What the public record does and does not show
Small monthly APS allegation counts are published as “*” rather than as numbers. This page accounts for every county-month in the six-year window so readers can see exactly how much of the record is visible.
69.5% of 4,176 county-months
28.6% of all county-months published as “*” rather than an exact count, consistent with a small non-zero number
1.9% with no published value of any kind; the reason is unknown
Why suppression matters here
A suppressed month is not a zero. It indicates a small non-zero number of reported financial-abuse allegations that was not published as an exact count. Treating those months as zero would understate reporting in exactly the counties with the smallest senior populations.
Across the six completed fiscal years, published SOC 242 files consistently showed numeric zeroes, no positive numeric values from 1 through 10, and a minimum published positive value of 11. The Observatory therefore treats “*” observations as interval-censored counts from 1 through 10. This interval is empirically inferred from the publication pattern and is not presented as an officially documented CDSS suppression rule.
Descriptive rates are shown under low, midpoint, and high suppression scenarios, while inferential county trend models incorporate suppressed observations directly through interval censoring.
Fully blank county-months had no published value across the SOC 242 reporting fields used in the audit. The reason for those blank reports is unknown: a blank report does not mean a county failed to report, and it does not mean the true count was zero.
Counties with heavy suppression should be read with wider uncertainty, and reported levels should not be ranked against counties that publish complete monthly data.
Counties by suppression tier
Tiers are the county data-quality flags shown in the table below.
- Low suppression32
- Moderate suppression8
- High suppression8
- Very high suppression10
28.6% of all county-month observations were suppressed (1,195 of 4,176). 21 counties published every month exactly.
Statewide record by fiscal year
Reported allegation totals across all counties, with the low and high scenarios implied by suppressed months. Senior person-years are the exposure denominator: county populations age 65+ from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, aligned to each fiscal year and summed statewide.
| Fiscal year | Reported allegations (low–high) | Senior person-years | Rate per 10,000 age 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2019–20 | 46,517–48,605 | 5,486,041 | 84.8–88.6 |
| FY2020–21 | 45,901–48,025 | 5,644,497 | 81.3–85.1 |
| FY2021–22 | 50,125–51,844 | 5,669,879 | 88.4–91.4 |
| FY2022–23 | 59,512–61,258 | 5,865,300 | 101.5–104.4 |
| FY2023–24 | 67,872–69,366 | 5,994,486 | 113.2–115.7 |
| FY2024–25 | 75,466–77,050 | 6,158,371 | 122.5–125.1 |
County-level data availability
Exact, suppressed and blank monthly values out of 72 possible county-months per county.
| County | Exact | Suppressed | Blank | Data quality flag | Residents age 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mariposa | 5 (6.9%) | 65 (90.3%) | 2 | Very high suppression | 5,073 |
| Glenn | 8 (11.1%) | 63 (87.5%) | 1 | Very high suppression | 4,893 |
| Trinity | 10 (13.9%) | 62 (86.1%) | 0 | Very high suppression | 4,795 |
| Tehama | 11 (15.3%) | 61 (84.7%) | 0 | Very high suppression | 13,085 |
| Calaveras | 11 (15.3%) | 60 (83.3%) | 1 | Very high suppression | 13,517 |
| Lassen | 13 (18.1%) | 59 (81.9%) | 0 | Very high suppression | 5,012 |
| Plumas | 15 (20.8%) | 57 (79.2%) | 0 | Very high suppression | 6,114 |
| Inyo | 5 (6.9%) | 56 (77.8%) | 11 | Very high suppression | 4,675 |
| Amador | 16 (22.2%) | 55 (76.4%) | 1 | Very high suppression | 11,423 |
| Yuba | 17 (23.6%) | 55 (76.4%) | 0 | Very high suppression | 11,060 |
| San Benito | 14 (19.4%) | 51 (70.8%) | 7 | High suppression | 9,234 |
| Imperial | 22 (30.6%) | 50 (69.4%) | 0 | High suppression | 24,701 |
| Colusa | 23 (31.9%) | 49 (68.1%) | 0 | High suppression | 3,410 |
| Siskiyou | 25 (34.7%) | 47 (65.3%) | 0 | High suppression | 12,101 |
| Del Norte | 28 (38.9%) | 44 (61.1%) | 0 | High suppression | 5,552 |
| Merced | 31 (43.1%) | 41 (56.9%) | 0 | High suppression | 34,001 |
| Modoc | 33 (45.8%) | 37 (51.4%) | 2 | High suppression | 2,722 |
| Sutter | 35 (48.6%) | 37 (51.4%) | 0 | High suppression | 16,216 |
| Tuolumne | 35 (48.6%) | 33 (45.8%) | 4 | Moderate suppression | 15,339 |
| Kings | 43 (59.7%) | 28 (38.9%) | 1 | Moderate suppression | 16,584 |
| Lake | 43 (59.7%) | 28 (38.9%) | 1 | Moderate suppression | 16,290 |
| Mendocino | 49 (68.1%) | 22 (30.6%) | 1 | Moderate suppression | 22,154 |
| Mono | 50 (69.4%) | 22 (30.6%) | 0 | Moderate suppression | 2,297 |
| Sierra | 35 (48.6%) | 22 (30.6%) | 15 | Moderate suppression | 963 |
| Humboldt | 50 (69.4%) | 21 (29.2%) | 1 | Moderate suppression | 26,660 |
| Nevada | 52 (72.2%) | 20 (27.8%) | 0 | Moderate suppression | 30,033 |
| Madera | 56 (77.8%) | 14 (19.4%) | 2 | Low suppression | 23,148 |
| Yolo | 61 (84.7%) | 11 (15.3%) | 0 | Low suppression | 29,712 |
| Tulare | 64 (88.9%) | 6 (8.3%) | 2 | Low suppression | 57,101 |
| Napa | 59 (81.9%) | 5 (6.9%) | 8 | Low suppression | 28,455 |
| El Dorado | 68 (94.4%) | 4 (5.6%) | 0 | Low suppression | 45,254 |
| Alpine | 61 (84.7%) | 3 (4.2%) | 8 | Low suppression | 341 |
| Shasta | 67 (93.1%) | 3 (4.2%) | 2 | Low suppression | 39,009 |
| Marin | 71 (98.6%) | 1 (1.4%) | 0 | Low suppression | 61,345 |
| Santa Barbara | 70 (97.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 | Low suppression | 73,710 |
| Santa Cruz | 70 (97.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 | Low suppression | 50,275 |
| Stanislaus | 70 (97.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 | Low suppression | 76,271 |
| Alameda | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 254,161 |
| Butte | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 38,227 |
| Contra Costa | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 199,270 |
| Fresno | 68 (94.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 | Low suppression | 131,488 |
| Kern | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 108,560 |
| Los Angeles | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 1,487,700 |
| Monterey | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 65,068 |
| Orange | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 514,824 |
| Placer | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 85,822 |
| Riverside | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 382,888 |
| Sacramento | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 243,370 |
| San Bernardino | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 276,984 |
| San Diego | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 507,734 |
| San Francisco | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 146,510 |
| San Joaquin | 71 (98.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 | Low suppression | 107,730 |
| San Luis Obispo | 71 (98.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 | Low suppression | 62,338 |
| San Mateo | 71 (98.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 | Low suppression | 132,242 |
| Santa Clara | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 282,010 |
| Solano | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 78,738 |
| Sonoma | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 104,389 |
| Ventura | 72 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | Low suppression | 145,793 |
A high suppression share does not mean a county reports poorly. It usually means the county has a small senior population, so monthly counts are small enough to be published as “*”. It does mean that the county's rate and trend carry wider uncertainty.