A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

even less protection to some of the most vulnerable children covered by the SocialServices Law – those in residential care -when compared with the protections providedto children in the family setting.Standard of ProofThe Inspector General discovered some evidence that CQC’s interpretation of itsburden to indicate (substantiate) a case may be more stringent than required by law.To initially indicate a case during the investigative stage, Social Services Lawrequires “some credible evidence” that the situation occurred. If the case proceeds to ahearing, CQC would have to prove a “preponderance of the evidence” to maintain theindividual’s name on the State Central Register. CQC officials stated that in every casethey try to ensure they have “substantial credible evidence” to indicate so they do not gothrough “dozens of useless exercises” that are then overturned on appeal.In contrast, OCFS officials, who apply the same abuse statutes and standards ofproof, stated they have less trepidation of being overruled if they feel that the “somecredible evidence” standard is met. These officials admitted that there are cases that maynot be clear cut, but, depending on the egregiousness of the incident and behavior of theemployee, OCFS acknowledged that it might substantiate a case even if no apparentemotional injury was recognizable and let the subject explain him or herself at an appealhearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. The different approaches of the twoinvestigating agencies may be partly responsible for the differing indication rates of CQCand OCFS.209