The department did not disclose the same information when the county aging agency covering Bedford and Huntingdon counties was found to be noncompliant in the first of two assessments in 2020; and when agencies in Jefferson and Perry counties received a failing grade on their first evaluation in 2021.

There have been several cases where county agencies were scrutinized twice a year and failed each time. But the ministry only revealed one out of two results.

Spotlight PA discovered the discrepancy through recordings, sources and interviews with a former Department of Aging specialist. Recently retired specialist Peter Hans submitted a similar public records request to the department, after Spotlight PA, seeking compliance data for county agencies – and received the full set of dates and monitoring results.

Last week, however, the department abruptly changed course. He emailed Hans and told him that the information he had originally sent him contained inaccuracies, and attached a new data set. The new set matched what the agency had offered Spotlight PA.

In a statement, department spokeswoman Karen Gray said: “We understand that different information was provided in response to two different requests from RTKL made over the course of several weeks. (The Department) is looking into this discrepancy and we thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Spotlight PA disclosed the data discrepancies to the Office of Open Records, which decides the news agency’s broader call for other information that the department also declined to provide in response to a request for public records.

For example, the department refused to release information about the number of deficiencies found in a county agency, the list of those deficiencies, and plans submitted by the county describing how it planned to resolve the problems.

The department argued it was not required to release the information because it fell within the “non-criminal investigation” exemption in the state’s Right to Information Act. This exemption covers government documents such as underlying investigative documents; documents revealing the identity of a confidential source; and records that endanger a person’s life, constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or deprive a person of their right to an impartial decision.

However, other state agencies routinely make nearly identical information public.

The Department of Human Services, for example, evaluates county offices responsible for child and youth services annually to determine the quality of services they provide. The Department of Social Services then makes these records available on its website – records that contain information about non-compliance with the law; required corrective actions; the date these actions are required; and the supplier’s corrective action plan.