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 | Allegation: Facility does not allow client to have visitors.
It is alleged that facility does not allow them to have visitors. Interviews with staff 4 out of 4 staff stated that clients are allowed to have visitors, the only time facility did not allow visitors was during the Covid 19 pandemic, in which case visitation was limited to out door visits only. Interviews with C1 and C2, both stated they are allowed to have visitors if they wish. C1 stated that they didn't allow visitors a while ago but now they do, LPA asked C1 to elaborate and C1 stated that they think it was because of the Covid pandemic but they are allowed to have visitors now. Interview with S2 and S3 revealed that C1's sister used to visit but as of recently no longer visits or answers calls from C1 or the facility. Facility has a Visitation Policy that indicates clients are allowed visitors.
Allegation: Facility staff threatened client.
It is alleged that facility staff threaten to not give C1 their incidental money. During interviews with S2 and S3 it was revealed that C1 receives Social Security Income (SSI), however, when C1 obtains a job and thier personal income is more that what SSI gives then the funds discontinue from Social Security and the client then becomes self responsible for their money. Per interview with S2, C1 has periods of time that they go without paying rent as SSI stops payment to facility and C1 does not use their private checks to pay rent, S2 also indicated that SSI is does take months before they adjust their records to reflect what funds client currently has, therefore, C1 may go without incidental money when they are unemployed and to avoid issues S2 on behalf of the facility will cover that income for the client. Interview with C1, they stated that sometimes they do not get their incidental money as staff refuses to give it to them. C1 stated they are self responsible with thier own checks and cash them on thier own. Based on review of Social Security Income revealed that during periods of time of employment C1's the payment was lowered throughout different periods as their personal income increased. LPA reviewed C1's Record of Clients Safeguarded Cash Resources with no issues. Interview with C2, client stated that they get their money without any issues. Interviews with staff 3 out of 4 staff stated that they never withhold money from clients, have never threatened clients and have never seen/heard another staff threaten a client.
Based on statements and interviews conducted with staff and clients, review of client file and facility file records, there was not enough supportive evidence to concur with the reported allegations.
Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Exit interview held, and a copy of this report was provided to Jaron Pryor. |