1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | Per the administrator and staff interviewed, they stated that drug tests are given to random clients once a month and when they appear to be off baseline upon returning to the facility from an outing. They stated that all clients are aware of this random drug testing upon admission, and it is written on their admission agreement. Staff stated the clients are given as much time to provide a urine sample for the drug test. Clients are monitored by staff and are provided with water to intake to collect the urine. For Client #1 (C1), Staff stated that client was given as much time to urinate, however, C1 eventually gave up and refused to provide a sample. Staff explained to the client the possible outcome of non-compliance and C1 understood. C1 was given a 30-day house restriction, which indicates that the client is unable to go out in the community. Although the client was given the restriction, client was not told they must stay in the facility. They are reminded of the house restriction, but can choose to leave the facility if they wish. LPA interviewed Clients #1 - #5, and they stated they are not forced to remain in the facility. The facility is unlocked from the inside, and they can walk out if they want.
Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur; therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was conducted with B. Welch. A copy of this report, along with the appeal rights, was provided. |