A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

• At the time of OMRDD’s investigation, Jonathan had already leftAnderson School, so these allegations cannot be directly verified orrefuted.• There was no documentary evidence to support the allegation and noevidence that the parents ever reported this to OMR[DD], CQCAPD,or CPS.The Inspector General finds that these assertions are inaccurate or misleading.The first bullet implies that Jonathan’s continued presence at the school was essential toaddressing a complaint about his treatment. Not only is this poor investigatory practice,but the Inspector General obtained documentary evidence and statements from employeesthat indicate that Jonathan was allowed to remain on a urine-soaked mattress, thatJonathan’s window was covered with frosted paper, and that Jonathan’s toys, books, andpictures were removed from his room.As previously addressed in the Taconic regional office analysis section of thisreport, the Inspector General’s Office identified numerous documents and AndersonSchool employees’ statements that lend support to this particular allegation.Furthermore, as previously stated, the October 13, 2004 handwritten “New Protocol” forJonathan, which was signed by staff working with Jonathan, read, “Sometime tomorrowwe will [be] having frosted adhesive put up on window to eliminate the reinforcer oflooking out the window. He should have No books, horse pillows, or anything he wouldfind reinforcing in his room when he is non compliant.” In addition, it read, “If he wetsagain – take sheets off and don’t put clean ones on” (emphasis original).In the second bullet, OMRDD wrongly reports that it did not learn of theseallegations. The letter from the Careys’ attorney which contained Lisa Carey’shandwritten statement regarding Jonathan’s treatment at the Anderson School included145