A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

The Careys also alleged that OMRDD interfered with an investigation by theState Education Department by refusing to release records. According to the StateEducation Department, their investigation was closed because they believed the Careyshad declined to cooperate. The State Education Department informed the InspectorGeneral that they initially had difficulty obtaining records from OMRDD, but StateEducation Department records revealed that OMRDD eventually agreed to allow StateEducation investigators to review its entire file. Thus, the Inspector General’s Officefound no evidence that the State Education Department closed its investigation becauseof OMRDD’s failure to produce records. As noted above, the Inspector Generalcommunicated to the State Education Department that the Careys wished theinvestigation to go forward, and the case was reopened.Additional Monitoring of the Anderson SchoolOMRDD Central Office appropriately continued to monitor the Anderson Schoolfollowing its initial survey in November 24, 2004. These activities, as described below,indicate that OMRDD identified the serious problems associated with the AndersonSchool’s treatment of Jonathan, and sought to pursue additional reforms throughsubsequent monitoring.From late 2004 and continuing into early 2007, OMRDD Central Office staffmaintained a regular presence at the Anderson School, providing technical assistance toimprove behavioral intervention, consumer rights, incident management, dietary services,and coordination of services. OMRDD Central Office staff conducted at least 17 separatesite visits to the school between November 2004 and January 2007, a 27-month span.147