challenges and potential resources is a positive outcome regardless of the department. And all staff noted the importance of supporting each other and reaching out for help. In Kansas, Frances felt that while workers are only one person, they often feel they carry the weight of the world. Her goal as an administrator is to make sure they feel supported and know that they are not alone. Kelsey emphasized that in Ohio’s small counties finding support in partner departments and agencies is key. Whether you operate solely within APS or work under several different programs, you should consider how your team supports each other or how they go about building relationships. You may learn something new!


 

The APS Blog is updated regularly with posts from contributing authors and new publications from the APS TARC.

How did we do? Take our quick customer satisfaction survey to give us feedback.