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 | Interviews with clients revealed, 3 out of 4 clients interview stated to not have been told or be aware of any client been told to leave the facility due to testing positive for drugs. 1 out of 3 clients interview stated to have been given warnings about testing positive and that a 30-day notice will be issued if another drug test came positive. Interviews with staff revealed 3 out of 3 staff interview stated none of the clients have been told to leave the facility. However, assistant administrator stated that clients are given verbal and written (three) warnings prior to give them a 30-day notice. Document review revealed C1 has two written warnings on file dated 9/13/23 and 9/21/23 noting C1 tested positive for drugs and house rule #8 states “alcohol, drugs, and any un-prescribed medication are prohibited at the facility.”
Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Regarding allegation: Staff did not prevent client from offering other clients illegal drugs. It is alleged a client had meth and offered it to three other clients. Interviews with clients revealed 4 out of 4 clients interview stated to have never been offered drugs by other clients at the facility. 2 out of 3 staff stated to not have heard or been made aware of clients offering drugs to other clients. Assistant administrator stated that on March of 2023 a client was given a 30 day notice due to staff made aware that the client had offered drugs to a client at the facility. Documents reviewed revealed a 30 day notice dated 3/1/23 was issued C2 which notes one of the reasons for eviction as other: “offer drugs to other” clients. Although, in March of 2023 staff was made aware that a client had offered another client drugs. A 30 day-notice was issued as the facility’s plan of operation to prevent from the situation happening again.
Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Exit interview was conducted with Jeam Tan Assistant administrator and a copy of this report was provided. |