A Pennsylvania performance audit has identified weaknesses in the state Department of Aging’s oversight of local elder-abuse investigations, setting up a dispute over whether a newer monitoring system adequately protects older residents.
Auditor General Timothy DeFoor’s office reported 10 findings and issued 39 recommendations to the department, along with three recommendations for lawmakers to strengthen the Older Adults Protective Services Act. The review covered Jan. 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.
The central issue is how the department supervises Pennsylvania’s 52 Area Agencies on Aging, which investigate allegations including neglect, physical or mental abuse, and financial exploitation. The audit assessed whether the state properly monitored those investigations and whether local protective-services staff received required training.
Among the auditor’s findings, the Comprehensive Aging Performance Evaluation system did not effectively identify people left at risk, follow-up and record-retention practices provided limited oversight, and death reviews, caseload monitoring and reassessments needed improvement. Auditors also said the department treated a 20-day investigation timetable as a goal rather than a requirement and lacked a deadline for financial-exploitation investigations.
The report found that the department’s 18-month evaluation cycle did not match a statutory requirement for annual reviews. It also cited gaps in quality assurance and training oversight. The recommendations call for stronger monitoring, clearer deadlines, better records, more public reporting and legislative review of the protective-services law. The auditor’s office also said the department had already implemented some recommendations during the examination, even while rejecting the report’s conclusions.
The Department of Aging disputes the audit’s characterization. Its response, summarized by Pennsylvania Capital-Star, said the review began only seven weeks after the new CAPE system launched and before a full monitoring cycle could occur. The department argued that this timing made conclusions about the system incomplete and inaccurate.
Earlier this month, the department described CAPE as an improvement over a pass-or-fail legacy system. In a Sept. 10 update, Secretary Jason Kavulich said the new approach provides agencies with specific guidance, publishes results and directs training toward recurring problems. The department reported that 48 of 52 local agencies responded to suspected-abuse reports on time at least 85% of the time as of March, while 28 met that threshold for reaching case determinations within 20 days.
Those figures do not erase the audit’s concerns, but they show why the disagreement is more than a simple finding of noncompliance. The auditor evaluated whether statewide controls can consistently detect danger and enforce requirements; the department emphasizes improvements visible during implementation.
For families and mandated reporters, the immediate process remains unchanged: suspected abuse can still be reported through Pennsylvania’s 24-hour hotline. The policy question now moves to the department and General Assembly—whether to revise CAPE, impose firmer investigation deadlines and change state law before the next monitoring cycle.
