HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania’s Department of Aging did not disclose critical information about the quality of county agencies responsible for keeping older adults safe, creating a false impression about how frequently those offices have complied with state regulations.
As part of its ongoing investigation into the state of protective services for vulnerable older adults in Pennsylvania, Spotlight PA requested detailed information about the state’s 52 county area agencies on aging. The agencies are often the first line of defense when an older adult is at risk of harm, investigating allegations of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation.
>>READ MORE: Some county agencies regularly fail to follow rules aimed at keeping older adults safe. Pa. takes little action.
Using the state’s Right-to-Know Law, the news organization requested seven years of data from the department that show whether the county agencies complied with state regulations in a given year. Those regulations delineate standards and timelines for protective services investigations, and the Department of Aging annually monitors the counties to determine whether they are following the rules.
According to records obtained by Spotlight PA, the department did not reveal the complete monitoring outcome in a half dozen instances. For instance, it provided data for 2019 showing that agencies in Lackawanna, Northampton, and Monroe Counties were found compliant.
In fact, all three agencies were evaluated twice that year, according to additional records obtained by Spotlight PA, and all had been given a noncompliant rating after their first monitoring. Lackawanna’s agency at the time was led by Jason Kavulich, who now helms the state Department of Aging.
The department did not disclose the same information when the county aging agency covering Bedford and Huntingdon Counties was found to be noncompliant during the first of two assessments in 2020; and when the agencies in Jefferson and Perry Counties received a failing grade during their first assessment in 2021.
There were several instances when county agencies were monitored twice in a year, and failed both times. But the department revealed only one of the two outcomes.
Spotlight PA discovered the discrepancy through records, sources, and interviews with a former Department of Aging specialist. The recently retired specialist, Peter Hans, submitted a similar public records request to the department, after Spotlight PA did, seeking compliance data for the county agencies — and received the complete set of monitoring dates and outcomes.
Last week, however, the department abruptly reversed course. It emailed Hans and said the information it had originally sent him contained inaccuracies, and attached a new set of data. The new set matched what the agency has given Spotlight PA.
In a statement, department spokesperson Karen Gray said, “We understand that different information was provided in response to two different RTKL requests made over the course of several weeks. [The department] is reviewing this discrepancy, and we thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
Spotlight PA disclosed the data discrepancies to the Office of Open Records, which is deciding the news organization’s broader appeal of other information the department has also refused to provide in response to a public records request.
For instance, the department has declined to release information about the number of deficiencies it found at a county agency, the list of those deficiencies, and any plans the county submitted describing how it intended to fix the problems.
The department has argued it is not required to turn over that information because it falls under the “non-criminal investigation” exemption in the state’s Right-to-Know Law. That exemption covers government documents such as underlying investigative materials; records that reveal the identity of a confidential source; and records that endanger the life of a person, constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or deprive a person of their right to an impartial adjudication.
Other state agencies, however, routinely make near-identical information public.
The Department of Human Services, for instance, annually assesses county offices of children and youth services to determine the quality of service they provide. The Department of Human Services then makes those records available on its website — records that include information about noncompliance with the law; the corrective actions required; the date by which those actions are required; and the provider’s corrective action plan.
