A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

4. Did the investigating agencies effectively communicate their findingsto the Anderson School and take appropriate measures to protect allchildren residing at the Anderson School?5. Were there efforts by any of the investigating agencies to conceal orsuppress information to cover up child abuse in the Jonathan Careyinvestigation?6. Did the investigating agencies, together or separately, attempt toinfluence the district attorney or the police to prevent them frominvestigating or prosecuting the case?7. Does CQC interpret and apply the definitions of child abuse andneglect in Social Services Law § 412 in a way that conforms tolegislative intent?SCOPE AND METHODOLOGYThe time frame of the Inspector General’s review consisted primarily ofJonathan’s care at the Anderson School, which began in January 2003 and ended in lateOctober 2004, and the investigative and review activities that followed from late October2004 through 2006. The circumstances surrounding Jonathan Carey’s tragic death inFebruary 2007 were not covered by this review, as the death occurred over two yearsafter Jonathan was removed from the Anderson School. During the course of thisinvestigation, the matter of Jonathan’s death was handled in the criminal courts.To address the Careys’ allegations, the Inspector General devoted significantresources. Beginning in March 2007, attorneys, auditors and investigators werededicated to this project for a one-year period. Over 75 interviews were conducted withpertinent staff, executives, and other witnesses. Investigators from the InspectorGeneral’s Office also spent over 10 hours in personal interviews with Michael and LisaCarey.Over 25,000 pages of documents related to the Careys’ allegations were receivedand analyzed by the Inspector General’s Office. These documents included policies,28