A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

“This plus the aforementioned responses to any of the findings taken in context refute theallegation of willful and benign mistreatment and neglect.”With regard to the Taconic regional office’s nine recommendations, the ExecutiveDirector restated that “at no time did it [the Anderson School] mistreat, abuse, [or]neglect Jonathan Carey.” For each recommendation, he referenced the December 21,2004, Plan of Corrective Action he submitted to OMRDD and the development of newstandard operating procedures.Inspector General’s Findings Regarding Anderson School’ s ResponseWritten statements from the Taconic regional office’s investigation and testimonyof Anderson School staff obtained by the Inspector General contradicted the AndersonSchool’s Executive Director’s claim that Behavior Support Plan elements restrictingJonathan’s communications with his family were not implemented. Some staff reportedto investigators that they had been instructed not to speak to the Careys and to direct theirtelephone calls to the Director of Children’s Residential Services and the Careys reportedthat the person they typically called when attempting to contact Jonathan had “hung up”on them.Likewise, in contrast to the Executive Director’s assertion that the Careys had notobjected to Jonathan’s behavior plan, staff members reported to the Taconic regionaloffice, and later to the Inspector General, that they were well aware that the Careys wouldhave objected to treatment components.113