Complaint Investigation Report

LPA interviewed five staff members. Collectively, the staff denied ever witnessing any situation in which clients were left unattended by staff. They reported that clients are , at least, within visual or auditory distance at all times, particularly during outings. Staff collectively explained that the facility typically maintains a supervision ratio of one staff member to every three or four clients. Additionally, staff shared that during outings, if a staff member needs to use the restroom or assist a client in the restroom, they may request temporary supervision assistance from staff of another group to ensure that no clients are left unsupervised.

LPA also interviewed five clients; however, one client declined to be interviewed. The remaining four clients consistently reported that staff are always present, either within arm’s reach or visible distance. All four clients stated they have not witnessed any instance of staff leaving clients unattended. One client acknowledged that they are capable of being by themselves but noted that staff still ensure they are supervised during outings in case of emergency.

During the facility observation, this LPA observed appropriate staff-to-client ratios and active supervision. In the main building’s activity room, three clients were being supervised by one staff member. The rest of their clients went out in the community. In the Sensory Building, two staff members were observed supervising six clients.

Additionally, during an outing to a nearby bowling alley on June 5, 2025, this LPA observed four clients actively participating in a bowling activity under the supervision of one staff member, with no clients observed to be left unattended.

Based on interviews, observations, and information gathered during the investigation, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that staff leave clients unattended. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be UNSUBSTANTIATED . Note that an unsubstantiated findings means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.