HARRISBURG — Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration is shielding vital information about how many older Pennsylvanians it determines are left in jeopardy following shoddy or incomplete county investigations into their welfare.
The Pennsylvania Department of Aging is supposed to hold counties accountable for protecting the most vulnerable older adults from abuse or neglect. Because the department keeps protective service case files confidential, knowing how many people are left at risk is one of the few ways of gauging the devastating consequences when the system fails.
By keeping that information secret, state aging officials obscure even the scantest of details about the enormity of harm that befalls older adults in Pennsylvania every year.
“The public has the right to know how many older adults have been left at risk by the counties and their oversight entity, the Pennsylvania Department of Aging,” said Sheri McQuown, a former department specialist who regularly assessed abuse and neglect investigations by county aging agencies.
She added: “Lies fester in darkness.”
Secretary Jason Kavulich, a Shapiro appointee, has led the department since 2023, and claims that it is more transparent than ever about the state of what’s called “older adult protective services” in Pennsylvania.
A department spokesperson did not answer questions about whether the agency believes the information about the number of older adults left at risk is an important metric for the public to know. Instead, the spokesperson, Karen Gray, sent a statement, saying, "The Department is aware of your request for more detailed information, and in an effort to further show our commitment to increased transparency, we are working to provide you with more responsive data."
She did not elaborate.
The department oversees and is required to regularly monitor the protective services work conducted by the 52 county aging agencies, which cover the entire state.
It does so by pulling a random sample of abuse and neglect investigations that those agencies conducted over a specific time period, and then looking at whether they complied with state regulations.
The rules govern everything from how to classify reports of abuse and neglect (for example, as an emergency, priority, or non-priority case) to how quickly a caseworker must visit an older adult depending on that classification.
There are also regulations governing how quickly services must be offered to older adults once a county has substantiated abuse and neglect allegations.
Protective services specialists at the state aging department then score the counties based on how closely they complied with the rules.
As part of that assessment process, the department also tracks whether counties left an older adult at risk of further harm in cases where they didn’t follow the rules for conducting a quality protective services investigation.
The department, at least until this year, then notified the counties in writing if it determined they had left an older adult at risk. (The department’s at-risk findings only covered the sampling of abuse and neglect cases it examined, meaning there could be even more older adults left in harm’s way due to faulty or unsatisfactory investigations.)
Spotlight PA filed a public records request with the state Department of Aging for the number of older adults who had been left at risk, by year and by county, from 2017 to summer 2025. Aging officials denied the request, contending it is exempt from disclosure under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law because it pertains to a “noncriminal investigation.”
Records relating to these investigations, such as investigative materials or notes, are exempt, but there is an exception in the law for aggregated data that describe broad groups or categories.
The news organization has appealed the denial to the Office of Open Records, which will decide the matter later this fall.
Spotlight PA was able to glean some information about adults left at risk. This came from a prior public records request for letters that the aging department sends to counties informing them of the results of its monitoring.
In some years, the department disclosed how many adults were left at risk in those letters.
For instance, in 2020, Dauphin County’s aging agency was singled out for a more intensive review by state officials who were concerned that abuse and neglect cases were remaining open for too long. They found that 45 older adults in the county were either at risk or their abuse or neglect investigations weren’t conducted in a timely or complete manner, according to the post-monitoring letter the state sent. In fact, the state wrote, the county showed a “systemic failure” in meeting the standards laid out in Pennsylvania’s law for the protection of older adults.
In 2022, Northumberland County left six older adults at risk out of the 22 sample cases state officials reviewed. Philadelphia’s aging agency, called the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging (PCA), left six older adults at risk out of 50 cases that were assessed. State officials also flagged the handling of an additional two cases they described as being “of particular concern.”
"PCA continues to struggle” and has “significant quality issues" with providing protective services, the state wrote in the post-monitoring letter that year.
In other years, however, the state did not specify the exact number of older adults left at risk in post-monitoring letters. Instead, it wrote that “one or more” or “multiple” older adults were left in jeopardy.
As a result, only the Department of Aging knows how many older adults it determines have been left at risk statewide over the years due to faulty or inadequate investigations by the counties — and more importantly, what the consequences were for the older adult.
Internal concerns
Emails obtained by Spotlight PA show department employees have raised alarms internally about older adults being left at risk.
At the end of 2023, a state Department of Aging services specialist fired off an email to her superiors expressing concerns about the handling of an abuse and neglect case involving a 68-year-old Western Pennsylvania man who died during an active investigation. Spotlight PA is not identifying the man by name or hometown because of the circumstances surrounding his death and because it was unable to reach his family.
“This is not good,” the specialist wrote, saying the county aging agency in Erie that handled the case had failed to help the man.
In the emails Spotlight PA obtained, the specialist does not say whether she made a final determination on whether the man had been left at risk, and she could not be reached for comment.
But the news organization asked a former Department of Aging specialist, Peter Hans, to review the case. Hans, who retired from the department last year in part because he believed it was relaxing oversight of county aging agencies, said it was an example of an older adult “being left at risk from day one.”
Officials from Erie County’s aging agency referred questions to the state Department of Aging. They did not explain why.
Spotlight PA obtained records detailing the man’s case and his eventual fate.
They show that shortly before Thanksgiving 2023, a server at a restaurant filed a report of suspected abuse and neglect. The server reported that the man was at the restaurant with another person who was being verbally abusive toward him and pouring salt, pepper, and hot sauce on his food.
The 68-year-old looked scared, the server said, noting that he also had a black eye and bruises on his arms.
The report was classified as a non-priority case, meaning a protective services worker was not required to attempt to conduct a face-to-face interview with the older adult within 24 hours.
Hans said that was the first mistake — one that resulted in an unnecessary delay in laying eyes on the man.
Records show a county protective services worker visited the 68-year-old two days after the report was filed. The interview occurred at the older man’s house in northwestern Pennsylvania, where he lived with the person who was allegedly being aggressive toward him at the restaurant. That person was at the house at that time, in an upstairs bedroom, “yelling at his dogs,” according to the records.
The older man denied being verbally and physically abused and said he did not feel at risk in his house.
But the protective services worker noted the 68-year-old was “very timid … having only brief eye contact with his eyes sweeping down and left when answering questions.”
“Those are classic symptoms of domestic violence,” said Hans. “Did anyone offer him shelter? Did anybody ask the older adult, ‘Are you ever home alone? Does the [alleged perpetrator] ever leave?’ That way you know when you could come back and talk to the older adult when he’s alone.”
The records show only that the protective services worker left that day, and that together with his supervisor decided the next step should be to request medical records from the older man’s physician.
County aging agencies have 20 days from the time they receive an abuse or neglect report to investigate and either substantiate the allegations or not — and if they do substantiate them, put in place services that will mitigate the risk of harm.
But within days of visiting the 68-year-old, the county aging agency received a second report of need on him. The person said the older man’s family members were concerned they hadn’t heard from him, and said he lived with someone they considered aggressive and belittling.
The caller also noted that another family member had seen the 68-year-old’s black eye and warned that the person the older man lived with had “many guns in the home.”
Two days later, the county protective services worker showed up at the older man’s house with two State Police troopers. One trooper interviewed the alleged aggressor outside while the other trooper and the caseworker spoke to the older man.
As he did before, the man denied being emotionally or physically abused. He said he got a black eye from falling and banging his head. When the trooper pointed out that the bruising was inconsistent with a fall, the older man responded that he had problems with balance.
The troopers and the protective services worker left the home shortly after. Outside, one of the troopers remarked that the older man was lying, and that the person living with him had “definitely” hit him,” according to the records.
For three days, there was no movement in the case. On the third day, the protective services worker again contacted the older man’s doctor for medical records. The office apparently had not received the first request for those records, which had been sent by fax.
Those records would never arrive in time.
Three days later, in early December 2023, the county aging agency received a call from a different State Police trooper who told them the older man had died. The internal state Department of Aging emails indicate he died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Hours after the older man’s death, records show, the county aging agency substantiated the allegations of emotional abuse.
The man, the records say, “was at imminent risk” when the report of need came in. Due to his death, however, he would not need services.
“What good is substantiating the allegations after a person dies?” said Hans. “The fact that they did that makes me question, what services could you have offered to him that could have changed the outcome of his life?”
When the state Department of Aging specialist reviewed the man’s case and its handling later that month, she too was distressed.
“Both the [protective services worker] and police left the home, with suspicions that the injury was caused by abuse, however there was no discussion about a plan? Nothing discussed with the [older adult], they just left him there,” the specialist noted.
She continued: “I feel a little sick knowing that whatever was going on, this gentleman had enough.”
The specialist later emailed her bosses asking for a call with the county aging agency to discuss its handling of the case. Yet one of her superiors appeared more concerned about the well-being of the aging agency than the family who had just lost a loved one.
“I’m certain this case is and has been very traumatic for those involved,” one of her bosses wrote to the county aging agency’s top officials. “Please ensure those involved have some counseling support as needed.”
The specialist seemed incensed.
“I hope through the discussion with the [county] we put the same amount of focus on what efforts are being made to support the older adult’s family, who I’m sure also could use debriefing,” she replied to her bosses, the emphasis hers.
“They called in concerns for [protective services] to look into in hopes of preventing further harm to their loved one, and nothing was really done for him, and he took his own life. I’m sure they could use some support dealing with their trauma as well.”