Q28 Figure 36 – Principals’ reasons for having more than one FEPOA 37% 35% 33% 25% 19% 9% 3% You have different FEPOAs for different decisions In case one of Because you You have To cover the original were advised to different multiple states / appointed by a legal / FEPOAs for territories across decision-makers financial different Australia can no longer professional appointed perform the role decision-makers Other Not sure Q.28. Why do you have more than one FEPOA? Please select all that apply. Base: Principals who had more than one FEPOA n=128 Q31 Spouses and children are most likely to be appointed as decision-makers with two in five principals appointing their spouse/partner (41%) and one in three appointing their child/ren (32%). Figure 37 – Who are appointed decision-maker(s)? 41% 32% 22% 14% 13% 4% Spouse / partner Child Friend Legal professional Other relative (e.g. brother, niece) Other Q.31. Who is / are your appointed decision-maker(s)? Base: All principals n=537 The data revealed that principals were influenced by many factors when deciding who to appoint as their decision-maker(s). Nine in ten principals (90%) reported considering whether the person was trustworthy. A similar portion thought about whether the person would listen to, respect and act on their wishes (89%) or was willing to take on the role with all its responsibilities (89%). Two in three (65%) also took into account whether the person would inherit something from them when they passed. Past research has found that an appointed decision-maker who is experiencing personal difficulties such as issues with alcohol, drugs, gambling, mental health or physical health; or financial, work, family or personal problems, is more likely to perpetrate elder abuse.9 However, the data revealed that only three in ten principals (31%) considered whether their prospective decision-maker was experiencing personal difficulties before appointing them. Chapter : 7 Principal and appointed decision-maker considerations and experiences 45