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 | Staff (S1 & S2) denied the allegations stating all policies were followed. S1 specifically stated when a family changes their schedule, they are to contact River to Coast, the Resource and Referral Agency, to make the change to their schedule. River to Coast then contacts YWCA who then contacts the site to update the family’s agreement. Once the change has been made all parties sign the required contracts, including any rate change, which is reflected on the forms. S1 claimed to have witnessed parent of child (C1) sign all forms. In addition, S1 did admit to texting other individuals regarding C1, but stated she did not share confidential information. According to S2, C1’s schedule had been changed with River to Coast multiple times. River to Coast sent the contract to YWCA who then had the parent of C1 sign it. S2 further stated they had nothing to gain if someone forged a signature. S3 stated when a family makes a change to their schedule, they first request the change with staff at the site. The site supervisor then tells the administration at the office who then sends a certificate to River to Coast for approval. Once approved the schedule is changed and all parties sign the document. S3 also stated they do not think anyone would have forged the parent’s signature.
S1 – S4 all stated C1 was terminated due to reasons unrelated to the child’s care and supervision while in the facility. S3 stated it follows YWCA procedures. Documentation received during the investigation revealed the admission agreement and facilities plan of operation both provide written policies regarding termination and rate changes, however, there is no conclusive evidence to show if the parent’s signature had been forged on any documents.
Adult interview (A1) stated that the YWCA will change their rates and not let families know. A3 stated the YWCA is supposed to notify families at least 30 days prior to making a change, which they would not always do. A4 & A5 both stated they are unsure of the policy when it comes to rate or schedule changes but have not had any issues with their schedules. A4 also stated all the communication goes through an online application, which could make it possible for some communication to be lost. In addition, communication concerning C1 transpired between staff and individuals outside of the facility, however, there was no corroborating evidence to indicate it violated personal rights of the child.
Based on the information gathered during this investigation, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegation occurred and therefore is determined to be unsubstantiated. There were no Title 22 deficiencies cited. This report was reviewed and discussed with Site Supervisor, Laurin Johnson. Appeal rights were provided. Notice of Site Visit shall be posted for 30 days from today's visit. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100.
|